A Note on Later Colonial Architecture
[Illustration: Log cabin]
The scope of this booklet does not include architecture of the late
colonial and early republican times, although some of our most
distinguished “colonial” buildings date from those years. The
architectural climate of the late 18th century differed from that found
prior to 1763. First of all, following the end of the French and Indian
War the colonies were more secure. Then, there existed a large body of
earlier architecture which could be seen as accomplished fact. The
building trades were more firmly established, a few professional
architects were beginning to appear, and architectural pattern books and
design books were more available from Europe. Although the earlier
buildings were vigorous in their design, the wealthy person who wished
to build a home in later colonial times often looked on them as quaint
and a little clumsy; he wanted something better and more up-to-date.
An outstanding example of what was up-to-date in North Carolina, is
shown above, an engraving of Tryon Palace, New Bern. This structure was
begun by Governor Tryon in 1767, completed in 1770 and destroyed by fire
shortly after the Revolutionary War. The work of reconstruction, begun
in 1952 is now virtually complete, and the palace is now one of the most
widely known colonial buildings in the United States. It is a good
example for our present purposes because, as a most important and costly
building, it reflects ideas regarded as “modern” in North Carolina at
the close of the pre-revolutionary period. The engraving shown is from
_The Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution_, by Benjamin J. Lossing,
1852. Although the palace was in ruins during Lossing’s time, he made
his engraving from drawings left by the building’s architect—the same
drawings used in 1952 for its reconstruction. The palace was designed to
impress the colonial man and woman shown in the illustration in certain
ways, as will be seen presently.
The exterior of the palace exhibits something new in our study: a
three-part layout design, diagrammed in figure 72. Above in the diagram
the three structures are arranged: kitchen—PALACE—stables. Other
outbuildings which, of course, were present are hidden in the first and
main view of the palace. This is quite different from the disposition of
the outbuildings at the Palmer-Marsh house (figure 9), where they are
found informally situated at one side of the house.
At the middle of the diagram depicting the Tryon structure, the long
façade of the palace building is shown broken into three parts:
wing—CENTRAL BLOCK—wing. The central block is crowned with a pediment
and is advanced slightly forward. The Palmer house also has six windows
and a central door, but the builder of this earlier structure did not
have the idea of breaking or articulating a long wall as in the palace.
Below in the diagram, the central block of the palace shows
window—DOOR—window. That door, crowned with pediment, is the ultimate
focal point.
[Illustration: FIGURE 72.]
As one contemplates this three-part idea for dividing a length of wall,
or for grouping separate structures, the system seems to express an
“intelligence” in the architecture—the door or middle unit being a head
or center of serene intelligence and the symmetrical side units being
arms or body. This design idea was not introduced into the colonies via
the palace; the palace merely demonstrates the idea which became so
attractive to later 18th-century builders.
The two pediments referred to above—a big one above and a small one over
the door below—are not mere gables of the sort seen earlier. Instead,
they are complete, three-sided pediments similar to those found on
classical temples. They are a sign of a rising interest in classical
art, fostered by archaeological studies in the 18th century. Classical
buildings also contained ideas of sober mass and order which impressed
those who lived in the late 18th century.
It should be observed that the cornices of all three buildings continue
uninterruptedly around corners, marking a firm top for the lower part of
the buildings which appear as great boxes. Further, as all the buildings
have hipped roofs which retreat on all sides, the colonial man and woman
in the picture, as they come near a building, do not see a roof at all.
This image is in contrast with the earlier architecture with huge, steep
roofs sitting like massive hats on the buildings, and with gable ends
rising to sharp points in the sky, along with their protruding chimneys.
At the palace, chimneys do not disturb the calm surface of a rectangular
wall, and roofs are hidden as though one is ashamed of them.
The windows of the palace are in absolutely regular horizontal and
vertical rows, as opposed to the casual, hit-or-miss irregularities seen
in some earlier buildings. In preparing his drawings for the façade of
the palace, the architect must have erased and redrawn his windows
before he achieved just the rhythm and balance he wanted. In looking at
his drawing he saw the façade as an entity by itself, exactly as it was
seen by the colonial couple on the walk. They seem to feel the
articulate order of the building, a security and a restrained,
aristocratic elegance.
Such ideas afford one a glimpse into the proud, ambitious,
“enlightened,” later 18th century. After this glimpse we return to the
diverse buildings of the earlier 18th century, with fuller appreciation
of their robustness and good-natured vitality, each building seeming
something of heroic accomplishment, a feat of colonial man, which,
indeed, it was.