USA > Connecticut > Tercentenary pamphlet series, v. 1 Connecticut and the British Government > Part 27
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43
The central-hall plan remained in favor throughout the Revolutionary period, up to the Greek Revival era which was ushered in about 1830. It is of interest to observe that
6
until that time, it had been the custom almost without exception to build the house with its main roof ridge par- allel to the street or road. The Greek Revival house, more often than not was built with its gable end fronting upon the street, so that what had been the side now became the front. Obviously, this change necessitated a new interior arrangement, and, in consequence, a new type of plan.
While the great majority of Connecticut houses con- form with one or another of the types of plan that have been outlined, there were as well occasional houses of ir- regular plan, which cannot be placed under any fixed classification. For example, there existed some frame houses with masonry ends constructed entirely of brick or stone, into which the fireplaces were built. Also, there were occasional houses of central-hall plan, built entirely of brick, with the fireplaces built into the end walls.
The development of the Connecticut house plan which has been traced from its beginning to its ultimate expres- sion in the central-hall type, is a matter of the utmost significance and interest, for it forms a graphic record of the social and economic conditions of the times.
Of scarcely less interest than the house plan, is its framework. Practically without exception the frame of the early Connecticut house was of hewn oak, and fas- tened together with mortise and tenon joints, which were secured with wooden pins. Surrounded by a wealth of timber, the choicest of which was to be had for the cut- ting, the early builders felt no incentive to skimp mate- rial. They used it with a lavish hand, and the ponderous timbers they hewed out for their house frames had a strength that was far in excess of practical requirements. This is particularly true of houses of the two-room and lean-to types of plan, the framing of which is often tre- mendously heavy; so massive, in fact, that it is almost
7
medieval in character. In erecting house frames of such enormous strength the colonists were no doubt influenced by a desire to obtain the sense of security and steadfast- ness that such staunchness of construction gave. It must be remembered that at first the conditions of life were un- settled and insecure; in fact, there were some actual perils to be faced. In those days, each man's home was literally his castle; it was the only refuge he had in a practically unbroken wilderness. Picture the colonist, his day's work done, seated by the evening fireside with his family. Be- hind shuttered windows and oak-barred door his sense of security was complete, for the great timbers of his home were a silent assurance to him that behind this bulwark of oak, he and his had nought to fear from prowling Indians, the ravenous wolf pack, or the howling tempest.
An examination of the framework of the earliest Con- necticut houses now standing shows that quite without exception, hewing was the method by which the larg- er timbers were shaped. While the sawmill was in early use for cutting boards and planks, power sawing did not supplant hewing for the preparation of large structural timbers until the latter part of the eighteenth or the be- ginning of the nineteenth century. Pit sawing appeared early, and continued for many years. This was a two-man operation, requiring a "pitman," who stood in the pit be- neath the timber to be sawn, to guide one end of the "whipsaw," and a "sawyer" who managed the other end, and stood above the timber. A General Court held at New Haven, June II, 1640, established a scale of charges for both hewing and sawing, as follows: "Price for hewing sills, beames, plates or such like timber, square hewen to build with, not above a penny a foote running measure. Sawing by the hundred not above 4s. 6d. for boards. 5s. for plancks. 5s. 6d. for slitworke and to be payd for no
8
more than they cutt full and true measure. If by the dayes worke, the top man or he that guides the worke and phaps findes the tooles, not above 2s. 6d. a day in som", and the pitt mä, and he whose skill and charge is lesse, not above 2s, and a proportionable in winter as before. If they be equall in skill and charge, then to agree or divide the 4s. 6d. betwixt them." The planks above referred to were two inches thick, boards one or one and one-fourth inches thick, and "slitwork" one-half inch thick.
The first power sawing was done with an "up-and- down" saw, an instrument with a long narrow blade, which worked vertically. The circular saw was a later in- vention.
The first sawmill within the present political limits of Connecticut was probably that owned by William Good- win, which must have been in operation for some time before we hear of it, since the General Court on October 3, 1654, gave him permission to use timber from waste land to keep the sawmill at work.
But while hewing was the general method for shaping the larger timbers, it is obvious that small ones, such as studs and joists, could not very readily have been hewn out, due to the difficulty of holding them securely during the process. This is why, even in the earliest houses, we find them to be quite generally sawn out.
Today, hewing is almost a lost art. This is to be re- gretted, for the early craftsmen used the broad-ax with an admirable degree of skill. They made no false strokes, for they handled their tools with deftness and precision.
The construction of the house frame was a simple and straightforward affair. Upon the masonry walls of the un- derpinning were laid the heavy timbers called the sills, and into them were framed the vertical posts and studs of the exterior walls. In old records we sometimes find the
9
sill referred to as the "cill" or "groundsell". In some of the earliest houses, the first floor joists were built into the walls of the underpinning, and the sills laid on top of them. In the History of New Haven Colony, Lambert states that "The ground floor was laid below the sills, which projected into the rooms eight or nine inches." However, but few early houses displaying this arrange- ment exist today.
In houses of this first period-those of the two-room plan-there were eight posts: one at each corner, one at each side of the entry on the front, and one on each side of the chimney on the rear. The addition of the lean-to made necessary four more posts, corresponding in position to those in the back wall, so that the total number became twelve. When houses on the lean-to plan, but two full stories in height, became popular, the full number of twelve posts was generally retained.
The posts were invariably tenoned into the sills, and sometimes pinned in addition. Unless there was a framed overhang at the second floor level, the posts were of one piece from sill to plate, or through the height of two sto- ries. Posts of the earlier houses all display a splay or "flare," that is, an increase in one transverse dimension from floor to ceiling. Sometimes posts of shouldered form were used, but they were never common. As time went on, this flare became less, and finally disappeared with the ad- vent of the central-hall plan. In size the posts were gen- erally eight by ten or ten by twelve inches, although some- times they were of still greater size.
The girts were a continuous set of heavy horizontal timbers, which were mortised into the posts at the second floor level. Of corresponding position with the sills, the girts provided a support for the second floor joists, just as the sills carried the joists of the first floor. In addition
IO
to the girts in the outside walls, two similar timbers, called chimney girts, were framed across the house from front to rear, one on either side of the central chimney. The outside girts are known as the front, end, and rear girts, according to the position they occupy.
From the middle of the end girt to the middle of the chimney girt extended a great beam known as the sum- mer, generally the heaviest of the whole framework. It is probable that its name comes from the Latin sagmarius- a pack horse-through the Norman French sommier. In Connecticut we often encounter the term "summer-tree," in which the word tree is used in the sense of beam. The purpose of the summer was to provide an intermediate support for the second floor joists, which were framed in- to it on either side, from the front and rear girts re- spectively.
Almost invariably the summer was placed as above stated, so that it ran parallel with the front of the house. There were occasional exceptions to this; for example, we find summer beams in the Hempstead house at New Lon- don (1643) and the Graves house at Madison (1675) which were framed from front girt to rear girt, and hence ran parallel to the ends of the houses. In the Moore house at Windsor (1664) we find crossed summers, the only ex- isting example of this arrangement in Connecticut.
The framing of the attic floor generally corresponded to that of the second floor, although there were occasional variations due to the requirements of special methods of roof framing. A second summer repeated that of the sec- ond floor, while second end and chimney girts were placed above those at the second floor level. The front and rear girts, however, now become the front and rear plates re- spectively, and form the supports for the rafter feet.
The fact that the word "plate" is of early usage is
II
proven by the following extract from the New Haven Court Record for January 19, 1659: "Mr. Tuttle desired that the takeing down the turret and towre might be forebourne, & that the shores might be renewed, & the plates lined where they were weake."
While the rear plate was generally framed in the con- ventional way-in line with the girt below it-consider- able variation may be found in the placing of the front plate. Whatever the framing scheme adopted, the object was the same in every case, namely, to secure a sufficient projection of the outer face of the plate beyond the house line to serve as a foundation for the cornice construction. Varied and ingenious methods were put into play, per- haps the commonest of which was to frame a second plate out beyond the first plate, which was on the house line.
A corresponding variation is to be met with in the framing of the second end girts, particularly in early work, of which the projecting or overhanging gable was a feature.
Despite the immense strength and heaviness of their house frames, the early builders often considered the use of braces necessary. We find them commonly framed in diagonally between posts and first floor girts; though sometimes the order was reversed, and the braces ran from the posts up to the plates and end girts. But while the framing of early Connecticut houses displays a gener- al uniformity of scheme, considerable variety may be found in the methods of roof framing. It is apparent that there were two principal methods in vogue for the roof construction. The first of these made use of "common" rafters, that is, rafters of uniform size, spaced an equal dis- tance on centers; the second employed the purlin system, which consisted of four, six, or eight pairs of principal rafters, into which light horizontal purlins were framed.
Although some of the earliest house roofs display the common rafter system, it is probable that the purlin sys- tem is the earlier scheme of the two, for it is strongly marked by the finger of English tradition. Doubtlessly it originated in thatchery, which required a horizontal sys- tem of light purlins or thatch-poles over the rafters, to which the straw thatch was tied by means of ropes or birch withes.
There can be no doubt concerning the early use of thatch on Connecticut houses, or that it gave way to other materials only when it was found unsuited to the severe storms and weather conditions of our climate. The fact that thatch was in early use is indicated by a court order which was issued in New Haven on June 11, 1640, establishing the wages of "A skillful thatcher, working diligently."
The roofs of the earliest houses were much steeper than those of later date. Mr. Ralph D. Smith, in information furnished Mr. Palfrey for his history, states that the roof of the Whitfield house in Guilford (1639) was originally sixty degrees. As time went on, the roof pitch grew flatter, and finally became stabilized in the neighborhood of forty- five degrees, or a twelve inch pitch, though naturally there were variations from this in either direction.
Gambrel roofs occur frequently in Connecticut, but they are not early. It is doubtful if this form of roof con- struction came into use much before the middle of the eighteenth century. The origin of the gambrel is uncer- tain. Probably it came from England, where an occa- sional roof of this form is to be found in seventeenth-cen- tury work. Evidently it was the result of an attempt to obtain more head-room in the attic, without increasing the height of the roof.
Houses with hip roofs are not common, for this was
13
never a popular type of roof construction in Connecticut. No doubt this is due to the fact that the attics of hip- roofed houses had neither light nor air, unless admitted through dormer windows.
To return to the first floor, we find that its joists were generally framed into the sills in such a way that the tops of joists and sills finished flush. These joists in most cases were rough logs from six to ten inches in diameter, with the upper surfaces hewn away to provide a flat bearing for the floor boards. Since these joists were exposed only in the cellar, the bark was usually left on them.
In the earliest houses, before the advent of plastering, the joists of the second and attic floors were left exposed. Such joists, appearing against the ceilings, or under sides of the floors above them, were always of comparatively small size. In measurement they average about two and three-fourths by three and one-half inches. As before noted, these joists were sawn or split out, due to the difficulty of hewing such small timbers. When left ex- posed, they were planed, and the lower edges generally worked with a three-quarter bead. Where joists of this sort are found today, supporting plastered ceilings, we may safely assume that the plaster, however early, is a later introduction. Were it not, the original builders never would have taken pains to plane and bead their joists.
The exposed edges of other structural members- posts, summers, and girts-were chamfered with a plain bevel, or sometimes with a filleted quarter-round. Such chamfers always terminated a short distance from the ends of the beam in what is known as a stop. Very often these stops were quaintly ornamental in form. The Guil- ford school produced chamfering which is noteworthy for its boldness and beauty.
The studs, which were the intermediate framing mem-
14
bers of the exterior walls, were small timbers, and, like the joists, were sawn rather than hewn. The average cross section measures about two and one-half by three inches. They were but a single story in height, so that one set was tenoned at the bottom into the sill and at the top into a girt, and a second set framed in between girt and plate. A third set filled the attic gables.
The studs of the interior partitions were of correspond- ing size and arrangement, though very often one and one- fourth- or one and one-half-inch oak planks with un- squared edges were used instead.
Not infrequently we find so-called "plank-frame" houses, in the construction of which wide oak planks with squared edges, from one and one-fourth to two inches thick, were used in the exterior walls, instead of the cus- tomary studs. In such houses, these planks, which varied from twelve to fifteen inches in width, extended in one unbroken length from sill to plate. They were fastened in place by means of oak pins driven through them at every bearing. Sometimes these planks were spaced about two inches apart, and the spaces between them plugged with a mixture of clay and cut straw.
In some of the earlier houses we find the spaces be- tween the studs in outside walls filled either with this same clay mixture, or sun-baked brick laid in clay mortar. Obviously, this is another survival of tradition, for the same practice existed in old England.
The overhang is, without doubt, the most striking fea- ture of the seventeenth-century Connecticut house. In using this term, reference is made to the projection of the second story beyond the first, which usually occurred across the front of the house. The projection of the framed overhang was generally in the neighborhood of two feet, which it never exceeded, though in some instances it was
15
less. It is of interest to note that the framed overhang never occurred in towns lying outside of the Connecticut River valley, and that it never existed in the New Haven colony.
A characteristic feature of the overhang in its earliest form is the use of ornamental pendants or "drops" on its under side. Since these drops served as terminations to the lower ends of the front second story posts, there were four of them across the front of the house. Although of curved contour, drops were always four sided, or square in cross section, thus expressing the fact that they were an integral part of the posts above. These pendants gave quite a medieval air to the houses which they adorned. The fact is worthy of note, that with the single exception of chamfered girts, to be seen on the front and ends of the Hyland-Wildman house in Guilford (circa 1660), the use of drops is the only instance of decorative treatment of structural forms in connection with the Connecticut house exterior.
During the first stage of the framed overhang, the drops were sometimes supplemented by heavy brackets placed behind them. Such brackets served no structural purpose, and, like the brackets which were occasionally used be neath projecting gable ends, were purely ornamental in character. In the second stage, the use of drops continued, although the brackets behind them were discarded.
There is no uncertainty regarding the origin of the overhang. It is a familiar feature of the English Tudor half-timbered house, and without doubt it was brought to Connecticut by the English carpenters who emigrated to America. The erroneous assertion is often made that the overhang was designed by the early builders to en- able them, when besieged in their homes, to shoot at- tacking Indians through loopholes in the second floor.
16
Very obliging Indians they must have been, to march up to the front of a house in order to be scalded or shot, when they might as easily have attacked the rear, where no form of framed overhang ever occurred! Furthermore, framed overhangs at the ends of the house were never common in Connecticut, and where such occur, the pro- jection was not more than four or six inches.
Another form of overhang, known as the hewn type, is also to be found in Connecticut. This type was not pro- duced by framing: instead, the posts were made of one unbroken length from sill to plate, and hewn away throughout the height of the first story. The projection so gained was never more than six inches, commonly it was but three or four. The hewn overhang extended across the front of the house and on each end; later it appeared on the rear as well. As time went on, this projection gradu- ally dwindled to little more than an inch, and eventually, during the last quarter of the eighteenth century it dis- appeared altogether.
Both forms of overhang were features of the central- chimney type of house. The advent of the stately houses of central-hall type of plan marked the disappearance of the overhang. It is remarkable that the overhang, based upon a purely traditional beginning, endured as a form of construction with such tenacity, that, in one form or the other, it held sway over a period of nearly one hundred and fifty years.
The cellars of the earliest houses in Connecticut were shallow, and generally extended beneath only a part of the house. Foundation walls and the substructures of chimney stacks were of field stone, either laid up dry, or with clay as a substitute for mortar. This use of clay per- sisted until a very late date, in fact, it is not unusual to find the brick chimney stacks of late houses laid with clay
17
mortar up to the roof line, above which point the use of lime mortar was necessary.
Lime was available very early in New London and New Haven, but it was used principally for plastering. The court records of the latter town for November 3, 1639, contain the following: "It is ordered that Mr. Hopkins shall have two hogsheads of lime for his present use, and as much more as will finish his house as he now intends it." An examination of the mortar in early work, particu- larly in houses along the Sound, indicates that oyster shells were a common source of the lime used in it.
The underpinning of the earlier houses was of stone; brick was not used until the second quarter of the eight- eenth century. Even in the earliest and crudest work, an attempt was generally made to dress roughly the under- pinning stones, particularly those across the front and ends of the house. In most cases, these stones were care- fully cut into regular form.
The massive chimney stack is characteristic of central- chimney houses; the amount of stone used in these tre- mendous piles of masonry is astounding. Chimney foun- dations ten and twelve feet square, and even larger, are not uncommon. Chimney stacks of the later houses were often constructed of stone up to the first floor level, and thence upward of brick. Some were of stone up to the roof line, and "topped out" with brick. Stacks of central-hall houses were often built of stone up to the attic floor level, above which they were of brick.
Probably the very earliest chimneys were of logs laid crosswise, or of woven wattles, and plastered on the inside with clay. Such chimneys were obviously fire hazards and required periodic inspection : hence the office of "chim- ney-viewer". The Hartford records of 1639 refer to these chimneys of clay.
I8
The fireplaces of the earliest houses, particularly those in the living room and kitchen, were of generous propor- tions. Widths of eight and nine feet and even more are to be met with. Fireplaces of such enormous size were in- variably built of stone, brick construction generally indi- cating work of later date. The other fireplaces of the first floor were smaller, and the dimensions of those on the sec- ond floor still less. The occurrence of old houses in which the fireplace openings have been reduced in size several times, is not uncommon.
In houses of central-chimney plan, we always find a fireplace in each of the front rooms of the first floor, but it is not uncommon to find one of the front chambers on the second floor without a fireplace. Where houses of this plan are of two full stories, a fireplace in the "kitchen cham- ber" is rather the exception than the rule. The cellar fire- place is quite uncommon, but it does occasionally occur.
Fireplace openings were customarily spanned with stone lintels, but when the width was too great, a squared oak timber was used instead. Some of these timber lintels were tremendously heavy; the largest of which I have a record measures seventeen and one-half inches deep by ten inches wide.
Flues were unlined, of course, and generally they all merged into a common flue in the upper part of the chim- ney stack. There are instances, however, where each flue was carried up separately to the chimney top.
On the first floor, hearths were set level with the floor itself. The same arrangement existed on the second floor in houses having plastered ceilings, for there was suffi- cient depth in the second floor construction to permit sinking the hearths into it. But where ceilings were un- plastered, and the second floor joists exposed from below, it is obvious that the hearths of the second floor had to be
19
set on top of the floor construction. Raised hearths on the second floor, where the ceilings beneath are plastered, therefore indicate that such plastering is of later date, and not original.
The use of brick in chimney building began during the last quarter of the seventeenth century in Hartford and New Haven. In towns such as Guilford and Norwich, where stone was abundant, its use continued until a late date, and brick chimneys are uncommon.
Bricks were made early in Hartford and New Haven. The court records of the latter town for 1644 mention "bringing bricks from the brickills in the plains." It is doubtful if bricks were ever imported from England, as is sometimes claimed. The first bricks made in Connecticut were very large. Later, they were made very much small- er, and finally about the size of our bricks of today.
Early brick houses are not common in Connecticut, de- spite the fact that brick clay was plentiful, and there was an abundance of wood for burning it. Few brick houses now standing antedate 1750. Between that time and the Revolutionary period a small number of large, central- plan houses of brick appeared, at scattered points, and generally in the river valleys. Such houses were usually gambrel roofed, with four end chimneys appearing above the gable walls. There is also a late type of brick house, built after 1800, but these again were never common.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.