In ascertaining what is desirable to the conveniences, or the
necessities in our household arrangement, it may be not unprofitable to
look about us, and consider somewhat, the existing condition of the
structures too many of us now inhabit, and which, in the light of true
fitness for the objects designed, are inconvenient, absurd, and out of
all harmony of purpose; yet, under the guidance of a better skill, and a
moderate outlay, might be well adapted, in most cases, to our
convenience and comfort, and quite well, to a reasonable standard of
taste in architectural appearance.
At the threshold--not of the house, but of this treatise--it may be well
to remark that it is not here assumed that there has been neither skill,
ingenuity, nor occasional good taste exhibited, for many generations
back, in the United States, in the construction of farm and country
houses. On the contrary, there are found in the older states many farm
and country houses that are almost models, in their way, for convenience
in the main purposes required of structures of their kind, and such as
can hardly be altered for the better. Such, however, form the exception,
not the rule; yet instead of standing as objects for imitation, they
have been ruled out as antiquated, and unfit for modern builders to
consult, who have in the introduction of some real improvements, also
left out, or discarded much that is valuable, and, where true comfort is
concerned, indispensable to perfect housekeeping. Alteration is not
always improvement, and in the rage for innovation of all kinds, among
much that is valuable, a great deal in house-building has been
introduced that is absolutely pernicious. Take, for instance, some of
our ancient-looking country houses of the last century, which, in
America, we call old. See their ample dimensions; their heavy, massive
walls; their low, comfortable ceilings; their high gables; sharp roofs;
deep porches, and spreading eaves, and contrast them with the ambitious,
tall, proportionless, and card-sided things of a modern date, and draw
the comparison in true comfort, which the ancient mansion really
affords, by the side of the other. Bating its huge chimneys, its wide
fire-places, its heavy beams dropping below the ceiling overhead, and
the lack of some modern conveniences, which, to be added, would give all
that is desired, and every man possessed of a proper judgment will
concede the superiority to the house of the last century.
That American house-building of the last fifty years is out of joint,
requires no better proof than that the main improvements which have been
applied to our rural architecture, are in the English style of farm and
country houses of two or three centuries ago; so, in that particular, we
acknowledge the better taste and judgment of our ancestors. True, modern
luxury, and in some particulars, modern improvement has made obsolete,
if not absurd, many things considered indispensable in a ruder age. The
wide, rambling halls and rooms; the huge, deep fire-places in the
chimneys; the proximity of out-buildings, and the contiguity of stables,
ricks, and cattle-yards--all these are wisely contracted, dispensed
with, or thrown off to a proper distance; but instead of such style
being abandoned altogether, as has too often been done, the house itself
might better have been partially reformed, and the interior arrangement
adapted to modern convenience. Such changes have in some instances been
made; and when so, how often does the old mansion, with outward features
in good preservation, outspeak, in all the expression of home-bred
comforts, the flashy, gimcrack neighbor, which in its plenitude of
modern pretension looks so flauntingly down upon it!
We cannot, in the United States, consistently adopt the domestic
architecture of any other country, throughout, to our use. We are
different in our institutions, our habits, our agriculture, our
climates. Utility is our chief object, and coupled with that, the
indulgence of an agreeable taste may be permitted to every one who
creates a home for himself, or founds one for his family. The frequent
changes of estates incident to our laws, and the many inducements held
out to our people to change their locality or residence, in the hope of
bettering their condition, is a strong hindrance to the adoption of a
universally correct system in the construction of our buildings;
deadening, as the effect of such changes, that home feeling which should
be a prominent trait of agricultural character. An attachment to
locality is not a conspicuous trait of American character; and if there
be a people on earth boasting a high civilization and intelligence, who
are at the same time a roving race, the Americans are that people; and
we acknowledge it a blemish in our domestic and social constitution.
Such remark is not dropped invidiously, but as a reason why we have thus
far made so little progress in the arts of home embellishment, and in
clustering about our habitations those innumerable attractions which win
us to them sufficiently to repel the temptation so often presented to
our enterprise, our ambition, or love of gain--and these not always
successful--in seeking other and distant places of abode. If, then, this
tendency to change--a want of attachment to any one spot--is a reason
why we have been so indifferent to domestic architecture; and if the
study and practice of a better system of building tends to cultivate a
home feeling, why should it not be encouraged? Home attachment is a
virtue. Therefore let that virtue be cherished. And if any one study
tend to exalt our taste, and promote our enjoyment, let us cultivate
that study to the highest extent within our reach.