PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF THE COLONIAL AND POST-COLONIAL PERIODS
The architecture of Colonial America, exclusive of the churches, was
almost altogether domestic in its scope and yielded but comparatively
few examples of impressive public edifices in proportion to the area of
the territory embraced. There were, however, enough secular public
buildings scattered through the length and breadth of the Colonies to
make a striking representation when grouped together and what the
aggregate collection of such structures lacked in point of numbers was
amply made up in point of individual excellence or historic interest, or
both, on the part of the several units. In the space of one chapter it
would be manifestly impossible to discuss fully all the secular public
buildings of the Colonies but enough of them can be considered to convey
a comprehensive idea of the civic architectural setting of Colonial
days.
If the houses and churches of the Colonial period in America reflect
the social and religious life of our forefathers, no less truly do the
public buildings reflect the civic and political side of their
existence. To be sure, the public buildings are not without their
interest and power to shed light on the social and economic conditions,
but it is especially in their civic and political capacity that their
appeal to us is strongest. Then, too, we may truly say that they form
much of the setting for the dramatic side of our history and, therefore,
the picturesque association is potent. With the State House in
Philadelphia (Independence Hall, as it has been called in later years),
we cannot fail to associate the Declaration of Independence and the
framing of our national constitution, eleven years afterward. Neither
can we fail to associate with Faneuil Hall or the Old State House in
Boston the stirring events that preceded the outbreak of the War for
Independence.
Of all the public buildings in the Colonies, the State House in
Philadelphia, as the birthplace of our national existence, claims the
place of first attention and highest honour in the esteem of all loyal
Americans. Architecturally speaking, all the public buildings chosen for
consideration in this chapter represent more or less faithfully the
local characteristics of the places in which they were built. We
naturally expect, therefore, to find in the State House at Philadelphia
an example of the Middle Colonies Georgian at its best, nor are we
disappointed. From an architectural point of view, the State House was a
notable and imposing structure when it was erected in 1733 and, from the
same point of view, it would be equally notable and imposing had it been
built only yesterday. The scale is so broad and impressive that it
dwarfs other buildings of far greater size and loftier structure in the
vicinity. In this respect it is comparable to a small person of large
presence and much dignity, the scant measure of whose inches is not
accounted in the impression created among his fellows. We have all seen
such. Though the actual area covered by the State House is
inconsiderable--it is only one hundred feet long by forty-four feet in
depth, with a tower, on the south side or rear, measuring thirty-two
feet by thirty-four--there is such amplitude of proportion in the rooms,
in the size of all the central features and in the detail of
ornamentation, that the visitor instinctively feels himself in one of
the great buildings of the country, altogether irrespective of the brave
memories by which its walls are hallowed.
Seen from without, the State House is a most satisfying piece of
Georgian work. The north front, pierced by a single door and eight broad
windows on the lower floor and an unbroken range of nine windows on the
upper, has a convincing charm of combined dignity and simplicity. The
doorway is severely plain and of proportions characteristic of the date
at which the edifice was built. The wide muntins of the small paned
windows, the well spaced string courses, and the oblong panels of blue
marble beneath the windows of the upper floor, diversify the surface and
impart a grace that quite prevents the impression of dumpy stodginess
that less carefully managed Georgian façades sometimes give. A white
balustrade, running the length of the building and set where the pitch
of the roof breaks into a much flattened gambrel to form a deck, affords
an additional note of grace and lightness comporting well with the
triple chimneys with arch-joined tops at each gable end.
The contrast between the deep red brickwork of the tower, carried one
stage above the cornice of the body of the hall, and the white wooden
superstructure for the clock, surmounted by an open cupola over the
bell, is striking and particularly effective viewed from the south on a
sunny morning in winter or early spring, when everything is fretted with
a laced pattern from the bare branches of the surrounding trees. In the
second stage of the south side of the tower, immediately above the door,
is a Palladian window that has always compelled admiration. The crushed
capitals of the pilasters and dividing pillars, though perhaps rude in
line and execution, are delightfully suggestive of the weight and
solidity of the tower above them. Grotesque heads and faces as ornaments
for keystones were not very extensively used in our Colonial Georgian
architecture, but over the windows on three sides of the uppermost brick
stage of the tower are faces that for pathos of expression can quite
match those on the tower of Christ Church that lift their seemingly
sightless eyes alike to sun and snow and blinding rain. Though noticed
by few among the thousands that daily pass by, they are worthy of
attention. Masques or grotesque heads are also used in one or two other
places, such as the over-door carving in the interior of the building.
The warm tone of the walls is especially pleasing. Years and weather,
yes, and dirt, have imparted an exceedingly mellow tinge to the hard
burned brick laid in courses of Flemish bond, and although the glazed
black headers, found in so many old houses, are of rare occurrence, the
hue of the Colonial bricks is peculiarly rich. Relieved as the masonry
is by trimmings of native bluish marble and pencilled by weathered
mortar joints, the walls have a wonderful quality of texture and colour.
Although the triple-arched arcades and low, hip-roofed buildings on
either side of the State House are new, they are restorations and
conform to the provisions of the original plan. That plan called for
such structures, and they were begun several years subsequent to the
commencement of work on the main portion of the State House, but gave
place at a later date to the hideous barracks, devised to meet the
exigencies of public business, which endured till the last wave of
restoration happily removed them.
The State House was designed to accommodate the legislative and
executive branches of the Provincial government. The great east room, to
the left of the door on entering, was intended for the use of the
Assembly. In this room the Declaration of Independence was signed and in
this room, also, eleven years later, the Constitutional Convention sat
and framed the Constitution of the United States. Whether the west room,
across the corridor, and communicating with it by three large open
arches, was originally meant for the Supreme Court of the Province is
uncertain, but, at any rate, it was in time appropriated to that
purpose. The second floor has a long gallery running the full length of
the building along the north side facing Chestnut street, and this
apartment has been variously designated as “The Long Room,” “The
Banqueting Hall” and by sundry other titles. Facing the south are two
smaller rooms, separated by a spacious hallway or lobby, which also
opens into the Long Room. One of these lesser rooms seems to have been
intended for the use of the Governour’s Council.
Although the date of the building of the State House was 1733, its
completion was not accomplished till eight years later. This fact
probably accounts in some measure for the affinities of detail in the
interior woodwork with the second Georgian type, alluded to in the
chapter on Georgian architecture in Philadelphia and the neighbourhood.
The doorway on the Chestnut street front, both by its proportions and
its severe simplicity, belongs rather to the first type of Georgian as
exemplified by Stenton, Hope Lodge and Graeme Park. Inside the building,
however, we find the egg and dart moulding, modillion brackets carved
with acanthus leaves, ornate cornices with triglyphs, dentils and
mutules, fluted pillars and pilasters with ornate Roman capitals,
rosettes, elaborately wrought modillion brackets under the treads of the
stair, deeply panelled soffits and jambs, ornate pediments above doors
and overmantels, and all the other details characteristic of the second
Georgian period. In addition to being exceedingly elaborate, the
woodwork of the State House is executed in a masterly manner and marked
both by boldness and an unusual degree of grace.
At the extreme east and west ends of the
[Illustration: FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, 1741.]
[Illustration: INDEPENDENCE ROOM, STATE HOUSE, PHILADELPHIA.]
[Illustration: OLD STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, 1728.]
State House group, the two buildings projecting farther toward the
street than the rest, are decent in appearance but quite unpretentious.
Of exterior architectural embellishments, such as the State House can
boast, they are innocent, save the cupolas, which are good. Inside, the
woodwork detail is pleasing. The western building, Congress Hall, was
erected in 1788; here Washington’s second inauguration took place and
here John Adams was inducted into office as President. The eastern
building, intended for the City Hall, was built in 1791. While
Philadelphia was the seat of national government it was turned over to
the Supreme Court of the United States and here presided Chief Justices
John Jay, John Rutledge and Oliver Ellsworth.
In New England, the most impressive secular public buildings are the Old
State House in Boston, built in 1728, Faneuil Hall, built in 1741, and
the Bulfinch State House, on the summit of Beacon Hill, built in 1795.
The Old State House, a structure of peculiarly pleasing proportions and
admirable poise, is thoroughly representative of the best Georgian
feeling of the period of its erection both in manner of construction and
detail. Its square lantern of three stages is particularly interesting
as are also the stepped gables at each end, with the carved figures of
the British lion and unicorn apparently stationed as heraldic
supporters of the ornate apex with the clock. On account of these
stepped gables the criticism has sometimes been advanced that the Old
State House shows traces of Dutch influence in its design. While it is
quite true that stepped gables are characteristic of many Dutch
buildings, the attribution of Dutch influence in the treatment of the
Old State House can scarcely be justified for there is nowhere else
observable any suggestion of Dutch tendencies and the precedent for
stepped gables in unmistakably English work of an earlier date is by no
means wanting. Rich in historic memories, of which, perhaps, the Boston
Massacre stands forth most vividly, it is deservedly cherished with
civic pride as the ancient centre of Provincial life and it is
gratifying to see how punctiliously and accurately it has been restored
to its pristine condition under the able direction of Joseph Everett
Chandler, to whose enthusiasm are due many other faithful restorations
of seventeenth and eighteenth century New England architectural
treasures.
Faneuil Hall, hard by, also worthily upholds the Georgian traditions of
the mid-eighteenth century in its storeyed façades, its gracefully
proportioned and detailed cupola and the excellence of its interior
cornices, pillars and carved capitals. This “cradle of American liberty”
is a truly noble building and a worthy setting for the stirring
historic episodes that have been enacted beneath its roof or under the
shadow of its walls.
The Bulfinch State House, a “model of classicality” as someone has not
inappropriately called it, is an exceptionally impressive precursor of
the Greek or Classic Revival. Designed at a time when the graceful
interpretation of the Georgian style, introduced by the Brothers Adam,
was still dominant, it combines the characteristic elegance of its epoch
with the bold vigour of classic inspiration, drawn direct from the font
of antiquity, that distinguished the best public architecture of the
early nineteenth century. Despite the alterations and additions to which
it has been subjected, its strong individuality still dominates the
structure, of which the original fabric is now but a small part, and
breathes abroad the ample spirit of post-Colonial dignity.
The original buildings of Harvard, or rather the worthy successors of
the first buildings, none of which remain, exhibit, in their plan,
proportions and general treatment, many admirable features quite
comparable to those of the best contemporary large Georgian buildings in
England and their substantial dignity, thoroughly in keeping with their
purpose, reflects the greatest credit upon the Colonial officers and
benefactors of the University.
Of the other Colonial or post-Colonial secular public buildings in New
England deserving of admiration and close study, all of which it would
be a congenial task to write about at length, did space permit, three
especially must be mentioned before passing on to discuss those in
another part of the country. They are the Custom House in Salem, which
will always be associated with the fanciful melancholy of Hawthorne’s
literary genius; the Town House or State House at Newport, built in 1743
from the designs of Richard Munday and, last of all, the Market or City
Hall, in the same place, built in 1760 after the plans of Peter
Harrison, sometime an assistant to Sir John Vanbrugh, whose close
connexion with that eminent English architect and subsequent removal to
the American Colonies throw an interesting side light upon the bonds
linking Colonial architectural developments with their source of
inspiration.
New York could boast the stately old building of King’s College;
Fraunce’s Tavern, whose festive board, upon the occasion of balls and
receptions, groaning with toothsome viands, caused the feasters to groan
with gout the next day; the City Hall, begun in 1803, whose chaste
classic elegance, surrounded by huge modern structures, still bears
eloquent witness to the civic good taste of the period when it was
erected. Henry James was greatly impressed with its “perfect taste and
finish, the reduced, yet ample, scale, the harmony of the parts, the
just proportions, the modest classic grace, the living look of the type
aimed at.” On looking at such noble examples of the architecture of a
past generation, one cannot but regret that the ruthless sweep of
commercial progress has brushed aside and demolished so many monuments
of the New York of Colonial days.
In Colonial cities and towns the town hall and market, usually found
close together if not actually occupying the same building, according to
old English custom, were so representative of the visible course of
civic life that some account must be taken of their presence though few
of them now remain. The old Provincial Hall or Court House in
Philadelphia, erected in 1707, was so thoroughly typical of these
combined judicial and mercantile structures that, although torn down
many years ago, it deserves some notice in this place. It stood in the
middle of Market street at the corner of Second and back of it the
market sheds or shambles stretched away towards the west, occupying the
whole middle of the street, and increasing in extent year by year as the
city grew and more accommodations for the farmers became necessary. It
was a substantial brick structure, built on arches, and was similar in
character and appearance to the town halls of that day in many English
county towns. “It was,” wrote a local antiquary, in one of his sketches,
“an important place. Monarchs on their accessions were there proclaimed;
wars were thence declared; and peace, when it came to bless the people,
there found a voice to utter it. New governours addressed the people
over whom they were appointed to rule, from its balcony; the emblems of
sovereignty, the royal arms of England, were there displayed.” There
centred all the official, legislative and administrative life of the
Province, there the Provincial Council sat, there the elections were
held and there were the gaol and those much dreaded but effective
instruments of correction, the pillory, the stocks and the whipping
post. The stocks, standing as they did in such close proximity to the
market, the rougher sort drew not a little amusement from pelting
culprits there confined with overripe vegetables and we are told, in the
reminiscent notes of one who was a boy at the time of the Revolution,
that “the whipping-post and pillory display was always on a market
day--then the price of eggs went up much.” Such was the old Philadelphia
Court House and very like it were the town houses and markets in the
other Colonial cities. One good example of this type of building, still
standing, is the brick portion of the market at Second and Pine streets,
Philadelphia, which
[Illustration: BULFINCH STATE HOUSE, BOSTON. 1795.]
[Illustration:
Copyright, by International News Service.
NEW YORK CITY HALL.
Classic Revival.]
[Illustration: OLD PINE STREET MARKET, PHILADELPHIA.]
[Illustration: CARPENTERS’ HALL, PHILADELPHIA.]
nearly resembles the Georgian town houses that may yet be seen in quiet
little English market towns. Very similar to this bit of Georgian
excellence are the old Town Hall in Chester, Pennsylvania, and the Town
Hall in Newcastle, Delaware.
In trying to form an adequate mental picture of the civic life of
Colonial times, in relation to its architectural setting, we must not
overlook the hostelries, theatres, schools and hospitals. The eighteenth
century ordinary came into contact with the social and civic life of the
period at every conceivable point. Thither came the most substantial
citizens, there matters of public concern were discussed, meetings were
held, entertainments were given, distinguished strangers were fêted and
travellers found welcome hospitality. If one has a taste for poking
about and nosing into out of the way nooks and corners, a voyage of
discovery in some of our older cities will often be richly rewarded. On
north Second street, in Philadelphia, one may still dive under arch-ways
and find inn yards surrounded partly by balconied back buildings that
stretch away in a string of offices and kitchens, partly by stables and
waggon sheds. One almost feels that these inns have been transplanted
bodily from old London, so like are they to their English prototypes
and, we may incidentally add, in a much completer state of
preservation. Just such inn yards as these served for theatres in
Shakespeare’s day. It was from such inn yards, too, in the old staging
days, that the mail coaches set out with cracking whip and blast of
horn. The petty itinerant shows, that used to come occasionally to
divert our Colonial forebears by the sight of a real live lion or bear
or electric eel or any unusual creature that the showman had been able
to acquire, availed themselves of the inn yards for exhibitions. In
1763, Elizabeth Drinker, then at Frankford, notes in her diary: “A
lioness passed this road in ye morning. Paid 2_d._ for seeing her--a
large ugly animal.” No doubt the “large ugly animal” had been previously
exhibited in some of the inn yards on Second street, for out that
thoroughfare passed all the traffic for New York and every place to the
north.
Coffee houses, also, were favourite gathering places for conversation
and refreshment and one of the most famous in Philadelphia--they were
much the same in all the cities--was the London Coffee House or
Bradford’s Coffee House, at the corner of Front and Market streets. It
was built in 1702 and presented an interesting example of truly Colonial
architecture in its striking brickwork, its penthouses and its
jerkin-headed, gabled roof. It should be noted that the jerkin-head roof
treatment, the plain survival of an English tradition, was to be found
on a number of other early Pennsylvania buildings but the practice of
building in this manner was soon discontinued. Watson in his “Annals”
tells us that “at this Coffee House--the Governour and other persons of
note ordinarily went at set hours to sip their coffee from the hissing
urn, and some of these stated visitors had their known stalls. It was
long the focus which attracted all manner of genteel strangers; the
general parade was outside of the house under a shed of but common
construction, extending from the house to the gutter way, both on the
Front street and High street sides. It was to this, as the most public
place, they brought all vendues of horses, carriages, groceries, &c.,
and above all, here Philadelphians once sold negro men, women and
children as slaves.”
It is to be sincerely regretted that the London Coffee House, like its
near neighbour the Provincial Hall, was torn down many years ago for,
quite apart from its architectural interest, its historic associations
were important and intimately connected not only with local events but
with events that had a bearing upon the affairs of the whole country.
One of these was the beginning of the opposition to the Tea Act which
started in Philadelphia and not in Boston as is popularly supposed.
“When the tax on tea was reduced to three pence per pound there seemed
to be a general disposition to pay it. At this juncture, when the
arrival of a fresh consignment from the East India Company was expected,
William Bradford gathered at the Coffee House several citizens, whom he
knew to be heartily opposed to the measures of the British Government,
and together they drew up a set of spirited resolutions anent the tea
question. On the following Saturday, October 16, 1773, a ‘large and
respectable town-meeting,’ presided over by Doctor Thomas Cadwalader,
was held at the State House and the resolutions were adopted
enthusiastically. The same resolutions were almost immediately
afterwards adopted, nearly word for word, by a town-meeting in Boston
(November 5, 1773), where a disposition to receive the tea had become
general, from an idea that an opposition to it would not be seconded or
supported by any of the other Colonies.”
Until the middle of the eighteenth century, the American public had been
without any organised effort to present dramatic performances and,
consequently, there were no theatres to be numbered among public
buildings before that time. Just after the middle of the century,
however, a stock company came over from England and started upon a round
of engagements in the different cities of the Colonies. By a portion of
the people they were heartily welcomed but for the most part they met
with an indifferent if not actively hostile reception. Nevertheless,
despite all opposition, they persevered, and in time won an established
position in the social life of the day. At first they made shift to get
along with quarters improvised in storehouses or other buildings that
might be temporarily adapted to their purpose but eventually it became
necessary to have structures designed especially to meet their needs. In
1759 a small wooden theatre was built in South or Cedar street,
Southwark, Philadelphia, but was used for only a brief period. Its place
was soon taken by a second structure, substantially built of brick,
farther up South street, above Fourth. This brick theatre was opened
November 21, 1766, “and was the first permanent building used for
theatrical purposes in America.” Both this building and its wooden
predecessor were on the _south_ side of South street and hence in
Southwark, as the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia city authorities
ended on the _north_ side of that thoroughfare. There was more liberty
of action in Southwark and both the first and second theatres were
located there to escape the violent opposition of the powerful Quaker
element which frowned upon dramatic performances and urged that “the
practise of play-acting would be ‘attended by mischievous effects, such
as the encouragement of idleness and drawing great sums of money from
weak and inconsiderate persons.’”
To this Southwark theatre repaired all the wealth, beauty and fashion of
Philadelphia, at that time the metropolis of the Colonies. There, until
1773, the “American Company” had its regular season and, despite Quaker
hostility, Philadelphia was the most important theatrical centre of all
the Colonial cities. During the acute troubles with the Mother Country
prior to the outbreak of the Revolution and while that struggle was in
progress the old stock company was driven from Philadelphia as most of
its members were loyal British subjects. While the British occupation of
Philadelphia lasted, Lord Howe’s officers gave amateur performances in
the Southwark theatre, devoting the proceeds to the benefit of the
“widows and orphans of the army.” The unfortunate Major André took an
active part in these dramatic efforts, and not only acted but assisted
in painting the scenery, and one drop curtain, bearing his name as
artist, was used until it was destroyed by a disastrous fire in 1821.
This circumstance and the fact that General Washington during his
residence in Philadelphia, as President of the United States, frequently
attended the performances, occupying one of the stage boxes above which
the arms of the United States had replaced those of Great Britain, have
lent an unusual interest to this first permanent American theatre. It
was a rectangular building with a low pitched gable end towards the
street front and devoid of any architectural pretension save three round
headed windows above the door and a modest cupola on the ridge of the
roof. Only the north wall of the old building still stands and is
incorporated in the fabric of a distillery which occupies the site of
the theatre.
In 1793, Charles Bulfinch built the first theatre in Boston and, in
1794, the “New Theatre” was opened in Philadelphia, at Sixth and
Chestnut streets. It was designed in a far more pretentious and stately
manner than the old Southwark theatre and showed the coming influence of
the Classic Revival. In front was a long, pillared portico or arcade and
the whole façade displayed a good deal of architectural enrichment of a
formal kind. It may be regarded as thoroughly typical of the new
architectural tendencies and representative of the best sort of
play-houses that were erected for a number of years thereafter.
The Pennsylvania Hospital was the most notable eighteenth century
structure of its kind and its sterling architectural excellence becomes
ever increasingly apparent with the flight of years. The only attempts
at embellishment are upon the central pavilion and are both
well-considered and restrained. All the rest of the building was carried
out with the extreme simplicity of the eastern wing which was the first
portion to be built and was erected in 1753. One could not find anywhere
a more striking example of the transforming power of a string course of
contrasting colour upon a severely plain wall. The white string course,
standing out in strong relief against the deep red brick walls and
passing between the row of window heads on the ground floor and the
window cills of the storey above it, communicates to an extremely plain
exterior a charm and dignity of aspect that redeem it from the bald
austerity of a factory or barracks. Save this string course and the
cupola atop the roof, this oldest portion of the hospital and the
corresponding west wing are devoid of architectural adornment but their
just proportions and easy amplitude of dimensions are particularly
satisfying to the eye.
Among the public buildings of the Colonial period, noteworthy both for
their architectural character and for historic association, Carpenters’
Hall in Philadelphia, where the sessions of the first Continental
Congress were held, demands the consideration of all patriotic
Americans. Quite apart from its historic importance, Carpenters’ Hall
challenges the admiration of every lover of Georgian architecture in its
sturdiest manifestation. The State House in Annapolis, the Court House
in Williamsburg, the Custom House in Charleston and other public
edifices of similar character imparted to civic life in Colonial and
post-Colonial days an element of dignity and poise.
The Classic Revival had one of its early significant manifestations in
the buildings of the University of Virginia, a group for which we have
to thank no less a person than Thomas Jefferson. The plan embodied the
most comprehensive building scheme that had yet been essayed. To
Jefferson’s discriminating architectural taste and conscientious
devotion to his self-imposed task as architect and supervisor of the
work we owe it that the University buildings worthily represent one of
the best phases of revived classicism in America. There is a dignity and
honesty in Jefferson’s conception of revived classicism and a thorough
sincerity that often failed to appear in later work of the same school.
The result achieved commands our respect and when we remember that the
parts of plans and sections of details were jotted down on scraps of
paper and the backs of scribbled memoranda we cannot help wondering what
would have happened if the same seemingly careless and unsystematic
course were pursued in our own day. It was doubtless the enthusiastic
devotion of the architect and his constant supervision along with the
conscientious efforts and pride of every artisan that saved the day as
it did in so many other cases.
[Illustration: PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL, PHILADELPHIA.]
[Illustration: BLACK HORSE INN YARD, PHILADELPHIA.]
[Illustration: BRUTON PARISH CHURCH, WILLIAMSBURG, VA. 1714.]