PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE GEORGIAN
1720-1805
The Georgian houses of Pennsylvania, West and South Jersey and Delaware
hold the attention of the observer and stimulate his imagination with
compelling force as do few other architectural remains in the
territories embraced within the boundaries of the original Colonies.
Architect and painter, antiquarian and historian, poet and fictionary,
the student and the dilettante dabbler--all alike come under the potent
spell of these stately old dwellings and all alike find something
therein to absorb their interest. When the Georgian period began--we may
set its beginning approximately for all the Colonies about 1720--the
affairs of the provincial governments had long since passed the
experimental stage. In Pennsylvania, the Jerseys and Delaware, a
consistent policy of peace with neighbours and careful domestic thrift,
along with the fertility of the
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
GRAEME PARK, SOUTH FRONT.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
HOPE LODGE, WHITEMARSH VALLEY. 1723.
Middle Colonies Georgian, first phase.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
GREAT PARLOUR, GRAEME PARK.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
HALLWAY, HOPE LODGE.]
soil and the habitual industry of the people, had accumulated a
substantial volume of public and private wealth. Ripe conditions readily
begot the temptation to build more ambitiously and means were not
lacking to gratify the inclination to spend. From the beginning of the
Georgian period onward, houses were planned and built with an air of
amplitude and assured permanence that bespoke a comfortable
consciousness of firmly established and easy affluence which justified
the builders in planning broadly both for their own day and for future
generations. Town houses and country houses equally indicated the wealth
and estate of their owners and reflected the lavish and elegant mode of
life more truly than any of the other tangible memorials still remaining
from those days.
From the middle of the eighteenth century Philadelphia was the largest
and most important city in the American Colonies and one naturally
expects, therefore, to find country houses more representative and more
numerous in the neighbourhood than elsewhere. For that reason the
Georgian houses in the vicinity of Philadelphia will furnish the
examples used in the latter part of this chapter to illustrate the
variations of type characteristic of Pennsylvania, Delaware and the
Jerseys, in other words, the section of the country for which
Philadelphia was the natural centre of influence.
To some it may, perhaps, seem strange that houses which oftentimes
exhibit so much architectural elegance and elaboration of detail should
have been built in a community supposedly dominated by the principle of
outward simplicity professed by the Society of Friends. As a matter of
fact, however, the Quaker influence, though always a powerful factor in
every aspect of Philadelphia life, was offset and oftentimes strongly
opposed by the vigorous social and political activity of the “World’s
People”, that is to say, the members of the Church of England and the
adherents of the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran
and Baptist Churches, many of whom were the acknowledged leaders of
society and managed to impart no small degree of dash and gaiety to the
life of their day and generation. It should also be remembered that the
Friends were by no means uniform in their interpretation and practice of
the social discipline of their organisation. While some of the plain
Friends were exceedingly strait in their behaviour and dress and
eschewed all manner of frivolity, there were many who found it quite
compatible with their consciences to attend brilliant social functions,
attired in sumptuous and brave coloured clothes, dance, go to punch
drinkings and join heartily in the frequent fox hunts for which the
country about Philadelphia has always been famous.
In one particular both Friends and “World’s People” were precisely
alike. They all dearly loved good eating and were noted for openhanded
hospitality and frequent entertaining. At a later date, when John Adams
first came to Philadelphia, he notes in his diary with constant and
unabated surprise the “sinful feasts” in which Philadelphians habitually
indulged. Indeed, a slight acquaintance with the old diaries is enough
to convince one that the men, women and children, too, of eighteenth
century Philadelphia often “gormandised to the verge of gluttony.” The
following entry in the diary of Ann Warder is so characteristic of what
often took place that it is worth quoting at some length. She says:--
“This morning most of the family were busy preparing for a great
dinner, two green turtles having been sent to Johnnie--We concluded
to dress them both together here and invited the whole family in.
We had three tureens of soup, the two shells baked, besides several
dishes of stew, with boned turkey, roast ducks, veal and beef.
After these were removed the table was filled with two kinds of
jellies and various kinds of pudding, pies, and preserves; and then
almonds, raisins, nuts, apples and oranges. Twenty-four sat down at
the table.” The next entry states that “My husband passed a
restless night with gout.”
John Adams, recording his admiration for the town house and furniture of
Judge Chew of Cliveden, says of a dinner given by that gentleman:--
“22 Thursday. Dined with Mr. Chew, Chief Justice of the Province,
with all the gentlemen from Virginia, Dr. Shippen, Mr. Tilghman,
and many others. We were shown into a grand entry and staircase and
into an elegant and magnificent chamber until dinner. About 4
O’clock we were called down to dinner. The furniture was all rich.
Turtle and every other thing, flummery, jellies, sweetmeats, of 20
sorts, trifles, whipped sillabubs, floating islands, fools, etc., &
then a dessert of fruits, raisens, almonds, pears, peaches, wines
most excellent & admirable. I drank Madeira at a great rate & found
no inconvenience in it.”
Servants in considerable numbers were necessarily maintained in the
larger establishments and were made up of slaves, indentured bondsmen or
redemptioners, and free servitors who were paid what we should now
consider ridiculously small wages for their services.
Balls and routs were by no means infrequent and some of the larger
houses boasted sumptuously appointed ball rooms that would do credit to
many a large house of present day design. As one example of these we may
note the ball room of the Powel house in Third Street which occupied the
whole front of the second floor. “In this state apartment, the
overmantel was an exquisite piece of the wood carver’s art and
represented a hunting scene above which were wrought armorial bearings
in high relief. Delicately finished carving was also to be found in
other parts of the house.... The doors of the rooms are of solid
mahogany while a rich mahogany wainscotting runs all the way up the
staircase.... The front of the house is of unusual breadth and, as might
be expected, the rooms are of dimensions far beyond the ordinary.”
The courtly mode of life of the “World’s People” was reflected even in
their church going array. One diarist of the middle of the eighteenth
century, a stranger who had travelled extensively in the Colonies and
was therefore competent to judge, writes after attending Christ Church
on a Sunday morning, that he saw there a larger number of well dressed
people than he had ever seen together before. He continues:--“The
Episcopalians showed most grandeur of dress and costumes--next the
Presbyterians--the gentlemen of whom freely indulged in powdered and
frizzled hair.” “While Philadelphia was the seat of the Republican
Court, the grandeur of Christ Church congregation was increased. The
arrival of the worshippers in damasks and brocades, velvet breeches and
silk stockings, powdered hair and periwigs, was a sight to see. Some
came afoot, others drove in chairs or clattered up in cumbrous, awesome
coaches, with two or four horses, while Washington’s equipage, drawn by
six cream coloured steeds, added the final touch to the imposing
spectacle.” All this cavalcade seemed but an echo of the earlier days
when Sir William Keith, of Graeme Park, Horsham, one of the early
governours of the Province, was wont to drive to the churchyard gates
with his coach and four, with outriders in truly regal fashion, liveried
footmen on the post board and his arms blazoned on the panels of the
doors. Nor was Sir William alone in this gorgeous display, for there
were others who came with similar equipage and even today more than one
of these lumbering old coaches, with arm-blazoned doors, may be found
mouldering away in the coach houses of old country places.
An inventory of Sir William Keith’s effects and chattels from his
plantation of Horsham will give some notion of the luxury that
prevailed there:--
“...a silver punch bowl, ladle and strainer, 4 salvers, 3
casters, and 33 spoons, 70 large pewter plates, 14 smaller plates,
6 basins, 6 brass pots with covers; chinaware; 13 different sizes
of bowls, 6 complete tea sets, 2 dozen chocolate cups, 20 dishes of
various sizes, 4 dozen plates, 6 mugs, 1 dozen fine coffee cups ...
delft stone and glass ware: 18 jars, 12 venison pots, 6 white stone
tea sets, 12 mugs, 6 dozen plates and 12 fine wine decanters ... 24
Holland sheets, 20 common sheets, 50 tablecloths, 12 dozen napkins,
60 bedsteads, 144 chairs, 32 tables, 3 clocks, 15 looking glasses,
10 dozen knives and forks-- ... 4 coach horses, 7 saddle horses, 6
working horses, 2 mares, one colt; 4 oxen, 15 cows, 4 bulls, 6
calves, 31 sheep and 20 hogs. A large glass coach, 2 chaises, 2
waggons, 1 wain.”
Besides all these items there was a great quantity of household gear
that would take too much space to catalogue. Other inventories of the
time were comparable to the one just given.
It is no wonder that people who were able to live in the manner
indicated by such lists of personal effects wished to have houses in
keeping with their means and looked with favour upon architectural
designs of elegant proportions and details. Unlike many of the fine
Georgian houses of New England, which exhibited a comparatively plain
and simple exterior, the houses of the same date in Pennsylvania and the
Middle Colonies displayed a degree of outside elaboration to correspond
with the interior embellishments.
The materials used were ordinarily either brick or stone, the latter in
many cases being carefully cut and dressed, sometimes for the front
only, sometimes for the walls all the way round. This was quite in
accord with the tradition of the locality to which allusion has been
previously made. While much of the fine woodwork was executed on the
spot, a good deal of it was fetched from England by wealthy merchants
for their own use in their ships trading between Philadelphia and
English ports. The gardens were usually designed in a manner to comport
with the houses they surrounded and it is no unusual thing even now to
find well kept box borders and hedges that have been the pride of their
owners for generations.
Having noted the conditions that made the Georgian style of architecture
particularly acceptable to people of substance in the eighteenth century
it now remains to examine in detail the features constituting its
distinctive local character. The examples of Georgian domestic
architecture to be found in and about Philadelphia offer an unsurpassed
field for examination and comparison, and a study of their peculiarities
shows an interesting evolution through three distinct forms, all of
which, nevertheless, belong to the same generic classification.
“Georgian,” of course, in the narrowest sense of the word would indicate
the mode in vogue only during the reigns of the Georges, but Georgian
architecture is not to be limited by any such cramped or arbitrary
bounds. It was the style evolved by logical steps from the prevailing
type of preceding reigns and was, in short, an expression of Renaissance
Classicism, filtered through a medium of English interpretation and
adapted to local needs, on lines first marked out by the seventeenth
century architects headed by Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
WHITBY HALL, NORTH FRONT, KINGSESSING, PHILADELPHIA. 1754.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
STAIRWAY, WHITBY HALL.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
WHITBY HALL, SOUTH FRONT.]
[Illustration: MANTEL DETAIL, WHITBY HALL.]
Wren. The stateliness and formality of Georgian design satisfied the
cravings of prosperous Colonial gentry for the affluent pomp and
circumstance with which they chose to surround themselves.
The process of evolution in the several Georgian types of the
Philadelphia neighbourhood was slow in its working, perhaps, but
unmistakable as a comparison of examples will show. Indeed, a glance at
the illustrations accompanying this chapter will discover easily
distinguished differences of contour and detail corresponding to the
evolutionary stages. Fortunately, history comes to aid us, removing all
element of conjecture and giving us, instead, a comfortable certainty of
the ground we are treading on. It is, of course, impossible to set any
exact and unalterable dates for our three Georgian types; our purpose
will be best subserved by giving approximate dates between which certain
characteristics may be looked for and certain changes expected to take
place. We may, roughly speaking, say that the first type flourished
between 1720 and 1740, the second type from 1740 to 1770 and the third
type from 1770 to 1805. Several parts of these three type divisions were
marked by times of great building activity and others again by times of
comparative idleness. From 1720 to 1730 there was a great deal going on.
Then again, about 1760, we find a regular epidemic of house
construction breaking out. Just before, during and after the
Revolutionary War, as one would naturally assume, public stress, peril
and uncertainty discouraged the prosecution of new plans, although the
builders, even then, were not wholly idle. What has just been said
applies particularly to country seats, as we have fuller data concerning
them than we have about most of the town houses. What were once country
seats have been selected, too, because they are, for the most part,
intact, while comparatively few of the town houses remain in their
original interior state, being, as they chiefly are, in a part of the
city now given over to business or to the housing of the foreign
population.
Philadelphia affords especially favourable opportunity for a careful
examination and study of the several types of Georgian expression.
Indeed, for purposes of comparison, the advantages it offers are
unsurpassed, owing to the available wealth of varied material of the
best sorts, and that, too, in a state of excellent preservation. At
times one is really troubled with an embarrassment of riches in this
respect and selection becomes difficult. From the early years of the
eighteenth century, Philadelphia advanced rapidly in commercial
prosperity. Ship building, textile industry and various sorts of
manufactures soon brought a bulk of trade second to none among the
seaports of the Colonies. Traffic with the East and West Indies, as well
as with Europe, poured gold into the coffers of her merchants and
brought affluence and culture at an early stage of her career. The chief
wealth of her most considerable citizens was almost invariably derived
from profitable shipping ventures. By 1750 Penn’s “greene country towne”
had become the greatest and most important city in the country, the
metropolis of the American colonies. “No other could boast of so many
streets, so many houses, so many people, so much renown. No other city
was so rich, so extravagant, so fashionable.” Among the features that
impressed visitors from distant lands was the fineness of the houses.
Men of such social distinction and substance as were many of
Philadelphia’s principal citizens would not be meanly housed, and it is
not surprising, therefore, that much of the best domestic Georgian
architecture in America is to be found in the city or in its immediate
neighbourhood, where town houses or country seats mirrored the estate
and consequence of their owners. As one instance--and there were
many--of a delightful and favourite suburb, now included in Fairmount
Park, but then well beyond the city boundaries, we may cite that portion
of the Schuylkill, of charm and loveliness unexcelled, where the river
winds among rolling highlands on whose summits spacious homes of comely
dignity sheltered some of the most distinguished citizens of the
metropolis whose society was gayer, more polished and wealthier than
anywhere else this side of the Atlantic. Here, too, the country seats
bespoke the urbanity and degree of their occupants, and here, today,
they still bear mute witness to an elegance long passed.
Notwithstanding all this architectural wealth and its perfect
accessibility, Philadelphia has hitherto received but scant justice at
the hands of many architectural writers. In an highly esteemed and well
known work, properly regarded as a valuable source of information anent
architecture in Colonial and Post-Colonial America, the writer of one
portion has greatly erred in his estimate and analysis of Philadelphia’s
Georgian remains, probably through insufficient acquaintance with that
part of his subject. After referring to Philadelphia as architecturally
“the embodiment of Philistinism,” he goes on to speak of the buildings
of Colonial days and says of them, “The details generally are hard and
crude and often inappropriate.” As a representative example of the
eighteenth century country place he instances the Bartram house and
writes, “The home of the Colonial botanist, John Bartram, at
Philadelphia, built in 1731, has two-storey semi-detached columns with
huge Ionic scrolls. The German rococo mouldings in the window frames,
too, are out of all scale with the humble dwelling.” Bartram’s house
ought not to be regarded as in any way representative of Philadelphia
domestic architecture, and, least of all, as representative of Georgian
buildings. It is in a class all by itself and represents nothing but
John Bartram’s home-made efforts in both plan--if it can be said to have
any plan--and execution of detail. Whatever its inconsistencies and
defects, there is undeniably the charm of beauty and interest about the
place, but it has no architectural affinities. The same writer goes on
glibly to assure his readers that “In Pennsylvania there were rarely any
verandas, porches or gardens,”--a mischievous and misleading statement.
The verandas and porches may take care of themselves for the nonce, but
the gardens need a passing word of vindication. In no place were there
more notable gardens than in Philadelphia. Leaving Bartram’s garden out
of the horticultural tale--the writer might cavil at it as a kind of
nursery--there was “The Woodlands” near by, whose gardens, from the
middle of the eighteenth century onward were as extensive and famous as
any in the land, and exquisitely planned and maintained. There was the
Grange, well known from early Colonial days, whose garden, even in its
decay, is wonderful and beautiful.... There was Ury House whose box
garden has been the pride of its owners and has delighted their guests
for more than a hundred and fifty years and is today maintained in all
its pristine trimness. There were the gardens at Grumblethorpe,
Netherfield, Cedar Grove, the Highlands, Belmont, Fair Hill, to name
only a few, while in the heart of the city the Bingham, Powel,
Blackwell, Willing, Morris, and Cadwalader houses, along with many
others, all had spacious gardens, well planted and tastefully arranged.
A writer who could ignore all this material, could scarcely be expected
to do justice to the houses. The examples now to be adduced will set the
matter in a fairer light.
It ought to be stated that most of the eighteenth century houses in
Philadelphia and its neighbourhood were not designed by professional
architects, but were planned by their owners and executed by skillful
carpenters and builders. Some architectural knowledge was held to be a
part of a gentleman’s education, and such men as Andrew Hamilton and
John Kearsley, though amateurs, displayed no contemptible ability. The
master carpenters of the city, in 1724, composed a guild large and
prosperous enough to be patterned after “The Worshipful Company of
Carpenters of London,” and, in 1736, became possessed of a choice
collection of architectural works devised to his fellow members by James
Portius whom William Penn had induced to come to his new city to “design
and execute his Proprietary buildings.” In the Ridgway branch of the
Philadelphia Library there is also a collection of seventeenth and
eighteenth century books, treating of architecture, carpentry, joinery
and various subjects connected with building, an examination of which
will show that the artisans of the Georgian period were well supplied
with guides devised to make the mysteries of their craft plain to the
“meanest understanding.”
The two houses chosen to exemplify the first Georgian type are Graeme
Park, Horsham, begun in 1721 and finished the following year by Sir
William Keith, sometime Lieutenant-Governour of the Province, and Hope
Lodge, in the Whitemarsh Valley, built in 1723. Graeme Park was then in
the heart of the wilderness and a special road had to be cut, still
called the Governour’s Road, to enable His Excellency to reach the Old
York Road whenever he chose to trundle to the city in his great begilt
and blazoned coach, drawn by four stout horses and attended with all the
panoply of state as befitted a person of his rank.
The house suited the manorial style of life maintained by the baronet.
To the rear of the main building were detached wings containing quarters
for the servants, the kitchens and the various domestic offices, thus
leaving the whole of the hall for the use of its occupants. The small
buildings disappeared years ago, and the whole place, long unoccupied,
is gradually falling into decay, a plight from which, however, it could
be easily rescued. The house is over 60 feet long, 25 feet in depth and
three storeys in height. The walls are of rich brown field stone,
carefully laid and fitted, and are more than 2 feet thick, while over
the doors and windows, whose dimensions are thoroughly characteristic of
the date of erection, selected stones are laid in flattened arches.
At the north end of the building is a great hall or parlour, 21 feet
square, with walls wainscotted and panelled from floor to ceiling, a
height of fourteen feet. The fireplace in the parlour is faced with dark
marble, brought from abroad, while in the other rooms Dutch tiles were
used for the same purpose. On each floor are three rooms. Stairs and
banisters are of heavy white oak, and all the other woodwork, of yellow
pine, is of unusual beauty, executed in simple and vigorous design. The
woodwork is worthy of special attention, for therein we may see embodied
some of the chief characteristics of the first Georgian type. The
detail of ornamentation is heavy and bold, though by no means
ungraceful. Mouldings and cornices are more pronounced in profile than
we find them at a later date and stand out with peculiarly insistent
relief, while certain forms quite vanished in subsequent types. The
close affinity with the moulding details of the distinctively Queen Anne
type is strongly noticeable. One feature worth mentioning is the mantel
shelf in the parlour. Such shelves were rarely found till a later date.
Hope Lodge, hard by St. Thomas’s Hill, in the Whitemarsh Valley, was
built in 1723, as previously stated. It is a great square brick
structure of two storeys in height with a hipped roof. As at Stenton
(built in 1728), the bricks are laid in Flemish bond and occasional
black headers appear. The doors and windows, like those of Graeme Park,
Stenton and other contemporary houses, belonging to the first Georgian
type, are higher and narrower in proportion than those of a later date.
Over the front windows are wedge-shaped lintels, flush with the wall
surface, formed of bricks set vertically in the centre and gradually
spreading fanwise toward the sides in diagonals convergent to the base.
Some of the windows at the sides and back show the flattened arches, to
be seen at Graeme Park and Stenton, over slightly countersunk tympana
above the frame tops. Over some of the doors are transoms of six or
seven square lights in a single row, while over the tall and very narrow
side door, just as at Stenton and as over the two narrow rear doors at
Graeme Park, there is a transom of eight square lights in two rows of
four each. A cornice at the eaves has a deep sweeping cove of plaster on
a lath backing, while the heavy moulding courses are of wood. Viewed
from the front, the roof is hipped, but from the side it presents a
curious combination of hip and gambrel.
Within, a hall of unusual width, far larger than most rooms nowadays,
traverses the full depth of the house and opens into spacious chambers
on each side. The chief rooms have round arched doorways and narrow
double doors, heavily panelled. All the panelling, in fact, is heavy.
The single doors of the first floor are surmounted by handsome
pediments. There are deep panelled window seats in the ground floor
rooms and the windows have exceptionally broad and heavy muntins. The
breadth of the fireplaces, faced with dark Scotch marble, and the
massiveness of the wainscotting correspond with the other features.
Throughout the house all the woodwork, which is said to have been
fetched from England, though handsomely wrought, is heavy and most
substantial. Midway back in the hall a flattened arch springs from
fluted pilasters with capitals of a peculiar design. The stairway,
which is remarkably good, and strongly suggests an old English
arrangement, ascends laterally from the rear hall. Back of the house a
wide, brick-paved porch connects with another building where were the
servants’ quarters and kitchens--an arrangement characteristic of the
period.
Of the houses representative of the second Georgian type, Whitby Hall,
Kingsessing, West Philadelphia, comes first on the list. The western end
of Whitby Hall, the part with which we are here concerned, was added in
1754 by Colonel James Coultas, “merchant, ship owner, farmer, mill
owner, fox hunter, vestryman, soldier, judge, High Sheriff of
Philadelphia from 1755 to 1758, and enthusiastic promoter of all
philanthropic and public enterprises.” The gables of the high pitched
roof face north and south and are pierced with oval windows to light the
cock loft. The walls, not on one side only, as is often the case where a
special nicety of finish was sought, but all the way round, are built of
carefully squared and dressed native grey stone. On the south front is a
flag paved piazza, surmounted by a graceful spindled balustrade, while
around the western and northern sides runs a penthouse. The deeply coved
cornice beneath the eaves is carried in a continuous horizontal line as
a string course across the gable end or rather the gable _side_ walls.
A remarkable feature about Whitby is the arrangement of the roof. It is
the exact reverse of what is ordinarily found. The ridge pole, instead
of running parallel to the length of the structure, traverses its
breadth, thus making the peak higher, the slope longer, and allowing
space for a roomy third floor, all of which the view of the south front
clearly shows. This arrangement also avoids the need of dormers. “On the
north front is a tower-like projection in which the stairway ascends
with broad landings. The low doorway in this tower has always been used
on occasions of large gatherings at Whitby, whether grave or gay,
because it admits to the wide hall running through the western wing,
giving admittance to the large rooms on either side. The doorway and
windows in the tower are all surrounded by brick trims, which give both
variety and distinction against the grey stone walls--a treatment not
often met with near Philadelphia. In the top of the pediment with its
dentilled cornice, a bull’s eye light, also surrounded with brick trim,
is of particular interest because it was a porthole glass from one of
Colonel Coultas’s favourite ships, and was set there because of a
cherished sentiment. On peak and corners of the tower pediment three
urns add a note of state.
“All the woodwork and sundry embellishments
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
CLIVEDEN, GERMANTOWN, PHILADELPHIA. 1761.
Middle Colonies Georgian, second phase.]
[Illustration: MANTEL IN PARLOUR, MOUNT PLEASANT, PHILADELPHIA. 1761.
Middle Colonies Georgian, second phase.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
THE WOODLANDS, SOUTH FRONT. PHILADELPHIA, _C._ 1770.
Middle Colonies Georgian, third phase.]
of the 1754 addition were fetched from England in Colonel Coultas’s
ships. The pilasters and cornices in the hall are exceptionally fine.
Rosettes are carved in the dog ears of the door trims and the cheeks and
soffits of the jambs are set with bevel-flush panels. In the parlour the
carving of the overmantel and the panelling are unsurpassed for either
execution or design. The central panel above the fireplace is three feet
high and nearly six feet wide, and not a joint can be discovered in it.
Below it is a band of exquisitely wrought floriated carving in high
relief. Although it is possible to find more elaborate woodwork, it is
rarely that one meets with a degree of elaboration tempered with such
dignified restraint and consummate good taste.”
Another house of the second Georgian type is Mount Pleasant, or Clunie,
as it was at first called, in Fairmount Park, built in 1761 by Captain
John Macpherson, and in later years the home of Benedict Arnold. Mount
Pleasant is a structure of almost baronial aspect, with east and west
fronts alike of imposing mien. An high foundation of carefully squared
stones is pierced by iron barred basement windows set in stone frames.
Above this massive, grisly base, the thick stone walls are coated with
yellow-grey roughcast. Heavy quoins of brick at the corners and, at the
north and south ends of the building, great quadruple chimneys joined
into one at the top by arches, create an air of more than usual
solidity. A broad flight of stone steps, their iron balustrades
overgrown with a bushy mass of honeysuckle, leads up to a doorway of
generous breadth. The pillars at each side of the door and the
superimposed pediment, the ornate Palladian window immediately above on
the second floor and, above that again, the cornice pediment springing
from the eaves, all contribute to set a stamp of courtly distinction
upon the pile.
Above the second floor the hipped roof springs, pierced east and west by
two graceful dormers and crowned by a well turned balustrade that
traverses nearly the whole distance between the chimneys. The fan light
over the door has remarkably heavy, fluted mullions and much of the
detail throughout the house, though highly wrought, is heavy. The two
flanking outbuildings, set 30 or 40 feet distant from the northeast and
southeast corners of the house, designed for servants’ quarters and
domestic offices, give Mount Pleasant a peculiarly striking appearance.
Without them it would be only an unusually handsome Georgian country
house, with them it at once takes on the manorial port of one of the old
Virginia mansions. The interior woodwork, both upstairs and down, is
rich in elaboration of detail, and the door frames, with their heavily
moulded pediments, are exceptionally fine.
Cliveden, the third member of the second group, was built in 1761 by
Chief Justice Chew. Its solid and heavy masonry is of carefully dressed
Germantown stone, and at the peaks of the gables and corners of the roof
are great stone urns. Back of the house are two wings, one semi-detached
and the other entirely so, used for servants’ quarters and domestic
offices. All the features and detail about Cliveden are thoroughly in
keeping with the same characteristics as in the other two houses already
described.
The windows are broad and fill a great part of the wall space in the
façade, and the doorway is an essential feature that has been made the
most of by the architect. Both indoors and out the strongly classic
feeling has been emphasised in pillar and pediment, pilaster and
entablature. Triglyphs, guttæ and every other detail of classic
embellishment have been wrought with the nice precision due a worthy
subject.
Comparing Whitby, Mount Pleasant and Cliveden with the former houses of
the first Georgian type, certain differences at once strike us. The
whole aspect is changed by the greater breadth of windows and doors. The
houses look wider awake. This change in the size of the windows means,
of course, that the rooms within in most cases were lighter and more
cheerful than before. Then, too, the Palladian window has appeared. Both
Mount Pleasant and Cliveden afford good examples of it, Cliveden’s being
placed at the side while at Mount Pleasant it forms an important feature
in both the east and west fronts.
At Mount Pleasant and Cliveden we see, too, that the door has become a
subject for elaborate treatment, quite in contrast to the extremely
simple and unassuming manner of dealing with the same feature in the
earlier houses. At Mount Pleasant the severity of the roof line is
tempered by a balustrade and the effective management of the chimneys
while, at Whitby and Cliveden, urns embellish the peaks and corners.
Within we find that acanthus leaves and thistles have begun to grow, the
rose has blossomed, other conventional flowers and foliage have budded
and egg and dart mouldings have appeared. In other words, carving as a
mode of embellishment has attained an established vogue. The moulding
profiles have lost some of their trenchant boldness and, though the
ornamental detail, both indoors and out, is still vigorous, and at times
massive, there is generally visible an air of delicacy and refinement
not present before.
The Woodlands, the Highlands, and Upsala exemplify for us the third type
of Georgian. William Hamilton built the Woodlands about 1770. Anthony
Morris finished the Highlands in 1796, and Norton Johnson began Upsala
in 1798 and completed it three years later. Across the north front of
the Woodlands, at regular intervals, are six Ionic pilasters above whose
tops runs an elaborately ornamented entablature with pateræ and
flutings, the whole surmounted by a pediment. Before the house is a low
and broad paved terrace filling the space between the semi-circular bays
that project from the ends of the building. Between the two middle
pilasters, a round arched doorway with a fan light opens into the hall.
On the south or river front a flight of steps ascends to a lofty white
pillared portico from which a door opens directly into the oval shaped
ballroom.
In another respect the whole exterior aspect of the Woodlands is
different from the houses of the second type. Window treatment is always
a most important item in determining architectural character and it is
just here that a significant change is to be noted. The size of the
opening is, in some cases, the same, in others it is larger but, more
noticeable still, the muntins are far smaller and we lose the bold,
trenchant barring of white that emphasises the aspect of windows of the
earlier buildings.
The interior is finished with all the delicacy that one might expect
judging from the evidences of Adam influence without. One highly
significant feature of interior treatment in houses of the third type is
the change made in the arrangement of the mantels. We have seen that in
houses of the first type, such as Graeme Park and in houses of the
second type, such as Whitby Hall or Mount Pleasant, the overmantel
panelling and embellishment were accorded much care and elaboration. The
chimney breast often extended a considerable distance into the room and
the ornamental superstructure above the fireplace reached all the way to
the ceiling.
Although these ornate overmantels reaching to the ceiling had begun to
fall into disfavour in England a little after the middle of the
eighteenth century, when houses of the second Georgian type were being
erected in the Philadelphia neighbourhood, Colonial conservatism
disregarded the newer style and clung to the mode approved by
time-honoured precedent. The fireplace with its setting has always held
a position of such exalted honour as the centre of family life that the
following extract from Clouston’s Treatise on Chippendale is
particularly illuminating in this connexion. In speaking of the
influence exerted by Sir William Chambers on architecture as well as on
furniture, he says:--“When he returned to England in 1755, [from the
Continent] he was
[Illustration: THE WOODLANDS, NORTH FRONT.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, J. B. Lippincott Co.
THE HIGHLANDS, WHITEMARSH VALLEY, PA. 1796.
Middle Colonies Georgian, third phase.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, 1908, by Rogers & Manson
HOMEWOOD, NEAR BALTIMORE.
Southern Georgian, second phase in transition to third.]
accompanied by Wilton and Cipriani, afterwards so well known as an
artist and decorator. He also brought Italian sculptors to carve the
marble mantelpieces he introduced into English houses.
“These were made from his own designs, and the ornament of figures,
scrolls, and foliage was free in character. Strange to say, these
mantelpieces, designed and made by an architect, were yet the means of
taking away this important part of interior decoration from the hands of
the architect altogether and causing it to become quite a separate
production, made and sold along with the grates.
“In former times it had been an integrant portion of the room, reaching
from floor to ceiling, balanced and made part of the wall by having its
main lines carried round in panelling and enriched friezes. It was the
keynote of decoration and the master builder of the times grew fanciful
and exerted his utmost skill upon its carving and quaint imagery,
centralising the whole ornament of the room around the household shrine.
“Mantelpieces had gradually come down in height, though still retaining
much of their fine proportions and classic design. Many causes had
contributed to this, the chief being the disuse of wood panelling and
the preference given to hangings of damask, foreign leather and
wall-paper. In the reigns of Queen Anne and the Little Dutchman the
custom of panelling was partially kept up but the lining was only white
painted deal, after the fashion in Holland. At this time the upper part
of the chimney piece was still retained, but only reached about half way
up the wall. Gibbs, Kent and Ware kept the superstructure as much as
they could, but Sir William Chambers dealt it the most crushing blow it
had yet received by copying the later French and Italian styles and
giving minute detail more consideration than fine proportion. He
discarded the upper part altogether and helped to make ‘continued
chimney pieces’ things of the past.”
The much used Adam oval found expression even in the shapes of rooms,
and besides the oval ballroom at the Woodlands, we frequently find in
houses of the third type rounded or elliptical hallways and chambers.
At the Highlands, in the Whitemarsh Valley, we see the front of the
house adorned with tall Ionic pilasters rising from base course to
cornice, which is itself elaborately wrought. The woodwork inside is
excellent, but unfortunately the Adam mantels with their compo
decoration have been removed and now grace another house some miles
distant. At Upsala, in Germantown, however, we are in better luck, for
there the Adam mantels have remained untouched. The illustrations show
the rest of the house and make further specific comment unnecessary,
save to remark, regarding the windows, that here, as in other houses of
this latest type, larger panes of glass than in the two earlier types
are met with in not a few instances.
Before proceeding further in the course of comparison, a word ought to
be said about the colour of the paint used for interior woodwork of the
Georgian houses of all three types. For some reason there seems to be an
impression abroad that white was employed to the exclusion of everything
else. There was, it is true, a preponderance of white but its use was by
no means universal. A close examination of successive layers of paint on
some old woodwork reveals various shades of greys, blues, drabs,
brownish yellows and other hues beneath one or more coats of white. Grey
seems to have been one of the earliest variants from white and, in some
places, nothing else was ever used. At Graeme Park, for instance, the
first coat of paint was grey, and no other colour ever adorned its
panelling and door and window trims. At Stenton, on the other hand, the
taste of the occupants dictated a change of colour from time to time and
we find a good deal of variety in the successive coats. During the
prevalence of the second Georgian type white seems to have found more
general favour. With our last type, delicate colours again began to be
used.
Contrasting the Woodlands, the Highlands and Upsala with the houses
illustrating the second Georgian type, we find still further evidences
of architectural evolution. During the prevalence of the second type
individual features were singled out for decorative emphasis, but in the
days of the third type the entire front of the house or sometimes the
whole exterior was regarded from a decorative point of view. At Cliveden
the treatment of the doorway and the urns on the roof are the features
relied upon for the embellishment of the façade. At Mount Pleasant the
doorways of the east and west fronts, the Palladian windows above them,
the balustrade on the roof and the treatment of the chimneys supply a
fuller and more ornate decorative effect. But when we reach the third
period we see that the architect has considered carefully the decorative
element in both the proportions and detail of the whole building. It
would be hard to believe that the designer of the Woodlands, in drawing
his plans, had not carefully aimed at the pleasing ensemble of the
masses. The effect of the rounded ends is agreeable and a marked
departure from the straightforward rectangularity of most of the houses
of preceding types. The lofty portico of the Woodlands south or river
front had no precedent in Philadelphia. Vaux Hill or Fatland, erected
about the same time, and Loudoun, a few years later, had the same
_motif_, and even John Bartram, in his last addition to his house,
adopted the same treatment. Neither was there a precedent for the method
of dealing with the north front, so we see that the Woodlands struck two
new notes in local architecture.
At the Woodlands and the Highlands we find pilasters carried the full
height of the walls--a new feature. The fenestration is arranged with
more regard to outward appearance and not solely from a utilitarian
point of view. We find that the high panelled overmantels, which
constituted an important architectural feature, had given place to the
low and elaborately adorned mantel that ought to be regarded rather as a
piece of furniture than as an architectural entity. Fireplaces had grown
smaller, fan lights above doors had become common and were enriched with
beautiful and sometimes intricate metal tracery. The comparison between
these later fan lights with their airy grace, and the earlier fan lights
of Mount Pleasant, with their ponderous mouldings, is instructive. In
the detail of all ornament heaviness has vanished and the polished
elegance of Adam influence has taken its place. Everywhere we find
pateræ, drops and swags, fluting and quilling, oval fans and dainty
urns and vases with delicate leaf and flower treatment.
Regarding the texture of stone walls, we ought also to note that in the
second and third types we find neatly squared and dressed stones used to
a considerable extent. At Cliveden, the Highlands and Upsala the fronts
alone are of cut stone while at Whitby Hall the walls on all sides are
treated with the same formal precision.
Briefly summing up, then, it is clear that three distinct types exist.
The first has Queen Anne affinities but is Georgian in time and much of
its feeling. Ornamental detail is simple and bold and at times a trifle
heavy. The profiles of mouldings are strong and in high relief.
Simplicity and strength, combined with grace, give the prevailing note
in every instance. The second type is lighter and more ornate, but with
characteristic conservatism and abhorrence of the new fangled whims of
Sir William Chambers and the Brothers Adam, Philadelphia adhered to the
modes in vogue in England from twenty to twenty-five years before and
kept Ware in countenance who, in 1750, was still crowning his buildings
with heavy Queen Anne urns.
Notwithstanding the staunch adherence to conservative architectural
principles, however, a new feeling is everywhere perceptible. Though
the overmantel decorations still extended all the way to the ceiling,
the character of the ornamentation employed was vastly more elaborate
and graceful than anything to be found in buildings of the first type.
If the profiles of mouldings were not so bold and insistent they were,
nevertheless, quite as graceful. With the advent of floriated and
foliated _motifs_ in the carving, we naturally find a closer care to
detail of all kinds. At the same time there is to be seen a more
punctilious heed to all the little niceties and characteristic
distinctions between the classic orders.
By the time our third Georgian type appears, Adam influence has become
paramount and put to flight all mid-Georgian ponderosity. Even in the
case of manifestly “carpenter built” houses of the period, where, quite
unlike the three excellent examples here chosen to represent their
particular classes, no especial architectural merit is to be looked for,
we find no heaviness of line, and the character of ornamentation
employed is distinctly either a copy or an echo of Adam _motifs_ and, in
not a few cases, has caught much of their spirit.
It must be understood that the houses used for illustration have been
chosen because they represent their many contemporaries in the same
neighbourhood, all of which display the same characteristics according
to the date at which they were built. The foregoing analysis does not
pretend to be complete--it would take far more space to trace all the
subtleties of the subject--but aims only to direct attention to certain
facts that may conduce to our clearer understanding of American Georgian
and its resources in supplying our present needs.
In considering the variations between the Georgian types of the
Philadelphia neighbourhood it must be borne in mind that they ought not
to be judged too straitly by contemporary work in England. Such
comparison would only be misleading and unfair for several reasons. In
the first place, at the beginning of the Georgian period, local
conditions forbade the lavish display of carved ornamentation that
marked so many houses of the same date in England. At that time there
were few craftsmen in the Colonies capable of executing the elaborate
carving in vogue on the other side of the Atlantic. The builders of
mansions, therefore, must perforce content themselves by a close
adherence to line and proportion and do without the highly wrought
carved embellishment. Then, too, besides this difficulty, many of the
builders of these early houses belonged to the Society of Friends, most
of whom from their religious principles were averse to a wealth of
ornament. In the second place, judging by contemporary English standards
would be misleading because at the time the second Philadelphia
Georgian type began to flourish, and the means and inclination for
elaborate ornament were both present, Colonial conservatism had become
an important factor in the dictation of style, and however closely
Philadelphians might copy the current modes of London in matters of
dress, in their manners and architecture they chose to cling to well
established precedent and had always remained thenceforward from twenty
to thirty years back of their British cousins in the method of their
architectural expression. Hence, for instance, the overmantels reaching
to the ceiling built as late as 1765. In all its phases, however,
Philadelphia Georgian, whatever minor differences there might have been,
was true to the traditions of the great English architects, and because
of its purity of style is worthy of close study today for the vital
inspiration it can supply.