Old New England houses
Date: 2026-09-02T00:00:00+00:00

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Old New England houses

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Old New England houses

Author: Albert G. Robinson

Release date: September 2, 2026 [eBook #79502]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79502

Credits: Steve Mattern and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OLD NEW ENGLAND HOUSES ***

OLD NEW ENGLAND
HOUSES

Concord, Massachusetts The “Old Manse”

OLD NEW ENGLAND
HOUSES

BY

ALBERT G. ROBINSON

AUTHOR OF “OLD NEW ENGLAND DOORWAYS”

WITH MANY ILLUSTRATIONS

FROM THE AUTHOR’S UNIQUE COLLECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1920

Copyright, 1920, by CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

Published September, 1920

THE SCRIBNER PRESS

PLATES

Concord, Massachusetts—The “Old Manse.” (Frontispiece).

Providence, Rhode Island—Ives House, 1799.

Providence, Rhode Island—Gammell House, 1786.

Lexington, Massachusetts—The house in which Samuel Adams and
John Hancock were asleep when aroused by Paul Revere.

Ipswich, Massachusetts—Brown House.

Ipswich, Massachusetts—Whipple House.

Winchendon, Massachusetts.

Concord, Massachusetts—The Orchard House, Home of the Alcotts.

Monson, Massachusetts.

Newbury, Massachusetts—Short House, 1717.

Andover, Massachusetts—Abbott House, 1685.

Quincy, Massachusetts—Dorothy Q. House.

Chelmsford, Massachusetts—Spaulding House.

Boxford, Massachusetts.

Lexington, Massachusetts—Munroe Tavern, 1695.

Acushnet, Massachusetts.

Hadley, Massachusetts—Dickinson House.

Dedham, Massachusetts—Fairbanks House, 1636.

Salem, Massachusetts—Ropes House, 1719.

Southwick, Massachusetts.

Salem, Massachusetts—Dodge-Shreve House, 1817.

North Woburn, Massachusetts—Birthplace of Count Rumford.

Billerica, Massachusetts—Manning Manse, 1696.

Colrain, Massachusetts.

Shrewsbury, Massachusetts—Judge Artemas Ward House.

Bedford, Massachusetts.

Ipswich, Massachusetts—Caldwell House, High Street, before 1650.

Deerfield, Massachusetts.

Portland, Maine.

Wiscasset, Maine.

Edgecomb, Maine—Rufus Sewall House.

Concord, New Hampshire.

Nashua, New Hampshire—Woods House, 1658.

Stratford, New Hampshire.

Norwich Town, Connecticut.

Guilford, Connecticut.

Windsor, Connecticut.

Windsor, Connecticut—Judge Oliver Ellsworth House.

East Windsor Hill, Connecticut.

Clinton, Connecticut, 1789.

Old Mystic, Connecticut.

Litchfield, Connecticut.

Litchfield, Connecticut—Tallmadge House, 1775.

Rocky Hill, Connecticut.

South Windham, Connecticut.

Southbury, Connecticut, 1785.

Hadlyme, Connecticut.

South Lyme, Connecticut.

East Lyme, Connecticut.

East Lyme, Connecticut.

South Lyme, Connecticut.

Middletown, Connecticut.

Norwich Town, Connecticut.

Nut Plains, Connecticut.

Chelmsford, Massachusetts.

Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

North Woburn, Massachusetts—Laommi Baldwin House.

Hadley, Massachusetts—Porter House, 1713.

Pembroke, Massachusetts, 1766.

Wells, Maine.

Danvers, Massachusetts—Rebecca Nourse House, 1636, front.

Danvers, Massachusetts—Rebecca Nourse House, 1636, rear.

Tyngsboro, Massachusetts.

Lincoln, Massachusetts—Hartwell House, 1639.

Southampton, Massachusetts.

South Windsor, Connecticut.

Westminster, Massachusetts.

Georgetown, Massachusetts.

Deerfield, Massachusetts—Nims House, north end and west front.

Deerfield, Massachusetts—Nims House, rear from the southeast.

Deerfield, Massachusetts—Allen House, north end.

Deerfield, Massachusetts—Allen House, south end.

Deerfield, Massachusetts—Samson-Frary House, west front.

Deerfield, Massachusetts—Samson-Frary House, south front.

Ipswich, Massachusetts—Emerson House, 1648.

Groton, Massachusetts.

Newbury, Massachusetts—Tappan House, 1697, south front.

Newbury, Massachusetts—Tappan House, 1697, west end.

Westport, Massachusetts.

Georgetown, Massachusetts.

Fryeburg, Maine.

Stratford, New Hampshire.

Lyme, Connecticut.

New Bedford, Massachusetts.

South Windsor, Connecticut.

Southampton, Massachusetts.

Madison, Connecticut—East front.

Madison, Connecticut—South front.

Woodbury, Connecticut.

Middlebury, Connecticut.

Niantic, Connecticut—Lee House, west end.

Niantic, Connecticut—Lee House, east end.

Essex, Connecticut—South end.

Essex, Connecticut—West front.

Byfield, Massachusetts—Dummer House, 1715.

East Windsor Hill, Connecticut.

Southington, Connecticut.

Georgetown, Massachusetts—Brockelbank House, 1670.

OLD NEW ENGLAND HOUSES

The homes of the earliest settlers in New England were log huts small in size and rude in construction—

“Of such materials as around,

The workman’s hand had readiest found;

Lopp’d of their boughs, their hoar trunks bared,

And with the hatchet rudely squared.”

Scott, Lady of the Lake.

The chinks between the logs, due to the uneven surfacing, were filled with clay or mud. The roofs were thatch. The floor was the little section of the earth’s surface enclosed within the walls or, at best, the flat side of split logs, rudely dressed, known as puncheons. Most of the furniture was only what the occupant could fashion with axe and saw. The fireplace, as a writer has cleverly described it, “sent half the smoke into the apartment and half the heat up the chimney.” For a short time one room, in many cases, served for all purposes. These simple structures afforded the necessary shelter, but the New England colonists were not of a class content to live in so rude a manner. Lumber, both hand-sawed and mill-sawed, was produced soon after their arrival. The earliest mill of which I find record was erected in the vicinity of Portsmouth in 1631 by a man named Gibbons. But the output of the little mills of the early days was limited in quantity, and a number of generations passed before the log hut disappeared. As the pioneers pushed their way, year after year, into the interior, northward and westward, they built in western Massachusetts, in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, log cabins such as were built in an earlier day in the coast settlements and along the valleys of the larger rivers. For them, as for the first settlers, shelter was a requirement second only to food, and the readiest means of meeting the necessity was the cutting, hewing, and piling of logs from the surrounding forest. Even after the operation of sawmills, much of the heavier framing timber was hewn from logs. This is often revealed when the old houses are torn down or altered.

Several houses whose erection is credibly reported as prior to 1640 are still standing. Some are one story and some are two stories in height. The destruction a few years ago of the old house in St. Augustine doubtless leaves some ancient New England structure as “the oldest house in the United States.” It is perhaps impossible to determine which one of the several claimants is rightfully entitled to the distinction. The claim has been made for the Fairbanks house in Dedham, Mass., a part of which was built in 1636. The genealogist of the Caldwell family claims 1633 as the date of the Caldwell homestead which stands on High Street in Ipswich. Some have claimed 1633 for the old Whipple house in the same town. Again, the oldest house may be still standing with no record to prove its antiquity. Errors in the matter of dates are frequent enough. A date quite impossible, as proven by the architectural type or the character of the workmanship, is often given, in all honesty, by the occupant of a house. In some instances the date given is that of the erection of a more modest structure that has given place to the present building or that serves as an ell or extension to the newer part. It is not unusual to find a really old house with an older structure attached, the date of all being given as that of the oldest part.

Year by year the number of these old-time homes lessens. They burn down, fall down, or are torn down. Some are “improved” by the addition of a veranda, a bay window, a modern door, or by the substitution of large window-panes for the old diamond panes or the much more common but less ancient six-by-eight panes. There are still many of the real “old-timers” to be found, but more and more, from year to year, it becomes necessary to hunt for them. Some, though only a fraction of them, are more or less well known, and have been used repeatedly as illustrations. But the tendency of illustrators has been to show a limited number of selected “mansion houses” rather than the homes in which a far greater number of people lived their quiet and inconspicuous lives. In the selected group are the stately homes in Salem and in Portsmouth, the Lee house in Marblehead, the Royall house in Medford, the Dummer house in Byfield, the “Lindens” in Danvers, the Longfellow and Lowell houses in Cambridge, and a few others of particularly interesting history or of special architectural merit. In another group of selected structures appear the familiar Fairbanks house in Dedham, the Frary house in Deerfield, the Whipple house in Ipswich, the Tallmadge house in Litchfield, the Wayside Inn, and a few others. All of these, in both groups, are excellent for the purposes for which they are used, but they present, after all, only a few out of the many old houses that still remain widely scattered through the southern half of New England.

The hunt for these old structures resolves itself into a somewhat general and elastic system, a location of areas in which the hunt is likely to prove fruitful or otherwise. Thus, in some of the oldest settlements little remains in the way of the oldest architecture. This is particularly true of the larger cities, of Boston, Providence, Newport, Hartford, New Haven, and Springfield. On the sites of the homes of the people of the seventeenth century, and of a large part of the eighteenth, stand the brick and the stone piles of the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. The old has given place to the new. In the vicinity of those cities there is a fair hunting-field although “modern improvement” has in many instances converted charming old houses into architectural jumbles seldom pleasing and often little short of offensive. Very much the same is true of a number of smaller cities such as Northampton, Holyoke, New London, and Haverhill. A somewhat larger restriction appears in the distinction between the northern and southern portions of the region. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had a long start, more than a hundred years, over Vermont and all except a small area of New Hampshire and of Maine. It was not until after the French and Indian War, finally terminated by the Treaty of Paris in 1763, that more than a mere corner of those States was safe for settlers.

On the other hand, certain places are found to be of notable fruitfulness. Connecticut has several such centres, including Guilford, Farmington, Windsor, Litchfield, and Wethersfield. Rhode Island has Warren, Bristol, Wickford, and others. Massachusetts has Concord and Lexington, Ipswich, Deerfield and Hadley, and a few more. With the exception of Farmington and Litchfield, in both of which the “mansion house,” or “near mansion house,” type is prominent, the old-time houses in these places were the homes of those of comparatively limited but still comfortable income. It is the hunt for houses of that class that really affords the greatest pleasure and interest. The hunter never knows where he may come upon a building that will make a notable addition to his collection. As a matter of fact, however, only a part of them are worth collecting. Age may not be the only determining factor in the hunter’s interest. Without a second glance, I have passed many houses that were undoubtedly well along toward the end of their second century. What is the hunter’s test for his collection? Naturally, that varies with the individual taste or special purpose of the hunter. Not long ago I made an excursion through a fruitful region with an architect. Had time permitted, he would have spent hours, with rule and note-book, measuring and recording details of houses at which I did not care to point a camera. Mere age might be the standard for some; grace of line and charm of proportion for others; while for others, perhaps including myself, selection would be determined mainly by what may be called the “picture quality.” To those of the latter class appeal might be made by a house of no particular architectural merit, but of respectable age, if it stood under the shade of a sweeping elm or was flanked by noble maples. To others the history of a house may be the feature of interest. Did Washington or Lafayette sleep in it? Was it the birthplace or the sometime home of a distinguished soldier in the Revolutionary War? Did any notable person ever live in it or stay in it? Just that is the charm of hunting for old houses. The search presents so many sides, so many different lines of interest. Not the least of these is in being outdoors in a land of hills and valleys and running streams, of singing birds and wayside flowers.

How old must a house be to come properly into the class of “old houses”? As a rule, not less than a hundred years. Of course, nothing in this country except the country itself is really old. The term is distinctly relative. The houses that we call “old” are old only in comparison with those of more recent construction. Asking for old houses in some neighborhood then being hunted over, my attention has often been called to houses built about the middle of the nineteenth century, houses with the mansard roof and square tower that prevailed in what has been called the “Iron Dog Period of American Architecture.” Happily, most of the iron dogs, the Dianas, the Apollo Belvederes, and the other cast-iron monstrosities, at one time supposed to be highly effective lawn decorations, have gone to the scrap-heap. No hard and fast rule of age limit can be applied properly, but a century may be adopted as a general standard for another reason than that of time. During the latter part of the first quarter of the nineteenth century there came a marked change in public taste in the matter of architectural style. As that which may be called the Colonial period of American architecture was followed by the several stages of Georgian, so were they, about 1820, followed by an enthusiasm for the Classic. While this is most clearly shown in a number of familiar public buildings, its influence extended to private residences and is easily recognized. The transition from the later Georgian to the Classic produced some of the best designs in the entire range of American architecture, represented, in part, by the work of such men as Bulfinch and McIntire. Following them, though with more leaning to the Classic and less to the Georgian, came Latrobe, Hoban, Strickland, and others, whose work stands to-day distinguished for its combination of grace and dignity.

But all this matter of styles and periods has little to do with the homes in which the great majority of the early New Englanders spent their lives. The extent of exterior decoration, for most of them, went no further than a more or less elaborate front doorway, and many had not even that. Throughout New England may be found to-day hundreds of houses, plain, one or two-story rectangular boxes with sloping covers. They vary in size, in the proportions of height to width in both front and side elevations, and in the angle of the roof. Some have passed their second century—and show it. Many are well preserved and, as far as their physical appearance is concerned, give no sign of their antiquity except to the trained eye, and even that is sometimes deceived. They are rejuvenated, in outward show, by shingles, clapboards, paint, new doors, and new window-sashes. Not infrequently, they look quite as modern as their fifty-year-old neighbors. Sometimes, too, even the fairly expert eye is misled by a modern house built in imitation of an old one. Still more deceptive are those that have been skilfully restored during recent years. For the increasing number of these expert restorations, let us be properly thankful. They include not only recovery from dilapidation, and even from wreck, but, as well, the displacement of the various abominations attached, notably within the last hundred years, with a lamentably mistaken notion of “improving the property.”

Brick and stone, for house-building, came into use in a limited way at an early date. There is a fairly supported account of a brick house built in Boston in 1638, and there seems to be no reason to doubt that bricks were made in Salem as early as 1629, about a year after the arrival of Endicott. The two-story stone house, known as the Whitfield house, in Guilford, Conn., dates from 1639. This structure has been bought by the State and “restored.” Somewhat unfortunately, perhaps, its restoration and the concealment of its walls and lines behind a mass of vines rob it of the external evidences of its age.

Many of the old two-story houses show the second-story “overhang” that Doctor Holmes said was a device that enabled the occupants of the house to shoot directly down at Indians who might be “knocking at the front door with their tomahawks.” That is a picturesque but quite inaccurate explanation of that particular feature of early New England architecture. It may, at times, have served for that purpose, but it was, in fact, merely a transplanted system of house carpentry common enough in the England from which came the builders, who naturally followed in the new land the methods with which they were familiar in the old land. That the custom was of mechanical and not of military origin has been amply proven by architects and antiquarians. This “overhang” varies in width but in the majority of cases is only a few inches. Sometimes it appears only on the front of the house, the projection at the rear being hidden by the roof line of the “lean-to.” Somewhat less frequently it appears at the ends of the house as well as on the front. Not infrequently, on two-story houses, a second “overhang” appears at the eaves line on the end of the house. Here and there a house shows a wide overhang ornamented with pendants, as in the case of the Whitman house in Farmington, Conn., and the Brown house in Hamilton, Mass. The old bakery in Salem, the Porter house in Hadley, and a number of others have brackets under the overhang.

These old houses may be divided, broadly, into four groups, the difference being marked by the roof. One group includes the buildings, whether of one or two stories, with sloping roof of equal length in front and back, mere rectangular boxes of varying size and proportions, with a doubly sloping cover. These are commonly known as “gable” or “pitch” roof houses. Not a few of this type show an attached ell, but in most cases, if not in all, this is a later addition. A second group shows the “lean-to” with the extension of the roof line in the rear. While much more common to houses of two stories in front, the long back roof appears occasionally on houses of a single story. A third group includes the “gambrels.” In his poem, “Parson Turell’s Legacy,” Doctor Holmes gives the origin of the term:

“‘Gambrel?—Gambrel?’ Let me beg
You’ll look at a horse’s hinder leg,—
First great angle above the hoof,—
That’s the gambrel; hence gambrel-roof.”

I am not prepared to say whether this is reliable information or a product of the genial autocrat’s fertile imagination. But old houses with gambrel-roof are abundant in New England. The form is used in quaint cottages and in stately mansions like the “Dorothy Q” house in Quincy and a number of others. The design appears to have been borrowed from the Dutch, but it was used in New England as early as the last quarter of the seventeenth century. While the use of the dormer-window, common enough in the South, was unusual in the North, it is of frequent occurrence on houses with the gambrel roof, both one and two-storied. But there is a material and not fully explained difference between the New England gambrel and its prototype. The latter is quite the more graceful. Its upper slope is much shorter and its lower slope less steep than is the New England roof. While grace is lost, the New Englander gained in area of headroom in what was, in effect, a second story. The fourth group consists of the pyramidal type or “hip” roof, usually square boxes with the roof sloping from the four sides to a common centre. This also shows variations in roof angle as related to the wall of the house. Also, while in many cases the four slopes met at a central peak, or stopped at the walls of a large central chimney, in many other cases they terminated at the edge of a flat platform around which, frequently if not usually, a low railing or fencing was built.

In all of these general groups there are variations and modifications. There is occasionally found, in the first group, a variation that is sometimes called the “sliced gable” in which the sharp angle of the gable is cut away diagonally and a short roof slope takes its place. This type belongs properly in the hip-roof class. I recall no such exception in the “lean-to” group, but in the other three there are variations in which the upper part of the roof would seem to have been cut away and its place taken by the flat platform, usually railed. This is generally known as the “captain’s walk.” It is most common in the coast cities, and its origin is said to be found in the use of the platform as a lookout over the harbor by shipmasters or ship-owners occupying the house. Occasionally one will see a house, one or two-storied, of the conventional sloping-roof type, with one or more dormer-windows. It is probable, however, that in most cases these were of later addition.

One of the variations in the hip-roof type appears in what is sometimes called the “monitor,” a windowed superstructure of much too great an area to be regarded as a cupola. A variation of the gable roof is occasionally encountered in southeastern Massachusetts. It is known as the “rainbow.” The roof, from ridge-pole to eaves, instead of following a straight line, is slightly convex, thus making a few additional inches of headroom inside. An interesting variation of type, unusual rather than rare, is the so-called “jut-by,” in which the rear half of the house, sometimes of gable type and sometimes of the gambrel, extends several feet beyond the front half.

In most of the books dealing with early American architecture there appears an effort to classify the structures by periods. To most of us any house a hundred or more years old is “Colonial,” and any house of later date, if it has an ornamental doorway, or columns or pilasters from ground to eaves, is of “Colonial” design. Some specialists employ a specific political grouping, thus: the Colonial, from the beginning until 1692; the Provincial, from 1692 until the Revolution; and the Federal, from that time until the Classic period, about 1820. Others divide by groups marked by distinct features of technical details. Still others use, broadly: the Colonial from the beginning until the Revolution; then the Georgian until the Classic. For all the purposes of that vast majority of the inexpert, it seems to me desirable only that we do not confuse the Colonial type with the Georgian, and there is no date at which we may fix, even approximately, a dividing line. The strictly Colonial type, represented by all except a very small number of the houses of the seventeenth century, persisted throughout the eighteenth and well into the nineteenth. It was the oblong building, of one or two stories, with gable roof, with or without the lean-to. It was of the utmost simplicity. Very few of the seventeenth century houses had even an ornamental doorway. The porch, portico, veranda, and bay window were all devices of a much later period. Few, if any, were even painted.

The so-called Georgian period had its beginning, broadly, about the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Although the French, from Canada, with their Indian allies raided York, Maine, in 1691, Haverhill in 1697 and again in 1708, and Deerfield in 1704, while in 1675 and 1676 the Wampanoags and the Narragansetts swept through Massachusetts, leaving thirteen towns in ashes, and bringing fire and slaughter to forty other towns, it was felt that there was no longer serious danger of further attack, particularly in the larger coast towns. By that time, also, there were a considerable number of men who were, for their time, wealthy. Such, naturally, desired something more commodious and more ornate in the matter of residences. To that the simple Colonial type did not readily lend itself. My investigations lead me to a belief that elaboration in house architecture began with gambrel-roofed houses of much larger size than those formerly erected, and that this was followed by and largely gave place to the imposing and dignified “three-deckers” of Salem, Portsmouth, Portland, and Providence, where the best types of Georgian architecture in New England are to be found. A few good examples can be seen elsewhere, but there is nothing better than those in the cities mentioned.

In referring to houses of the strictly Colonial type, I have once or twice used the term “rectangular boxes with variously sloping covers.” They were no more than that. Wherein, then, lies their charm? for charm they undoubtedly have in many cases. It is to be sought in two directions, in accuracy of proportions and in the setting of the house. The proportions are determined by an almost exact relation of height to width and of relation of door and window openings to each other and to the house as a whole. A proper adjustment of height to width was possible because the occupants were content with low ceilings. High ceilings came somewhat later in the cities and still later in the country, but they came in larger houses in which the relation of height to width could be and was maintained. No finer proportions in house construction can be found than those of many an old “three-decker” in Salem, Providence, and elsewhere, or in stately gambrel-roofed houses that may be seen scattered through the country. The old-time cottages were low, measuring from ground to eaves, but they suggest coseyness and comfort rather than “squattiness.” Put one of those little houses under an overshadowing elm, run a vine about its entrance, plant a few shrubs and flowers in its front yard, and it nestles there challenging attention and admiration. The elms and the maples, as external house decorations, supplemented by roses and lilacs, are distinct features in the New England landscape.

In a class quite distinct from that referred to in the foregoing comment stand the more imposing houses, the best types of which are to be found in or not far from the coast cities. Among those who came to the new land were some who, for the period, might be regarded as rich. They and others made money after they came. They were, most of them, ship-builders, ship-owners, and merchants engaged in oversea commerce. In the last quarter of the seventeenth century a few of these wealthy citizens built houses on what was then, in this country, a colossal scale. All, I believe, are now gone, but they were represented by such houses as that built in Boston in 1679 by Peter Sergeant, merchant. The building was afterward known as the Province House, having been bought in 1716 by the Province of Massachusetts Bay as an official residence for the royal governors.[A] Years afterward it became a tavern and later on a theatre. Others of this class were the Cotton Mather house on Hanover Street and the Foster-Hutchinson house on Garden Court. All of these were in Boston.

[A] See Hawthorne’s Legends of the Province House.

At the end of the first hundred years of settlement and activity there were in New England a considerable number of men possessed of substantial fortunes. Others were rapidly acquiring fortunes. Some of them did as do men of wealth to-day—they built large and more or less elaborately ornate houses. Andrew Faneuil built one in Boston in 1709, and in the same place William Clark built about the year 1713 and Thomas Hancock built in 1737. All of these are gone. Survivals of the period, however, may be found in the Dummer house (1715) in Byfield, the Warner house (1723) in Portsmouth, and the Royall house (1732) in Medford. Most of the houses of this class were three-storied, flat-topped structures if in the city, while those in the country were largely of the two-storied and gambrel-roofed type. But the gable roof, as shown by the Dummer house, was also represented. More and more of the “mansion houses” came in the last half of the eighteenth century, and many remain for our admiration to-day.

Not all of these “mansion” or “semi-mansion” houses were built of brick, nor were all located in the coast cities. There were three-story wooden houses and, of the same material, large two-story houses surmounted by gambrel roofs with dormer-windows. In the latter group are several houses in Litchfield, the Ropes house in Salem, the Dickinson house in Hadley, and numerous others variously located. As already stated, the best in American house architecture remains from the successive stages of the so-called Georgian period. But it is represented only in part by the “mansion” type and only in part by the buildings along the coast. The inland cities and towns have their many homes of a comfortable, well-to-do group of farmers and traders. I know of no larger or better field for buildings of this class than the Naugatuck valley, in Connecticut, and its immediate neighborhood. There were still the many who built their little one-story houses with gable roof or gambrel and others who could afford a larger house, plain and substantial, usually of timber construction, although stone or brick structures are not infrequent.

Broadly, then, the era of development in American architecture had its beginning in the early years of the eighteenth century. Prior to that the type was simple and the building plain. The development was slow in its beginning, here and there a house that exceeded its neighbors in size and in the building of which some attention was given to ornamentation by doorway and window trim. The change from the simple type of the seventeenth century had its origin at the top. A wealthy man built a mansion. His well-to-do neighbor followed and built according to his means. A pace was set for all classes. The much greater wealth and the greater number of the wealthy made possible in the last half and more particularly in the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth the erection of houses that in grace and grandeur somewhat overshadowed the efforts of the earlier generations. As the Dummer house and the Warner house outclassed their neighbors in their day, so the Dodge-Shreve (1817) and the Andrew-Safford (1818) houses in Salem, the Ives (1799) and the Gammell (1786) houses in Providence, the Lee house in Marblehead, and various others, outclassed the Dummer and the Warner buildings. Architecturally, there was an upward movement all through the eighteenth century. Yet, while we may look with all respect and admiration upon the stately mansions of Salem, Providence, and other cities, it is, after all, the old-time house or cottage, with its bit of shrubbery and garden and its flanking elms and maples, that most pleases our eyes and most warms our hearts.

Every old house has its history. In most cases it is not a history of public men or public events. It is only a record of generation after generation of simple human lives with their joys and sorrows, their little romances and little tragedies. Probably, few of us ever see the inside of these old houses. Usually, in a quiet and unostentatious fashion, the occupants are very proud of their possessions. Often the house has been kept in the family generation after generation, each adding to the collection of furniture, crockery, silverware and pewter, portraits and house equipment. My evident interest in the outside of some old house has repeatedly led to an invitation to inspect its interior, and many a pleasant hour has been so spent. Not infrequently the elaborate beauty of an interior trim, of mantels and door-casing, does not correspond with the simplicity of the exterior. Writing upon that point, an observer has declared that this lack of correspondence between the external and the internal “reflects the outward reserve and restraint of New England character, a reserve, however, that often melts into cordial geniality under the favoring auspices of a close acquaintance.” I recall a delightful hour with a dear old soul, of perhaps seventy-five years of age, who, somewhat stiffly at first, asked me to come in. In a few minutes she had warmed herself and roused me to a fair pitch of enthusiasm over her old house, with furniture that had come down from father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, with old family portraits, with mantels of beautiful design and carving, and a general assortment of old, family treasures. So do I recall another delightful hour with a charming young chatelaine whose house, with all its contents, including herself, I would gladly have carried away bodily had it been possible.

Too frequently the old equipment of the old house is divided among heirs, until the place is almost stripped and the rooms left bare and desolate, tenanted, perhaps, only by a maiden aunt or by some thriftless descendant with a dowdy wife. This stripping by division is common enough, but the occupants of the country houses are usually of good New England stock, and there is at least comfort and an air of home in the best meaning of the word. A few potted plants on the window-sill, and a cat of the kind described by Mark Twain, in Pudd’nhead Wilson, as “a well-fed, well-petted, and properly revered cat,” are simple but effective contributions to the making of a country home. The value of the cat, as a feature in home-making, is enhanced if there is a braided rug for it to lie upon in front of the fireplace. Somehow, the braided rug, made from cast-off garments, seems to fit admirably into the scheme of the interior of the old-time house, although it usually looks out of place elsewhere. It harmonizes with its environment and so fulfils a fundamental law of decoration.

It is to the taste and skill of carpenters, rather than to architects, that we are indebted for the grace and the charm of these old-time dwellings. Mr. Eberlein, an architect-author, in his book on The Architecture of Colonial America, says of them that “we shall not be far wrong in ascribing seventeenth century buildings, almost without exception, to the capable and resourceful craftsman who not only preserved conscientiously the traditions he had learned as an apprentice or journeyman in the mother country, and faithfully perpetuated them by his practice as a master carpenter or joiner in a new land, but also showed himself possessed of ready wit and keen perceptive faculties by the alacrity with which he modified and adapted traditional methods and precedents to new conditions and requirements of climate and environment. Furthermore, these early workmen showed an all-round mastery of their craft. They respected their calling and took a proper pride in the excellence of their craftsmanship. Hence, the work of their hands, however plain and simple, still possesses a dignity and honest beauty that plainly proclaim how they put their hearts into what they were doing and, at the same time, commands our reverence and admiration.”

Of the same class in the eighteenth century, to whom we owe much of the work of that period, the same writer says: “The master carpenter of the eighteenth century was infinitely more capable than the average artisan of like rank to-day. He was not only a skilled master mechanic, competent to translate rough drafts and sketches into carefully prepared working drawings, but he was also a person of some architectural education and taste and endowed with a nice perception of architectural merits and proprieties.”

These were the men who, for the first two hundred years of life in New England, built the homes of the people. Little of their work remains in the cities, but much still stands in the villages and in country regions, monuments to an instructive past and charming features in a picturesque landscape.

PLATES

Providence, Rhode Island

Ives House, 1799

Providence, Rhode Island

Gammell House, 1786

Lexington, Massachusetts.
The house in which Samuel Adams and John Hancock were asleep when aroused by Paul Revere

Ipswich, Massachusetts

Brown House

Ipswich, Massachusetts

Whipple House

Winchendon, Massachusetts

Concord, Massachusetts

The Orchard House, Home of the Alcotts

Monson, Massachusetts

Newbury, Massachusetts

Short House, 1717

Andover, Massachusetts

Abbott House, 1685

Quincy, Massachusetts

Dorothy Q. House

Chelmsford, Massachusetts

Spaulding House

Boxford, Massachusetts

Lexington, Massachusetts

Munroe Tavern, 1695

Acushnet, Massachusetts

Hadley, Massachusetts

Dickinson House

Dedham, Massachusetts

Fairbanks House, 1636

Salem, Massachusetts

Ropes House, 1719

Southwick, Massachusetts

Salem, Massachusetts

Dodge-Shreve House, 1817

North Woburn, Massachusetts

Birthplace of Count Rumford

Billerica, Massachusetts

Manning Manse, 1696

Colrain, Massachusetts

Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

Judge Artemas Ward House

Bedford, Massachusetts

Ipswich, Massachusetts
Caldwell House, High Street, before 1650

Deerfield, Massachusetts

Portland, Maine

Wiscasset, Maine

Edgecomb, Maine

Rufus Sewall House

Concord, New Hampshire

Nashua, New Hampshire

Woods House, 1658

Stratford, New Hampshire

Norwich Town, Connecticut

Guilford, Connecticut

Windsor, Connecticut

Windsor, Connecticut
Judge Oliver Ellsworth House

East Windsor Hill, Connecticut

Clinton, Connecticut, 1789

Old Mystic, Connecticut

Litchfield, Connecticut

Litchfield, Connecticut

Tallmadge House, 1775

Rocky Hill, Connecticut

South Windham, Connecticut

Southbury, Connecticut, 1785

Hadlyme, Connecticut

South Lyme, Connecticut

East Lyme, Connecticut

East Lyme, Connecticut

South Lyme, Connecticut

Middletown, Connecticut

Norwich Town, Connecticut

Nut Plains, Connecticut

Chelmsford, Massachusetts

Middlesex County, Massachusetts

North Woburn, Massachusetts

Laommi Baldwin House

Hadley, Massachusetts

Porter House, 1713

Pembroke, Massachusetts, 1766

Wells, Maine

Danvers, Massachusetts
Rebecca Nourse House, 1636, front

Danvers, Massachusetts
Rebecca Nourse House, 1636, rear

Tyngsboro, Massachusetts

Lincoln, Massachusetts Hartwell House, 1639

Southampton, Massachusetts

South Windsor, Connecticut

Westminster, Massachusetts

Georgetown, Massachusetts

Deerfield, Massachusetts
Nims House, north end and west front

Deerfield, Massachusetts
Nims House, rear from the southeast

Deerfield, Massachusetts

Allen House, north end

Deerfield, Massachusetts

Allen House, south end

Deerfield, Massachusetts
Samson-Frary House, west front

Deerfield, Massachusetts
Samson-Frary House, south front

Ipswich, Massachusetts

Emerson House, 1648

Groton, Massachusetts

Newbury, Massachusetts
Tappan House, 1697, south front

Newbury, Massachusetts
Tappan House, 1697, west end

Westport, Massachusetts

Georgetown, Massachusetts

Fryeburg, Maine

Stratford, New Hampshire

Lyme, Connecticut

New Bedford, Massachusetts

South Windsor, Connecticut

Southampton, Massachusetts

Madison, Connecticut

East front

Madison, Connecticut

South front

Woodbury, Connecticut

Middlebury, Connecticut

Niantic, Connecticut

Lee House, west end

Niantic, Connecticut

Lee House, east end

Essex, Connecticut

South end

Essex, Connecticut

West front

Byfield, Massachusetts

Dummer House, 1715

East Windsor Hill, Connecticut

Southington, Connecticut

Georgetown, Massachusetts

Brockelbank House

Transcriber’s Notes

Perceived typographical errors have been silently corrected.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OLD NEW ENGLAND HOUSES ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

- OLD NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
- PLATES
- OLD NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
- PLATES
- Transcriber’s Notes
- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE