History of American Architecture

The University of Chicago Press and Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Winterthur Portfolio.

http://www.jstor.org

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival: The Modern Colonial House, 1900-1920 Author(s): Bridget A. May Source: Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 26, No. 2/3 (Summer - Autumn, 1991), pp. 107-122 Published by: on behalf of the The University of Chicago Press Henry Francis du Pont

Winterthur Museum, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1181384 Accessed: 04-05-2015 05:38 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1181384?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival The Modern Colonial House, 1900-1920o

Bridget A. May

ALMOST FROM ITS INCEPTION in the

second half of the nineteenth century, the colonial revival has been a popular and

pervasive mode in the United States. The first two decades of the twentieth century marked its accep- tance as the style of choice by many Americans, particularly those of the middle class. Many houses were built and furnished in the colonial fashion. A design aesthetic specific to it was developed by its advocates and was in place by 1900. As with any style, many influences were present. The two most dominant were, obviously, colonial traditions and, surprisingly, characteristics that were an out- growth of progressivism, a social and political re- form movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This movement, like the colo- nial revival, formulated its own aesthetics based on the attitudes and concerns of its adherents. These concepts, which could be applied to any style, were manifest in middle-class home design and plan- ning by 1900.1 Progressive influence was evident in colonial-style homes featured in contemporary literature and was nearly always discussed in light of its origin in and relationship to colonial anteced- ents known at the time.

The adoption of progressive tenets into the co- lonial revival produced homes that writers of the period designated "Modern Colonial."2 Although seemingly an oxymoron, the term is an accurate description of colonial-style houses depicted in popular decorating literature of the early twenti- eth century. The combination of colonial revival and progressive design goals and characteristics helped to broaden the appeal of these houses dur- ing this period. Many middle- and upper-middle- class Americans adopted the colonial style because it conformed to their needs and desires. This pa- per explores the influence of progressivism on the colonial revival style as depicted in decorating books and periodicals directed toward the middle class. The two movements shared similarities in philosophy and aesthetics. Throughout the discus- sion, the terms progressivism and progressive will be used for the attitudes and aesthetic principles adopted by the reformers who were concerned about the middle-class home and who used such decorating periodicals as House Beautiful and House and Garden to disseminate their doctrines of change. Colonial revival and colonial revivalists will be used to refer to those architects, decorators, dil- ettantes, and magazine editors and writers who advocated adopting the forms and aesthetics of American homes built before 1840. They, too, spread their tenets in middle-class decorating literature.

The progressive movement was a widespread effort among Americans to achieve change in busi- ness, politics and government, and society itself.

Bridget A. May is an assistant professor in the Department of Textiles, Merchandising, and Interiors, the University of Georgia.

The author thanks William R. Chapman, associate profes- sor in the School of Environmental Design, the University of Georgia, for his advice and guidance throughout this study and his many reviews of the manuscript and Theresa A. Perenich, head of the Department of Textiles, Merchandising, and Interi- ors, for her encouragement and support. 1 See, for example, "Correspondence," House Beautiful 8, no. 6 (November 1900): 705-7. Gwendolyn Wright, Moralism and the Model Home (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 234.

? 1991 by The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Inc. All rights reserved. 00oo84-0416/91 /2623-0001 $3.00

2A first use of the term was in Virginia Robie, "The City of Homes: Some Buffalo Houses," House Beautiful 16, no. 2 (July 1904): 9. By the end of the period, most literature that discussed the colonial style was using it.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

o108 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

Beginning in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and continuing during the first seventeen years of the twentieth, it produced a host of re- forms in many areas of American life in response to problems inherent in industrialization, urban- ization, and ethnic tension. Members of the move- ment sought to better various social and political institutions, including the middle-class home. As a result, a "substantially new ideal form for the middle-class house and family life" was created "during the first three decades of the twentieth century."3

Calls for change came from architects, builders, decorators, feminists, and home economists who believed that American homes harbored problems severe enough to threaten social order. They maintained, however, that rational, humanly con- ceived solutions were possible. Agreeing that the home played a crucial role in people's lives, these reformers claimed that problems in society could be ameliorated by reorganizing the domestic envi- ronment. Although they thought that the need for change was critical, it was not pressing enough to require discarding all that had gone before. Rather, their goal was to improve that which they considered deleterious. The movement, like all movements, was a mixture of contradictions and paradoxes. Old and new ideas coexisted, and reviv- als could flourish with drive toward change.

Progressives who were concerned about the home developed a new aesthetic that rejected the elaborations and complexities of the recent past and replaced them with minimalism that empha- sized function and efficiency. Many ideas had been discussed in the 189os, but by 1900 shared con- cepts were apparent in both writings and build- ing practices. This new aesthetic was a reaction to all that progressives believed was wrong with nineteenth-century housing. At its heart was a ve- hement disdain for the forms and designs of the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Progressives sharply criticized homes from this period as lack- ing consistency and a rational aesthetic. They also stereotyped them as too ornate and gaudy, ineffi- cient, and wasteful of space. Furthermore, pro- gressives thought that most houses were cheaply constructed to increase size and that rooms were decorated to impress rather than meet the needs of the family. Some were convinced that the clut- tered rooms and elaborate furnishings typical dur- ing the period threatened good health. By the turn

of the century, reformers, who called themselves progressives to emphasize their forward-looking views, had mounted a crusade to rationalize, reor- ganize, and modernize the middle-class home.4

Four design principles formed the foundation of the new aesthetic: simplicity, honesty, natural- ness, and organic unity. In themselves, they were not new, but advocates gave them a fresher, more progressive interpretation. These principles were easily applied to and assimilated with current twentieth-century home styles, including the colo- nial. Other progressive influences generally evi- dent in house construction by the turn of the cen- tury were the use of new technology and materials, smaller homes with fewer rooms and more open floor plans, emphasis on efficient and hygienic kitchens and bathrooms, and homes that were more alike in plan and appearance.5

Simplicity was the fundamental principle of the new aesthetic. Vigorously advocated for all early twentieth-century homes, it was offered as an anti- dote for nineteenth-century complexity and clut- ter. Progressives defined simplicity as clean lines, flat surfaces, and uncomplicated outlines for houses and furnishings; it included the elimination of superfluous spaces and the reduction of orna- mentation, objects, and materials. Efficiency and function in interior planning were stressed and ac- companied by such terms as rational, regular, and comfortable."

Inherent in the principle was a corresponding simplification of life. Progressives thought that a more modest life-style was therapeutic against the negative effects of overworking, overcrowding, and overburdening of modern industrial life. They urged members of the middle class to adopt the new manner of living, which included discrimi- nating consumption, elimination of clutter, per- sonal contentment, aesthetic simplicity, and a pref- erence for rural over urban ways.' Advocates of

3 Clifford Clark, Jr., The American Family Home, 18oo-196o0 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), p. 143.

4 Wright, Moralism and the Model Home, p. 234; Clark, Ameri- can Family Home, pp. 143-44; Walter T. K. Nugent, From Cen- tennial to World War: American Society, 1876-1917 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977), p. 117.

5 Clark, American Family Home, pp. 131-70; Wright, Mor- alism and the Model Home, pp. 234-35. For examples of these

design principles applied to other revival styles, see Walter A. Dyer, "An Italian House in New England," House and Garden 28, no. 1 (July 1915): 11-14, 2; Carroll M. Bill, "Principal Rooms of a House in the English Style," House Beautiful 23, no. 4 (March 1908): 28; and Margaret Craig, "A Spanish Adaptation," House

Beautiful 38, no. 2 (July 1915): 36-37.

6 Clark, American Family Home, pp. 146-47.

7 David E. Shi, The Simple Life: Plain Living and High Think- ing in American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 176.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival 109

colonial revival architecture also embraced these same ideals, equating them as characteristics of the best of life in colonial times.

Honesty, the second principle of the progres- sive aesthetic, meant allowing the natural fea- tures of materials to assert themselves. Deco- ration was to come from inherent colors and textures rather than applied ornament.8 Advo- cates considered truthfulness extremely impor- tant; therefore, shams or imitations were not ac- ceptable. Progressives asserted that people had a moral responsibility to select honest materials and furnishings for their homes and maintained that honest environments created truthful and virtuous individuals who would, in turn, cause a more upright modern society. Faith in the power of environments to influence inhabitants was a char- acteristic of nineteenth-century thought that pro- gressives embraced. Likewise, advocates of the colonial revival believed that the domestic environ- ment affected people, and they maintained that honesty was inherent in true colonial houses and furnishings.

Progressives rejected the nineteenth-century view of nature as the source of divine inspiration. For them, naturalness symbolized plain truth and hard reality. They regarded nature as tough and the elements as dangerous; thus, a good house had to be strong to protect its inhabitants. Naturalness was no longer an expression of the complexity and color of nature as in the nineteenth century; it was now evident in plain, straightforward homes that were solidly constructed.9 Colonial revivalists agreed; one aspect of many that they admired in the true colonial was the strong, enduring fabrica- tion of its structures.

Finally, the fourth principle was organic unity, which meant that a home was stylistically consistent and properly suited to its site.10 The heterogeneity of recent decades was spurned. To counteract the lack of consistency and rational design of the late nineteenth century, progressives insisted that sev- eral styles should not be combined in the home; they deemed one style, set by the exterior, better. Nor did they find it acceptable to decorate each room in a different fashion. This fourth principle was particularly important for suburban houses; they needed to conform to their sites and harmo- nize with other homes in the neighborhood. Colo-

nial revivalists advocated unity also, but as charac- teristic of true colonial design.

Proponents of progressivism and advocates of colonial revival architecture were seeking to bring back a time that was thought to be distinguished by "plain living, high thinking, and sober acting." For colonial revivalists, the colonial period was just such a time-quieter, stabler, and more peaceful. Then, people had been more admirable and life worth living. The longing for past and better times was a response to modernization, which had brought major transformations to America. Some changes, such as developments in appliances and mechanical systems for the home, were positive. Others, such as the anonymity of cities or the in- flux of immigrants, were negative. Evoking a time that was seemingly less complex, more secure, and, therefore, superior was one means of responding to change."

This yearning for the past was strengthened because living the simple life, as expounded by progressives and colonial revivalists, required re- newing contact with nature and choosing rural over urban ways. This also was not new. Americans have had a long tradition of preferring the bucolic life because their nation was "born in the country and has moved to the city."'2 In addition, during the second half of the nineteenth century, as more people crowded into the cities, the more nostalgic the notion of a rustic past became. The colonial revival, with its ties to the most rural period of the country, was ideally qualified to fulfill these desires.

The nostalgia associated with colonial life was evident in early twentieth-century decorating liter- ature. For example, in 1902 a House Beautiful au- thor wrote, "How old [colonial] doors cry out to us with the voices of the past! ... [I]t takes but a slight stretch of the imagination to look past the yellow decay of the present and to summon up a brilliant past; to people the grand stairway with a merry company of belles and beaux arrayed in all the splendor of a well-nigh forgotten century."'"

Such prose invoked visions of a wonderful past. These images gained power from their association

8 Clark, American Family Home, pp. 150-51.

9 Clark, American Family Home, p. 151; Wright, Moralism and the Model Home, pp. 26-28.

10 Clark, American Family Home, p. 151.

" Alan Gowans, The Comfortable House: North American Sub- urban Architecture, 1890o-93o (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986), p. 9; Kenneth L. Ames, Introduction to The Colonial Revival in America, ed. Alan Axelrod (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), pp. 10-13.

12 Shi, Simple Life, p. 3; Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Re- form from Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955), Pp. 23-24.

13 Harvey Peake, "Old Doors and Fan-lights," House Beauti- ful 13, no. 1 (December 1902): 49-

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

110 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

with the founding of the country, ancestral homes, and a strong family life-what many middle-class members regarded as the foundations of Ameri- can life, values, and institutions. Symbolically, these cornerstones were represented by true colo- nial houses, interiors, and furniture. Because upper- and middle-class dominance was being threatened in various ways, these cornerstones be- came all the more precious. By resorting to bygone modes, these groups strove to preserve their sense of the nation's beginnings, to maintain traditions, and to make the present less threatening.

Like progressives, colonial revivalists rejected the aesthetics of the immediate past. Early twen- tieth-century writers criticized most nineteenth- century interpretations of the colonial for lacking "simplicity" and "restraint" and for having "too much ornament." They contended that although the style had "Colonial details," it did not produce a "Colonial effect." Early twentieth-century writers believed that these deficiencies had occurred be- cause the designers had either lacked understand- ing of the original forms and aesthetics or had painstakingly copied it; they equally disdained both. But now, as architect Ralph Adams Cram insisted, there was in the colonial style "a keen and sympathetic laying hold of the very heart of things, an actual thinking in terms of the style and after the very fashion of its creators."'14 Colonial revival- ists saw themselves as stylistic reformers, using both progressive principles and their creativity and superior knowledge of the colonial to do so. They wanted to produce something new and uniquely American.

The rejection of the immediate and recent past led colonial revivalists to idealize the distant past. They viewed the colonial era as a golden age and believed its homes and furnishings possessed ex- cellent design qualities absent in more recent times. The attitude of ardent colonial enthusiast Mary H. Northend illustrates this well. "Colonial is synonymous of the best," she wrote, "and objects created during its influence are always of a higher degree of perfection than the best of other peri- ods, . . . [and] surely of all types it is the most worthy of emulation." Therefore, colonial propo- nents turned to elements of the idealized past to create the positive home environments advocated by progressives who maintained that the "environ-

ment shaped individuals, families, communities, and, by accumulation, the larger society." Thus, poor home conditions created a host of modern problems, the solution to which began with chang- ing domestic surroundings. Among the qualities that colonial proponents wanted to incorporate into the modern home were "beauty of propor- tion," "sobriety," "fitness," and "the restraint and subtlety of their [colonial] models."'5

A final progressive tenet shared by colonial re- vivalists was a faith in experts. Just as progressives had confidence in the ability of authorities to pre- scribe solutions to social problems, particularly those involving the home, colonial revivalists also believed in the efficacy of experts to achieve well-designed homes. Their definition of a well- planned home included progressive principles, such as simplicity, which were somewhat easy, even for novices, to accomplish. A more important goal of the style and one not easily attained was captur- ing the "spirit" or essence of the true colonial in a modern residence. Merely copying an old house did not produce the colonial spirit. Rather, an in- nate sense of design, specialized training, experi- ence, and extensive study of the best examples of the past were required to achieve this goal. Au- thorities, such as William B. Bragdon, who wrote a three-part series describing characteristics of co- lonial architecture for House and Garden in 1917, insisted that these qualities were "seldom possessed except by a professional architect." Likewise, the furnishing of the colonial-style house benefited from expert advice in the opinions of colonial re- vivalists. They maintained that period decoration was successful only when created by those, such as professional decorators, who knew and appreci- ated historical precedents.'6 This emphasis on the services of architects and interior decorators also reflects the general trend of increasing profession- alization within the design fields and the middle class itself.

As simplicity was the foundational principle of the progressive life-style and aesthetic, so was it the same in the colonial revival of the early twentieth

14 Jean Hamilton, "A Perfect Colonial House," House Beauti- ful 17, no. 3 (February 1905): 1i; Ralph Adams Cram, "The Promise of American Building," House and Garden 29, no. 1 (January 1916): 11.

'15 Mary H. Northend, Colonial Homes and Their Furnishings (Boston: Little, Brown, 1912), pp. 236-37; Wright, Moralism and the Model Home, p. 1; Alexander E. Hoyle, "An Adaptation of a Colonial House," House Beautiful 48, no. 6 (December 1920): 476.

16 Stanley P. Caine, "The Origins of Progressivism," in The Progressive Era, ed. Louis L. Gould (Syracuse: Syracuse Univer- sity Press, 1974), p. '7; George C. Lester, "A Colonial House," House Beautiful 25, no. 4 (March 1909): 8i; William B. Bragdon, "Defining Colonial Architecture: The Colonial Plan," House and Garden 31, no. 6 (June 1917): 49.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival 111

Fig. 1. Residence of Frank T. Staples, Esq., Bridgeport, Conn. From William B. Bragdon, "The Exterior of Colonial Houses," House and Garden 32, no. 1 (July 1917): 23. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Courtesy, HG. ? 1917 [renewed 1945, 1973], The Condo Nast Publications Inc.)

century. Writers emphasized repeatedly that sim- plicity had been characteristic of true colonial de- sign and was a reflection of the colonial era itself.'7 On the exterior of the "modern colonial" house, the principle was evident in an uncomplicated out- line, a single roof, and little applied ornament. A modern colonial house from House and Garden in 1917 exhibits these qualities and is typical of many such middle-class homes illustrated in books and periodicals during the first two decades of the twentieth century (fig. 1).

During the last quarter of the nineteenth cen- tury, many colonial revival houses were large with irregular and complex outlines. The goal of variety in design was achieved with wings, ells, bay win- dows, and other protrusions and a multiplicity of roofs, materials, windows, and applied decoration. By 1900oo many colonial-style homes were simple blocks that were usually symmetrical. Multiple roofs were replaced by a single one; the number of wings and ells was reduced, usually to one on

the rear to accommodate the kitchen and service areas; and less variety in materials, windows, and applied decoration was common. This was, of course, an outgrowth of a better understanding of the true colonial design principles from archaeo- logical research; however, reduction in size and simplification had become necessary in the early twentieth century because of the increase in the costs of materials and construction in new homes and the inclusion of new technology such as heat- ing systems, electricity, and appliances.'8 This house type, which is what the colonial style gener- ally evokes today, was in keeping with the trend among ideal progressive homes as more alike in plan and appearance.

Writers emphasized that while the composition of the colonial-style house should be simple, this "need not imply bareness, poverty of enrichment, or of interesting incident." Following this, modern

17 Herbert C. Wise and H. Ferdinand Beidleman, Colonial Architecture for Those about to Build (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1913), p. 2; Bragdon, "Defining Colonial Architecture," p. 48.

18 Wright, Moralism and the Model Home, pp. 237-38, 336. Construction elements and equipment absent in most homes built before 1890 but present in many of the early twentieth century represented between 25% and 40% of construction costs. A $3,00ooo house in the 1880s had between 2,000 and 2,500 sq. ft., whereas one in 19igo5 had only 1,ooo to 1,500 sq. ft.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

112 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

Fig. 2. A Colonial Home at Oaklane, Pa. From William Draper Brinkloe, "The Possibilities of the Small House: IV, Concerning Colonial Homes," House Beautiful 34, no. 5 (October 1913): 156. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? October 1913, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

colonial houses exhibited a variety of applied orna- ment from simple pediments or aedicula over the front doors to Palladian temple fronts, porticoes, and quoins. Colonial revivalists followed two prin- ciples in the selection and application of decora- tion of the modern colonial house. First, they de- rived all ornament from eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century prototypes to give unity and harmony, and second, they concentrated the deco- ration in the center of the house and on the cornice between wall and roof. Both principles were drawn from past examples, according to Frank E. Wallis, author of several books about colonial houses and furnishings.'

A house that appeared in House Beautiful in

1913 exhibits correctly derived and applied orna- ment (fig. 2). The center is marked by a gable, a Palladian window, and a segmental pediment over the door. It has a modillioned cornice and quoins terminating the composition. The windows with multipaned upper sashes and single-paned lower sashes are a common colonial-style treatment. The side porch and the larger first-floor windows re- flect the early twentieth-century concern for fresh air and ventilation.

Within bounds, colonial revivalists encouraged eclecticism and freedom of interpretation in de- sign. Using the Georgian and federal styles as the main sources of inspiration, architects freely combined elements from both and occasionally reached back to seventeenth-century motifs. Little Holme is an example of a combination that in- cludes earlier characteristics (fig. 3). The steeply pitched roof, the single central chimney, and the

19 Robert C. Spencer, Jr., "Planning the Home: Good and Bad Design," House Beautiful 19, no. 5 (April 190o6): 22; Frank E. Wallis, "What and Why Is Colonial Architecture?" House and Garden 16, no. 6 (December 19go9): 192.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival 113

Fig. 3. Little Holme, residence of Harry B. Little, Concord, Mass., Harry B. Little, architect. From Edward G. Reed, "Little Holme," House Beautiful 4o, no. 4 (September 1916): 186. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? September 1916, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

jettied second story with pendants are frequently associated with the medieval period of architecture in America, while the symmetrical disposition of the sash windows and the pedimented entrance are in the eighteenth-century Georgian tradition. The two-story porch is a twentieth-century feature. Edward G. Reed, writer of the accompanying commentary, praised the architect and owner, Harry B. Little for a "studied and scholarly inter- pretation of the spirit and technique of the pre- Colonial work."'2

Although interpretation was allowed in design, advocates considered truthfulness an essential characteristic. Their models were true colonial houses where materials had been used straightfor- wardly, reflecting the forthright lives of their own- ers. Unlike more recently built houses, earlier ones exhibited a lack of pretense and sham that colonial revivalists viewed as desirable. In addition, they thought that honesty was evinced in Georgian and

federal domestic architecture because the "general arrangement of the interior was exhibited on the exterior," and the main entrance at the center of the house was "marked in some fashion." Colonial revivalists typically interpreted this as a symmetri- cal facade with a central doorway and an even number of windows on either side that reflected the typical double-pile plan. They used fanlights, pediments, or porticoes to accentuate important doorways and to "catch the eye and leave the stranger in no doubt as to where he should apply for admittance.""'

Naturalness was created by the solidity of con- struction of the modern colonial houses, a reflec- tion of their prototypes. Authors claimed that an- cestral houses were sturdy and durable because they had been "built for more than one genera- tion" with "more thought for stability than mere

20 Edward G. Reed, "Little Holme," House Beautiful 4o, no. 4 (September 1916): 185.

21Joseph Everett Chandler, The Colonial House (New York: R. M. McBride, 1916), p. 33; William B. Bragdon, "The Exte- rior of Colonial Houses," House and Garden 32, no. 1 (July 1917): 22; Rose Standish Nichols, "Friendly Doorways," House Beautiful 28, no. 4 (September 1910): 154.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

114 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

outward beauty." To achieve natural modern colo- nial houses, Charles E. White, Jr., Prairie school architect turned colonial revivalist, advised home- owners to "build . . . on typical [modern] New En- gland construction." White was recommending a braced-frame construction, which he believed would "stand wind and weather for a lifetime, something that cannot be said of all houses."22 This directive is evidence of the progressive tendency to characterize the construction of more recently built houses as weak and shoddy.

In the early twentieth century, organic qualities referred to a unity of design. In the colonial re- vival, a designer could readily achieve this unity by following early models in site choice as well as de- sign. Northend claimed that each colonial house had usually been in "harmony with its surround- ings. .. . By selecting the site best suited to their [the colonists'] needs, . . . [it] seemed literally to grow out of the land. . . . The intimacy between house and grounds seems as strong as were the family ties of those hardy pioneers who laid the foundations of American civilization." Some writ- ers stipulated that certain sites required a par- ticular colonial style. For example, Margaret Greenleaf, an editor of House and Garden, thought that "tall trees and the sweep of rolling lawn" were suitable for "Southern Colonial," whereas the "sim- ple lines of New England" meant that they were appropriate for placement "directly on the street." Following local traditions in style and materials was also important. Authorities regarded these as the most appropriate design sources but admitted that the homeowner might reach beyond them. For example, House Beautiful published models of colonial-style houses in Minnesota, Washington, and Indiana.23

The most often illustrated modern colonial floor plan in decorating literature was the double pile, or Georgian. The plan met both progressive and colonial revivalist tenets. It was simple in de-

sign and supported an uncomplicated life-style, and it was adaptable to owner preferences and

budget. It was deemed economical because it gave "much interior accommodation for the material and labor expended . . . [and] the absolute maxi- mum of interior space for a given outlay of money."24 As has been shown, practical and mone- tary considerations were very important in the early twentieth century.

An additional cost not previously required for the early twentieth-century homeowner was the in- corporation of the newest developments in light- ing, plumbing, heating, and materials. These were advocated by progressives because they hoped that technological advances would improve the condi- tions of life and, ultimately, society itself.25 The double-pile plan could accommodate these recent necessities and other conveniences of modern life, such as closets, baths, and laundries. By incorpo- rating them, colonial revivalists demonstrated their willingness to accept new technology and their un- derstanding of the middle class's desire to have it. They knew that it was not possible or even de- sirable to return completely to colonial times, so they adjusted the traditional Georgian plan accordingly.

An immediately apparent modern adaptation to the Georgian floor plan was a single, large living room instead of front and rear parlors. This change reflected the early twentieth-century trend toward fewer rooms. It also created the multipur- pose area that progressives advocated over sepa- rate spaces for family activities and receiving and entertaining guests. They urged the abolishment of reception rooms, formal drawing rooms, and living halls, arguing that modern life-styles were simpler, less formal, and more egalitarian than those spaces presumed. They also pointed out that houses built with fewer and larger rooms de- creased construction costs and maximized interior

space. Side porches were another progressive addition

to colonial-style houses. Larger than the sheltered entrances of the eighteenth century, they func- tioned as outdoor living rooms and were a result of smaller interiors and the emphasis that progres- sives placed on fresh air and ventilation for good health. Some were glazed, allowing use in winter, but most were either left open or merely screened. When a colonial-style house had only one porch, it was usually located beside the living room, but additional ones might be placed off the dining

22 "A New House in an Old Style," House Beautiful 25, no. 2 (January 1909): 39; Charles E. White, Jr., "New England Houses: Special Points to Remember When Building," House Beautiful 3o, no. 2 (July 1911): 36.

23 Mary H. Northend, Remodeled Farmhouses (Boston: Little, Brown, 1915), p. 17; Margaret Greenleaf, "The Editor's Talks and Correspondence: Colonial Houses," House and Garden 12, no. 3 (September 1907): 124; "Mrs. F. Osgood's Home in Seat- tle, Washington," House Beautiful 46, no. 1 (July 1919): 16-17; "The Three Best Houses in Indianapolis, Indiana," House Beau-

tiful 47, no. 6 (June 1920): 489; Harriet S. Flagg, "When East

Meets West," House Beautiful 46, no. 1 (July 1919): 9-11, 50.

24 Wise and Beidleman, Colonial Architecture, p. 2. 25 Louis L. Gould, Introduction to Progressive Era, p. 9.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STOP HERE!

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival 115

room, central hall, or kitchen. Some were two sto- ries to accommodate the sleeping porches that pro- gressives promoted as an aid to better health. As Northend, an exponent of the colonial revival who clearly accepted progressive tenets, pointed out: "There is nothing that will so materially improve the health as outdoor life. Tired and jaded nerves are soon restored by use of a sleeping porch where fresh air can soothe and induce restful slumber." Who more than modern Americans needed rest and refreshment? The addition of these porches, verandas, or piazzas to colonial-style houses cre- ated difficulties, however. As authors Herbert C. Wise and H. Ferdinand Beidleman observed, "There were unfortunately few [colonial] exam- ples to serve as a guide."26 Nevertheless, side porches were considered a necessity and were al- most universally incorporated.

Many small early twentieth-century colonial houses consisted of about 1,ooo square feet di- vided into six main rooms plus the porch (fig. 4). Although the stairs of most colonial-style plans were near the rear of their central halls, an alter- nate use of space was made here by placing the stairs at the front to provide an entry to the kitchen and basement. As was typical of many modern co- lonial plans, the large living room and open piazza are on one side of the central hall, and the dining room and kitchen with its serving room are on the right. The disposition of the space on the second floor is similar to that of the first in what was re- garded as typical of true colonial homes."2 The attic could be subdivided into two additional rooms, if the owner so desired.

Colonial-style houses with more square footage often exhibited greater variety in the disposition of their spaces, and their owners could specify ad- ditional changes and modifications. In one exam- ple, the owner preferred the kitchen and pantry in an ell on the rear and wanted additional porches, including a sleeping porch over the service ell (fig. 5). The retention of the second stairway may indi- cate that the owner employed servants who assisted in cooking and housekeeping. The plan of the up- per floor does not repeat that of the lower.

The Georgian plan was the most frequently il- lustrated plan for colonial-style houses in early twentieth-century middle-class decorating litera- ture, but it was not the only type. In one design, the interior orientation was changed by expanding

~tr?S?lnc ~01~c~

L~ Id, ~9?a- 9'*?"

? ~D*i78~

T ~-~I`Zi?b~x3o~ : i:~---~I-~

/n ~f~--i Ci3/a~no~~~n. r;rrt3 ~( n:?d-rr

j~gi4$ t~Le=iljSf==~-~tr~=J L~ro ?~

i i j ri: -i r a' ~ /C7t s I

1 /J -<7 ?~? J/"?Z-~ I-: L

Fig. 4. Floor plan of a modern colonial house, Derby and Robinson, architects. From "The House Beautiful Small Brick House," House Beautiful 47, no. 2 (February 1920): 99. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Re- printed by permission from House Beautiful. ? February 1920o, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

the width of the hall and reducing the depth (fig. 6). Reminiscent of the living halls of the nineteenth century, the space produced was a large multifunc- tional area, serving as a "reception-room for the casual visitor" and supplying "desk space for the man of the house." As in other plans, the hall channeled traffic to the other first-floor rooms or to the second floor. The living room and open ve- randa dominate one side of the plan as was typical in the colonial style. Opposite them were the din- ing room and kitchen, which was described as "compact... [and] planned for the family that has found it less bothersome to dispense entirely with a maid than to try to get and keep one."28 The upstairs plan generally follows the disposition of the lower.

The interior decoration that household litera- ture promoted for colonial-style houses also exhib- ited the four elements of the progressive aesthetic. As in architecture, simplicity was extolled. To pro- mote a more modest life-style, authorities admon-

26 Northend, Remodeled Farmhouses, p. 1 1o; Wise and Beid- leman, Colonial Architecture, p. 240.

27 Bragdon, "Defining Colonial Architecture," p. 49. 28 "House Beautiful Homes-No. 1," House Beautiful 42,

no. 4 (September 1917): 206.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

116 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

IIYI t PO~ :!

-:::-:_

-

:::~~~n~~c~~~~~~--I 1 -~I Isu

::: :I-:_ ::I-: ::::- : ~ ri 1;1

~I

-las~ltu~l:~~'tl~~~~i ~ltl~~

:: Ir

I la~li~lll

1:1!-:1 1 I- !:!II II-: II 1 11-11_ -_! 1- !111!1 ? w :I-I,!I fit it _ I fi Fig. 5. Floor plan of a modern colonial house, Frank A. and Frederic M. Kendall, architects. From "Adapting Old Style to Modern Conditions," House Beautiful 48, no. 4 (October 1920): 284-85. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? October 1920, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

ished homeowners against clutter, crowding, and overconsumption and urged them to reduce pat- tern, objects, and ornament. Although this trend applied to all early twentieth-century styles, writers especially emphasized it for colonial, stressing that there had been "very little decorative treatment in [true] Colonial houses" and that the decoration of the interiors was "consistent in [its] simplicity."29

Advocates espoused the reduction and elimi- nation of objects and furnishings for making housekeeping easier. Many middle-class home- owners employed fewer servants in the early twen- tieth century because they disliked and distrusted

- : -- i

f

~L ~~~P~M. :~~::~ : tndfx 1$'6 --

I

izl :i; r i: n ~~fn!j~ :i i ~~_nc~a ; i i : : : . CLQ

r Y

i"

:_:::i: :i::;_:::i:::::!: _ ::-i::--:i::::l i::'::i::-i -::- i:::l:i::j_::-:~: -:---:::-_-:: :: -::::~:: : ::-:::::::1: _:: ::i

.:.. ...-;. :::i- .. _:::-i-_-_- : : ::i:i::it;-i::_i::::::::::_::;:::::;::- :::;::::i: -I--:-I

i-i:

"

!11~~11-~ 1~11-!~-~1- ~~1111~ 11--3--:1~ 1:

I~UX:OYI F111 .. 11;1 -1

: : -: : --- -: :i _

Fig. 6. Floor plan of a modern colonial house, Davis and Brooks, architects, Hartford, Conn. From "House Beautiful Homes-No. 1," House Beautiful 42, no. 4 (September 1917): 207. (The University of Georgia Li- braries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? September 1917, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

them for their ethnic origins. Simultaneously, the emphasis on better hygiene to control disease made house-cleaning procedures more complex. Dust was a particular focus of concern because it was believed to harbor disease-producing germs. Removing unnecessary furnishings and clutter was a means of retarding it. Progressives mounted a vigorous campaign to eliminate unsanitary condi- tions and dust collectors from middle-class homes. The extensive use of white in early twentieth- century colonial interiors is evidence of the accep- tance of concepts of hygienic interior decoration. Progressives highly recommended white walls, floors, and counters because they regarded the color as "pure, wholesome in its mental influence, and noble." Above all, it was "sanatory"-for to remain white, it had to be kept clean. The color held an additional appeal for colonial revivalists because they believed that it and ivory (white that had darkened with age) had colonial precedents. Prominent interior design educator Frank Alvah Parsons declared that the colonists had used white in their homes because of its "spic and span cleanli- ness," particularly in New England where "the in-

29 William B. Bragdon, "Inside and Out the Modern Colo- nial House," House and Garden 32, no. 2 (August 1917): 26-27.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival 117

Fig. 7. Living room from the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Edward L. Cutter, Milton, Mass., Harry B. Little, architect. From Thomas P. Robinson, "A House True to Native Tradition," House Beautiful 38, no. 6 (November 1915): 192. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? November 1915, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

stinctive feeling for a chaste cleanliness that was next to godliness" was sought. Another author noted that the colonists had used white to expand visually the dark, low-ceilinged spaces in their houses. By the first two decades of the twentieth century, white had become a part of the visual cues for the colonial style. Advocates linked white paint, wooden floors, and mahogany furniture and pro- moted the three as essential elements in the style.30

Wooden floors, which had a firmer colonial precedent than white paint, were viewed as more sanitary than installed carpets. Progressives in- sisted that wall-to-wall carpets harbored dust and germs and could not be removed for cleaning. Ad- vocates of the colonial style concurred. They pro- moted wooden floors with area rugs instead of car-

pets. The most frequently recommended rugs were orientals, despite their rarity in colonial times.31

Many simply furnished colonial-style rooms had plain plastered or paneled walls, a few an- tiques or pieces of colonial-type furniture, a rug on the wooden floor, some well-chosen accessories in keeping with the old-fashioned atmosphere, and modest window treatments, as in the Edward L. Cutter residence in Milton, Massachusetts (fig. 7). Interestingly, the plain plaster walls used here were not considered by some early twentieth- century writers as "strictly Colonial," but they were often employed because they were inexpensive, easy to clean, and made good backgrounds for pic- tures.32 Typically, the furniture is grouped around the fireplace, and several early styles are repre- sented. There are fewer accessories than would have been present a generation ago. Only one pic-

30 Harold Donaldson Eberlein, Abbot McClure, and Ed- ward Stratton Holloway, The Practical Book of Interior Decoration (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1919), p. 254; Frank Alvah Parsons, Interior Decoration: Its Principles and Practice (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page, 1918), p. 25; "Thirty-Six Facts about Color," House and Garden 32, no. 4 (October 1917): 53. See also "Questions and Answers," House Beautiful 16, no. 2 (July 1904): 42-46; "Correspondence," House Beautiful 19, no. 6 (May 1906): 6-7; and Greenleaf, "Editor's Talks," pp. 124-25.

31 Braided and hooked rugs were also recommended, as were modern rugs of good design. Eighteenth-century floor coverings such as floor cloths or matting were not mentioned in the literature.

32 "Correspondence: A Colonial House," House Beautiful 34, no. 2 (July 1913): viii.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

118 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

Fig. 8. Living room from Little Holme, residence of Harry B. Little, Harry B. Little, architect. From Edward G. Reed, "Little Holme," House Beautiful 4o, no. 4 (September 1916): 187. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? September 1916, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

ture hangs on each wall between the windows, while a clock, three small objects, and colonial wall brackets decorate the mantel. White ruffled win- dow curtains complement the white-painted chim- ney breast and trim.

Even more elaborately decorated modern colo- nial rooms remained modest (fig. 8). In them, se- dately patterned wallpaper, either a reproduction or an appropriate modern paper, might replace painted walls. Another rug or two, some figured upholstery, and several more pieces of furniture and accessories were other additions. The only split with the progressive sanitary ethic was the co- lonial revivalists' endorsements for wallpaper. Pro- gressives believed that wallpaper concealed dirt and germs and, therefore, caused disease. Further- more, it could not be cleaned. In this instance, however, perceptions of colonial precedents out- weighed progressive canons. Advocates of the co- lonial revival recommended wallpaper as a wall treatment in all rooms except service areas.33

Adherents considered colonial furniture, either antiques or modern reproductions, the embodi- ment of simplicity. It was well designed and un- complicated in form, line, and decoration. Because it had few cracks, crevices, and heavy carvings to trap dust, it was deemed sanitary and easy to keep clean. As one author declared, "The lovely old Co- lonial furniture shows how charming and lasting the 'beauty of fitness' is. We should have simple, useful furniture, which can be taken care of with the least possible work. And when we secure this, we are pretty sure to find that grace and beauty have been obtained at the same time."34

Colonial revival interiors also conformed to the other principles of the progressive aesthetic. Au- thors frequently pointed out that the eighteenth- century prototypes on which modern colonial in- terior decoration was based had proved their naturalness because they had endured and had stood the test of time. Accordingly, precedents

" "Correspondence," p. viii. 4"Housekeeper's Department," House Beautiful 7, no. 4

(March 1900oo): 250-51.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival 119

Fig. g. Dining room from Little Holme, residence of Harry B. Little. Harry B. Little, architect. From Edward G. Reed, "Little Holme," House Beautiful 4o, no. 4 (September 1916): 187. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? September 1916, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

were as appropriate tor modern homes as those built a century or more ago. In interiors, another means of obtaining an aura of naturalness was by emphasizing the walls as structural elements with paneling or wallpaper. Paneling in particular gave a more architectonic feeling to spaces and fulfilled the requirement of stability and substance."35 The dining room of Little Holme was paneled from floor to ceiling, conveying the refinement, dignity, and restraint that designers considered character- istic of true colonial design (fig. 9). The rest of the room is furnished with a modern pedestal-base table with ball-and-claw feet, Chippendale-style chairs, and a Hepplewhite-style sideboard. The ac- cessories are minimal and appropriate.

Built-in furniture was considered another facet of naturalness. Progressives advocated its use to increase the functionality of multipurpose rooms, to save floor space, and to add an air of dignity and permanence. For proponents of the colonial

style, built-ins had the additional appeal of prece- dents. Colonial revivalists regarded corner cup- boards, china closets, and bookcases as characteris- tic features of true colonial interiors and explained that colonists had placed them in corners and be- side or opposite fireplaces to create symmetry.36 Both progressives and colonial revivalists tended to put built-ins in the living room and the dining room.

By following precedents, colonial revivalists be- lieved that they were creating modern colonial rooms that exhibited the honesty and straightfor- wardness of the predecessors. Unlike those of the recent past, earlier interiors were not ostentatious or pretentious; they did not impart an impression of artificiality or aspirations of status. They did not seek to be anything other than what they were, nor did they imitate something else. Therefore, proponents believed that these qualities made the colonial "the only fitting environment"; it had har- bored no "deceit or sham" that might be passed on

5 Harold Donaldson Eberlein, "Hints on Paneling," House Beautiful 36, no. 5 (October 1914): 137-39. 3 Wise and Beidleman, Colonial Architecture, p. 5.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

120 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

to those who inhabited it. Finally, colonial revival- ists believed that the "most striking feature of [co- lonial] decoration was uniformity"; there had been no jarring elements or inconsistent details in true colonial interiors.3" Consequently, they served as excellent models for organic modern colonial inte- riors. Despite the emphasis following precedent in the literature, writers believed that absolute adher- ence to unity was not necessary. For example, modern furniture treatments, such as upholstery, and accessories, such as rugs or lamps, were per- missible as long as they were well designed and in keeping with the old-fashioned atmosphere and colonial spirit of the home.

Modern colonial furniture was also described as honest, natural, and organic. When it was "well constructed" of "good materials" and was "not a poor copy of something else," it possessed "integ- rity." Furthermore, it was not "grandiose," but "suitable"; it did not "degrade," and it was "moral." Naturalness was derived from its strong construc- tion and enduring nature; like its predecessors, it was "built for more than a day."38 When used in colonial-style houses, this furniture created or- ganic unity and harmony throughout the structure.

The kitchen and the bath were the spaces in which the progressive tenets dominated in colonial-style houses. Discussions of both rooms stressed hygienic materials and efficient layouts. Authorities called for the application of scientific principles in planning and the incorporation of modern materials and technology in kitchens and baths, so colonial precedents or decorating schemes were generally not advocated for these rooms during the first two decades of the twentieth century.39

In the kitchen of one modern colonial house, efficiency had been of paramount concern (fig. 1 o). The owner wanted to mirror the productive methods he used in his business, and to aid him in this endeavor he consulted experts. The result is typical of those kitchens in many newly built early twentieth-century homes, no matter what the style. The built-in cabinets have smooth surfaces and no crevices to trap dirt and germs, and the tile floor

is easy to keep clean and sanitary. Both the walls and the cabinets are painted a hygienic white. The appliances were placed in what the experts consid- ered the most efficient locations. Other than the scale and the bank of canisters, there is no clutter to interfere with food preparation or cleanup.

Since hygiene was the keynote in bathroom planning, easily cleaned fixtures and materials were important. Tile was considered the ideal ma- terial for walls and floors, and porcelain fixtures with simple designs were endorsed by authorities. Of course, white was promoted as the best color for walls, floors, and fixtures. Wooden floors, car- pets, and wallpaper were not recommended for the bath.

As important as the principles of the progres- sive aesthetic in home planning was the atmo- sphere created within the home. Progressives claimed that a beneficial domestic climate could overcome the negative aspects of modern life, such as overwork and a hectic pace on the job and in the home. They maintained that contemporary houses that did not adopt the progressive aesthetic only added problems because they had too many pos- sessions, required too much care, and lacked a ra- tional aesthetic. As one writer expressed it, many homes were not the "place of peace and the haven of rest from which one should go out fresh for work or enjoyment"; they were too often "the place to escape from to find rest and to save one's life." Colonial revivalists believed that they could create up-to-date houses with beneficial climates by turn- ing to the homes of the past. These structures not only exhibited admirable aesthetic qualities but also had excellent environments. Proponents re- garded true colonial houses as "homelike," more "livable," and more "artistic"-the antithesis of many recently built homes.40

Certain qualities were considered homelike, and colonial proponents strove to incorporate them in colonial-style houses. For example, a home was restful; overcrowding and overdecorating im- peded a restful atmosphere. Homey interiors were also cheerful and warm from sunlight and fire- light. Modern writers insisted that sunlight was necessary for good health and that it dissipated the dark and gloomy atmosphere associated with late nineteenth-century rooms. Colonial revivalists fol- lowed their recommendations for large windows with simple drapery treatment to let in the sun. Although rendered superfluous by central heat-

37 Wallis, "What and Why," p. 190o; Bragdon, "Inside and Out," p. 58.

38 "Moral Furniture," House Beautiful 22, no. 1 (June 1907): 30-31.

39 Interior decorator Flora McDonald wrote a series of arti- cles in which she decorated "House Beautiful's Homes-No. 1" (see fig. 6). The only colonial feature she recommended for the kitchen was a "simple Colonial chair stained or painted dark blue" (Flora McDonald, "The Furnishing of House Beautiful Homes-No. 1: The Kitchen," House Beautiful 42, no. 6 [De- cember 1917]: 56).

40 Mrs. Henry Wade Rogers, "The Simplification of Life," House Beautiful 12, no. I (June 1902): 5; "Correspondence," House Beautiful 2o, no. 1 (June 1906): 6.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Progressivism and the Colonial Revival 121

Fig. io. Kitchen from the residence of Robert W. Wetmore, Minneapolis, Minn., Carl Gage, architect. From Har- riet S. Flagg, "When East Meets West," House Beautiful 46, no. 1 (July 1919): 11. (The University of Georgia Libraries: Reprinted by permission from House Beautiful. ? July 1919, The Hearst Corporation, all rights reserved.)

ing, many colonial revivalists deemed the fireplace a necessary luxury for the modern home because it had been part of the appeal of true colonial inte- riors. "Surely there is nothing more home-like than the warm glow of blazing logs, and it is a delight to sit before the sputtering flames and en- joy the warmth and glow, as did our ancestors in the long ago," declared Northend. Modern colo- nial rooms were also hospitable and comfortable. Contemporary upholstery, which was "more com- fortable than the old," arranged around the fire- place, bookcases, or a piano helped to foster this atmosphere.41 Finally, decoration based on prece- dents helped modern colonial rooms retain the quaintness and charm of their predecessors.

Compromises in aesthetics were inevitable be- cause, as one author pointed out, a reappearance of "the tasteful simplicity of earlier times" did not mean "an absolute surrender to Colonial ideas, for these would not supply the comforts exacted by

our present generation. Concessions to modern living are imperative in every attempt at reproduc- ing the architecture or furnishing of the Colonial period." Writers insisted that householders were creating homes, not museums or antiques shops. Comfort and convenience were not to be sacrificed for historical accuracy.42

Like other early twentieth-century styles, the colonial could be made beautiful, comfortable, and practical, but it possessed a quality lacking in other styles-it was familiar. The colonial maintained so- cial, political, and ancestral traditions associated with the founding of the country; therefore, it was a "link in the chain of past, present, and future." For many middle-class members, the colonial re- vival provided "a cushion against future shock and . . . a sense of roots." These were important needs in the early twentieth century when valued traditions were threatened by urbanism, industri- alism, and the influx of immigrants who brought

41 Northend, Colonial Homes, p. 78; Mary M. Hodges, "The Furnishing of a House," House and Garden 13, no. 2 (February 1908): p. 50.

42 Alice M. Kellogg, "A Remodeled Farm-House," House Beautiful 19, no. 6 (May 19o6): 2o; Margaret Greenleaf, "Inside the House: The Living Room," House and Garden 16, no. 3 (September 19o9): 105.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

122 Winterthur Portfolio 26:2/3

their heritages. As Joy Wheeler Dow, an ardent colonial revival author and architect, explained: "Why [do] you like an old-fashioned house any- way? Is it because it has become fashionable again, the new ideas once more, history repeating itself, in other words? I do not think so. Is it not because of the personal and historical element, which means to you more than structural lines? ... You read history, legends, and folk-lore in every ortho- dox line; and that is very dear to you .... It is the historical memoirs of your own ancestors. . . . In fact, you would like to make believe, after a fash- ion, that you had inherited the very place where, once upon a time, these very ancestors dwelt."43

Building in the colonial style was a way of recre- ating an old family home and establishing a per- sonal identification with the past, even if none ex- isted. By living in houses designed and furnished like those of one's forebears, a spiritual link with them would be made and, it was hoped, the situa- tion in which they had lived would be duplicated.44 In many periodicals the vision of the colonial era was populated by people who were more virtuous than modern Americans, living in homes and us- ing furnishings of better design and inhabiting do- mestic environments that were more desirable. These qualities were translated into a characteristic vision of colonial life itself. Since it was simple, ear- nest, and happy, those same qualities might be re- engendered by a colonial-style house in a twen- tieth-century setting.

Preserving the past against harmful change was another significant factor in the middle-class ac- ceptance of the colonial revival. Other styles could exhibit the same characteristics as the colonial. For example, the Italian Renaissance had symmetry, order, and balance. Homelike qualities and charm were found in Tudor or Mediterranean styles. But none of these styles was American. They had not been produced by America herself; only the colo- nial qualified in this. Originally English, those roots had been Americanized through building in local patterns and materials, which had also en- dowed them with such American virtues as simplic- ity and straightforwardness, according to most ac- counts. The colonial revival alone preserved the

early traditions in architecture, interiors, and fur- nishings. This, coupled with new aesthetics and re-

forms promoted by progressives in decorating lit- erature, maximized the appeal of the colonial for many middle-class members.

Despite apparently opposite beliefs and design goals, progressivism and the colonial revival shared some doctrines. Members of both move- Sments rejected life-styles and aesthetics of the last quarter of the nineteenth century in preference to earlier, less complicated, preindustrial ones as ways of overcoming the negative aspects of modern life. Both advocated simplicity, naturalness, honesty, and organic unity in life-styles, home planning, and furnishing. They included sanitary concerns, new technology, and efficient planning as design goals. Both supported the belief that a positive at- mosphere in the home could engender better citi- zens and, ultimately, a better society. Both move- ments advocated relying on experts to provide solutions to design problems. Finally, both groups wanted to reform what they considered harmful in the home but to retain the good that had gone before.

Colonial revivalists combined modern planning and technology with early precedents to produce what they called the "modern colonial" house. This home was designed to appeal to many in the mid- dle class. As one writer for House Beautiful ex- plained, "The average American... wants a house of a sort that cultivated people will recognize as preserving traditional values while keeping abreast of modern requirements."45 Form, plan, decora- tion, and furnishings were an amalgam of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century sources. These references to the past reminded the middle class of what were regarded as the glorious days of their country's founding and happy memories of an ancestral home. Modern colonial houses were familiar and comfortable, providing a sense of permanency in changing times. In them were created the beneficial, healthful environments con- sidered necessary in modern life. Yet, with their new technology, modern adaptations and conve- niences, and reliance on efficiency and scientific planning, these houses were well suited to early twentieth-century life. This alliance of old and new, past and present produced a colonial revival house that was a manifestation of its time. In the minds of many, particularly members of the mid- dle class, the colonial was the only appropriate style for the first two decades of the twentieth century.

43 Gowans, Comfortable House, p. 148; Joy Wheeler Dow, "An Old-Fashioned House: Silvergate," House Beautiful 16, no. 6 (November 1904): 9-

44 Wendy Kaplan, "R. T. H. Halsey: An Ideology of Collect- ing American Decorative Arts," Winterthur Portfolio 17, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 51.

45 Thomas P. Robinson, "A Discussion of the ABC's of Ar- chitecture, Part III," House Beautiful 46, no. 5 (November 1919): 323.

This content downloaded from 209.152.46.209 on Mon, 04 May 2015 05:38:11 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions