The only really abundant building materials in Holland were bricks. Stone was available
in limited quantities, but not readily so. Brick-earths there were in plenty, and
brick-building has been practised continuously from the dawn of Dutch architecture
to the present day. The inhabitants, after long and intimate association, became very
proficient in the use of bricks, skilful in applying them, and apt to quickly realize
the possibilities afforded by this material. There is, therefore, a great deal of
old work of exceptional interest which is, in addition, valuable for the suggestions
it presents.
The creation and development of an architectural style, depending upon brickwork as
the medium for its execution, call into being considerable powers of ingenuity. For
the limitations of bricks are definite and circumscribed; the unit is small and its
size not subject to variation. Moreover, enrichment can only be obtained by careful
disposition and arrangement of the units, and the almost unlimited scope possessed
by stone, wood or plaster—both in respect to size of parts and effects of surface
decoration—is nearly non-existent. Difficulties such as these have to be realised
and overcome, but good results are not easily secured. The preconceived ideas in the
mind, the general proportions, and the disposition of features, are governed to a
degree by the nature of the building material. And for these reasons, the bonding of the walling, colour arrangements, width and finish of the mortar joints,
and the precise manner of forming details, all contribute markedly to the ultimate
appearance of the whole. Good brickwork depends, even more than other forms of building,
upon a complete understanding of the [22]capabilities of the medium; skill in manipulating it is secondary only to capacity for design.
It was in the use of bricks that the Dutch were especially successful. Qualified by
experience gained through years of experiment, their achievements were dexterous and
often daring. They were thoroughly at home with brickwork, alive to its restrictions
as well as its possibilities, and they handled it in a spontaneous and reasonable
way. All the features and details of some buildings had to be suitably designed for
execution in this not very pliable material—gables (page ), windows, doorways (shown above), decoration, mouldings and traceries. Problems
such as these, definitely existing, were satisfactorily solved. The craftsmen thought
in brickwork, as it were, and forms were more or less dictated by the means available
for carrying them out. Not that stone was ignored; on the contrary, it was doubtless
used when it could be obtained, as our illustrations plainly show. Thus, it was employed
not only for ornamental details but often for the entire structures. Wood had its
uses too, as may be seen in the half-timbered houses at Dordrecht or the wooden-fronted
ones at Gorinchem (Gorcum), illustrated opposite; and plaster entered into the construction
of many country buildings. But the prevailing conditions brought about an advanced
development of brickwork and through it the vital building tradition was evolved.
The old bricks themselves were particularly well shaped and the proportion of height
to length gave a long and narrow appearance. How narrow [26]they actually were will be realised when it is stated that it not infrequently happens
we find them no more than 1¼ inches high. Some of the sizes noted are 1¼ inches by
6¾ inches to 7 inches at Workum; 1½ inches by 7 inches at Breda (page ); 1½ inches by 8½ inches, and 1¾ inches by 7 inches to 8½ inches at Haarlem; and
2 inches by 9 inches at ’s Hertogenbosch. They were laid with five, six, or seven
courses to the foot, and sometimes the door and window openings were formed with smaller
sized bricks than those used for the main walling. It was only rarely that comparatively
large bricks were employed. Some may be seen in the walls of the old Abbey at Middelburg,
and “Thvis van Leeninge” (page ), situated in the same town, has bricks measuring 2½ inches by 9½ inches; while a
building at Franeker, in Friesland, is carried out in unusually large bricks, which
vary in size from 3 inches to 3½ inches by 10½ inches to 11½ inches. The joints are
widest in the older work and were either finished with dark mortar, no lighter in
tone than the bricks, or were raked out and pointed up with light mortar. The bond
almost universally adopted was that known by the name of “English” and not, as is
often erroneously stated, “Flemish.” English bond consists of alternate courses of
headers and stretchers; that is to say, one course of bricks, all placed longways,
upon a course all laid endways, and so continuously up the wall. Flemish bond, rarely
to be seen in Holland, has alternate headers and stretchers in every course. Dutch
brickwork shows a wide range of colouring. Some is very dark and of a purple tint;
some is yellow, particularly in the neighbourhood of Dordrecht; red bricks there are
in every town; while at Breda they gradate from lemon yellow to a delicate salmon
pink. It will be perceived that materials such as these offered means for harmonious
combinations. The possibilities were appreciated, and about the country there exist
many happy effects which were secured by blending the various coloured bricks. It
was a favourite method to build walls with parti-coloured bands running horizontally
through them in the manner shown [28]from Franeker (page ), where four courses of red bricks interchange with one of yellow. Mouldings and
surrounds to openings often contrasted with the prevailing colour of the building.
As an illustration of this, the example from Dordrecht (below) may be cited; the walls
are formed with yellow bricks and the decorated window-heads with red. In addition
to effects obtained by colour harmonies, enrichment was secured by applying moulded
and shaped brickwork. It was confined principally to the doorways, windows and string
courses, and how successful this system of ornamentation can be will be realised by
further reference to the two above-mentioned drawings. Among other familiar features
of Dutch buildings are the mosaic decorations which generally occupy the arched spaces
over window-heads. Made up of simple units—square or shaped bricks and little pieces
of stone—they were set together to form repeating patterns and devices. Many of the
houses, such as that at Dordrecht (page ), attain distinction by reason of these interesting and freely rendered details,
and they will be more fully considered in the following chapter on exterior features.
Pantiles were almost universally used for roof-coverings in the towns, while in the
country thatching was freely employed. Under certain conditions the good qualities
of pantiles show conspicuously. Where the country is level and the landscape low,
and big changing sky-effects constantly recur, they look particularly homely and suitable.
Their curved surfaces quickly respond to play of light, becoming successively bright
in the sunlight or mellow-toned in the shadow. They have the appearance, too, of being
well able to withstand the wind and the rain. Holland is a country having the attributes
for the successful use of these tiles; moreover, they blended in every way with the
prevailing brick architecture, both of the towns and of the villages, as is shown
by the illustrations from Haarlem (page ) and St. Laurens (page ). They were not always of that bright red colour usually associated with pantiles.
Many were made from a grey clay and look not unpleasing; especially in the town and
neighbourhood of Zutphen they can be well [32]observed. The thatched roofs of the countryside do not present any special characteristics.
They were contrived to accomplish their purpose in a straightforward way. Brought
down directly from ridge to eaves, or arranged pyramidally, they have no added decoration
in straw-work. The ridge was protected by a course of half-round tiles of which the
farmhouse at Spaarwoude (page ) furnishes an example, and the roof of this building, arranged part in thatch and
part in pantiles, is an instance of a fairly prevalent practice.
Passing from the consideration of building materials to that of planning, it may be
stated as a general rule that the ground plans of the old work were usually determined
by the exigencies of practical requirements. The very narrow frontage of many of the
houses gave little latitude for variation of interior disposition: for it will be
noticed that the majority of the houses were built with gable-ends facing to the streets,
and these consequently became the principal elevations. The measurement from front
to back of each was thus much greater than that from side to side. The economical
and practical way of treating such an area would be to arrange a passage at the side,
directly through from front to back, which would, as well, give access to the rooms
and stairs; and this is what was generally done. Such a passage, sketched from the
outside pavement, is shown on this page. This expedient was not necessary when the
building had a wider frontage, and in such a case the way through was often placed
more or less centrally, in the manner illustrated from Alkmaar on page . On the other hand, the narrow house at Hoorn (page ) has a central entrance, and here it gives immediate access to the front room. But
the passage was an important feature of Dutch planning and gave the fundamental idea
for general disposition.
The internal arrangements were disclosed by the elevations and a guiding principle
of Gothic design was thereby followed. The positions of [33]lofty rooms, ways of access, staircases and different floor levels, were as much as
possible made obvious on the outside of the buildings. This practice led to many happy
results. Not fettered by artificial conventions or limited by unyielding laws, the
designers were able to give scope to their invention. Utility and convenience set
the theme for spontaneous fancy to adorn. These were the motive powers, the guiding
impulses that lay behind the early work, and they continued to operate with more or
less force for many generations. The series of houses in the “Balans” at Middelburg
(page ) furnishes a good example of a group that owed its inception to such influences.
While there is harmony between part and part no two are alike. One house is higher
than its fellow; one comes forward over the paved way while another recedes. Doorways
and windows are conveniently, but not too evenly disposed. The brightly painted window-shutters
give lively colour, and isolated features—such as the staircase turret seen on the
right—show with telling effect. Gables of differing shape break the skyline.
[37]
[38]
Utilitarian in lighting the rooms of the roofs, the dormers æsthetically serve to
carry the eye up to the ridges. The whole impression, if irregular, is picturesque
to a degree. Contemplating an effect such as this, so powerful in its human appeal
to the eye and mind, it is difficult to appreciate those arguments which are advanced
against principles capable of giving such satisfying results.
The most characteristic essential of domestic architecture in Holland is the steeply-pitched
gable. It was derived from Gothic sources. Gables owning this influence almost invariably
have the lines of their two ascending sides broken by a series of steps which continue
upwards from base to apex. They are consequently called “stepped,” and such gables
will be observed in the drawing from Middelburg mentioned above. The acute rake of
the gables determined the slant of the roofs. This circumstance, together with the
fact that houses usually had little frontage to the streets, gave great roof spaces
incapable of being adequately lighted by windows inserted in the walls. So the fore
part consisted of a room (or rooms) which was generally assigned to servants, and
the rear area, lighted by dormers, was used for storing and kindred purposes, one
all-important among the latter being that of “drying washing.” These dormers were
quite important factors in architectural composition; each had hinged and painted
shutters and a little steep roof. Sometimes they were elaborated, as may be seen,
for instance, in the drawing from Hoorn (page ). The dormer eventually became a much developed feature. In examples such as those
shown from Leiden (page ), where two of the houses are not ended by a gable, the main roof would be hipped
back. A certain number of dwellings were built with one of the longest sides occupying
the main frontage. The house at Hoorn (page ) was so constructed. The floor-joists, carried through the walling, are exposed to
view; they project beyond the face of the ground floor wall and support an overhanging
upper storey. Similar examples occur at Vlissingen (Flushing), and there the joist-ends
are carved with representations of small human heads, each of different design.
Very noticeable, both in early and later work, is the great height of ground-floor
rooms and passages. They not uncommonly measure from eleven to thirteen feet, or even
more, from floor to ceiling. The windows, proportionate to the rooms, are extremely
lofty. Over entrance doorways are fanlights of conspicuous size, which are occasionally
nearly as large as the doors themselves. Some houses, with very high front rooms abutting
on the street, have at the back two stories contained within this same height. The
example from Woudrichem (page ) is disposed in this way; the fore part of the hall, from which the drawing was made,
together with the adjoining room are almost twice as lofty as the passage seen beyond;
the stairs give access to the imposed intermediate floor. Heights of rooms gradually
diminish upward from the ground, and the string-courses that [44]externally mark the position of the floors, are consequently nearest together far
up the walls and gables.
It will be seen by the foregoing how construction and practical arrangement went hand
in hand with design, neither one being divorced from the other. Especially is this
demonstrated by the Gothic buildings and those which primarily betray a Gothic origin.
The house from Middelburg (page ) is given as an example. It is a highly successful piece of grouping, and the features
show with admirable effect. The walls are of brickwork and the dressings of stone.
On the gable-end bands of stone alternate with courses of bricks, while set back in
the angle the well-placed turret, steep-roofed and soaring, dominates the composition.
How accurately the value of horizontal and vertical elements was estimated, and how
cunningly they were opposed to each other, will be observed. The gateway from Nijmegen
(page ) was conceived in much the same spirit as the above, and here again the turret was
effectively employed. Both it and the pointed archway are in quite the Gothic manner;
but the crow-stone, or terminating member of the gable, the band of diaper executed
in brick and stone, and the details of the windows (near to which the date of 1606
appears) point to other influences.
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
On the exterior walls of the house from Zutphen (page ) can be seen the sunk panels, set back from the main face of the brickwork, which
served for the insertion of windows. They often extend from near the ground to well
up the gable. The dividing projections, turned with arches at their extremities, give
bold upright lines. In the example cited these lines have evidently been broken by
the rebuilding of the first-storey wall. It is dated 1547. The upper part, showing
the sunk panel bordered by moulded bricks, the arched head—in this instance pointed
and supported on each side by small circular turrets—and the shuttered window, is
given in detail on page .
A noticeable treatment of the ground floor elevation is exemplified by the two drawings
from Alkmaar and Hoorn (pages and ), already considered, and by that from Veere (page ). Each is constructed principally in woodwork, and the many windows amply serve to
light the lofty rooms. The wooden mullions are simply shaped and enriched, while over
them is a moulded cornice. Above the lower series of windows in the Alkmaar example
is a projecting hood, which affords protection from the weather. The date of 1609
is carved upon it, and other buildings having this characteristic usually belong to
the opening years of the seventeenth century. A more artistic and satisfactory solution
to the difficult problem of adequately lighting the entire side of a high room or
shop would not easily be found in the old work of any other country.
It is not possible to make any hard and fast division between Gothic and Renaissance
work. The actual dates of the buildings form no conclusive key, for it has been demonstrated
in the Introduction how the later development did not advance evenly throughout the
country. Houses built in the traditional way, and in a mixture of styles, are to be
seen in almost all old towns (page ). Sometimes one influence shows predominantly, sometimes another. The brick and stone
façade at Delft (page ) has all the attributes [56]of Gothic work, pointed arches, overhanging stories, stepped gable and pinnacles.
But the spirit of the carved details is different. The heads in circles, cherubs,
vases, cornucopias, lion-heads, dolphins, eagles and acanthus ornament are all subjects
far removed from Gothic ideas, as are the delicately carved corbels from which the
arches spring.
Two other houses that owe much to Gothic influences are those from Haarlem (page ) and Alkmaar (page ). The first-named was built in 1637 and the second in 1673. The more recently dated
example shows, in point of style, the earlier architectural form. Both have the customary
stepped gable and window-heads, the Alkmaar examples being elliptically arched and
those at Haarlem pointed. But in the latter instance the keystones are furnished with
Renaissance ornaments, as is the crowning pediment of the gable.
The three following buildings mark a further step forward in architectural development.
In general disposition of masses they accord with olden practices, but the decorative
details approximate Renaissance ideas. “De Crimpert Salm” at Dordrecht (page ), of 1608, presents a rich appearance, but the profuse elaboration of the front was
not achieved by accident or haphazard use of material. The balance of the design was
obviously well considered. Horizontal motives, intensified below the [64]first-floor level, give a stable base for the lavishness overhead; above, they repeat
with less force and are finally carried up the gable by the steps. The vertical lines,
obtained principally by the window openings and frames, are similarly reduced towards
the top, and there the curved elements are concentrated. Upon a low wall of stone
and brick stands the woodwork front of the ground floor. Next in order comes a broad
band of mosaic decoration executed in brick and stone (page ), bounded at each end by lion-heads in high relief, and divided centrally by a stone
panel with a salmon carved upon it. Other mosaics show in the arched spaces over the
windows of the next storey (page ), while the equivalent space in the gable is filled with arranged brickwork. Moulded
bricks and stonework, plain and carved, all contribute to the exuberance of the scheme.
The small example from Franeker (page ) is built in brick and stone and was erected in 1634. It has the traditional gable
but the old type of step, small in height and width, was not followed. Two steps only
suffice to reach the gable-head and the side of each is finished with shaped stonework,
a method of completion not employed in earlier times. Later in date than these two
houses, that from Workum (page ) gives an instance both of the persistence of established practice and of the human
desire for newness and change. The builder evidently could neither forget nor abandon
the general form of house arrangement that he knew so well, and to it he kept. This
is especially obvious in the gable which mounts up in quite the Gothic way. The pilasters
on the ground and first storey, however, plainly show that an attempt was made to
keep in touch with the prevailing mode of the period. Each is terminated by a Corinthian
capital and festoons of fruit are carved upon the panels. In these particulars the
work, which was completed in 1663, was in agreement with the then advancing Classic
taste. The bricks used in the walls are plum coloured and measure but 1¼ inches wide.
Designers were thus getting farther away from Gothic architecture. The political and
religious events of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries revolutionized old beliefs.
Time-honoured faiths were not only given up, but were viewed with positive distrust.
The powers that had swayed the people of the Middle Ages, the mysticism, ideals, and
poetry of their lives, were unrealities to the great majority of seventeenth-century
Hollanders; such doctrines fell meaningless upon their senses, and were to them but
unintelligible and empty forms. They not unnaturally turned from a creed in whose
name loathsome crimes had been committed and countless lives had been sacrificed.
It was a time of new life and faith. This [66]change in the trend of thought is amply reflected in the domestic architecture. The
Gothic tradition, already more or less alienated from the public sympathies, had almost
spent itself. Its vitality was gone and only as a survival, a mere shadow of former
glory, was it carried on. The old order gave place to the new. But it was long before
a fresh system of planning came to be generally accepted and mediæval methods of construction
and workmanship still persisted. Classic motives, however, were increasingly applied
to the elevations. All the features, and the entire decoration of many of the houses,
were often the direct outcome of Renaissance influences. In some few cases—such as
the gateway at Arnhem of 1642 (page )—the whole schemes were conceived in the Classic spirit and were evidently designed
by men of advanced intelligence, who were able to comprehend the significance of the
style in which they worked.
Rembrandt’s house at Amsterdam (page ) is an able achievement, sober and dignified. The walls are built of ochre-coloured
bricks, with stone used for the dressings. The date of 1606 appears on the upper storey.
It has no gabled front, but a projecting cornice and pediment make division between
the roof and wall surface. Above are two dormers placed in balanced order; while the
roof, steeply rising and hipped and having a chimney at each end of the ridge, completes
the studied arrangement. So far the work is in the style of the Renaissance, and it
is only by the windows below that earlier influences are recalled: but the two themes
are so well blended as to be perfectly harmonious. The net result is simple and reasonable
and by no means lacking in scholarship. Very different is the Guild Hall at Zwolle
(page ), erected thirty-five years earlier. Its too fussy elaboration is in sharp contrast
with the comparative [68]restraint of Rembrandt’s house, just mentioned. Classicism was applied without the
Classic spirit and with little understanding of its real import. The general effect
is rich and complex, but the composition lacks breadth and is overladen with ornament.
Some of the details disclose good craftsmanship, notably the frieze which runs across
the entire front at the first floor level, carved with cupids on horseback, old men
with tridents, satyrs and flowing foliage, and broken at intervals by lion-heads worked
on the bases of the pilasters. At the second storey is a Doric frieze, with sculptured
circular ornaments and heads of bulls appearing in the metopes between the triglyphs.
The gable, mediæval in feeling, is curly in outline; it is further complicated by
the introduction of reclining satyrs and lascivious demi-gods that quaintly break
the skyline. The designer evidently proposed to himself the Italian ideal, but did
not grasp the meaning or refinement of it. Many details came to be used in a similar
way, such, for instance, as those shown from Dordrecht (page ) and Flushing (page ), but, although often of admirable workmanship, they were never coherent parts of
a self-evolved whole.
A house of somewhat unusual appearance is that in the Voorstraat at Dordrecht, dated
1626 and illustrated on page . At the top is an open arcade constructed wholly in bricks, with the exception of
the stones upon which the arches rest. The brick walls are relieved by stonework,
while projecting pilasters separate the large lead-glazed and shuttered windows.
Houses that depended upon dormers for their controlling architectural idea were common
in the seventeenth century. The front wall is usually only one storey high and the
dormers rise from it at the line of the eaves. When the frontage is wide and the building
long and low, as is the case at Kampen (page ), these features—shaped and carved and fundamentally valuable in lighting the rooms
of the roof—show with good effect. A smaller house in the same town, given on page
, has a single dormer only. It contributes the necessary interest to what would otherwise
be a very dull effort of building. On the frieze at its base is a carved stone representation
of the Nativity, while below appears the inscription “IN BETHLEHEM 1631.”
[69]
[70]
Those principles that imparted to the domestic architecture of Holland its picturesqueness,
and so gave to it its most valued possession, were strained to the uttermost as the
freshness of the Transitional style declined. The influences bequeathed from former
ages were running out. Extreme freedom of design, although showing certain originality
and character, was not accompanied by necessary restraint. Architects sometimes cast
aside all the limitations of their art and gave themselves up to unreasonable over-elaboration
and the grotesque; they ignored the fact—true for all time—that construction must
form the basis for ornamental detail. But it must not be thought that this was always
so. There is, however, certain work of this period that cannot seriously be accepted
as good. Brickwork and stone continued to be employed and were still associated with
excellent workmanship, as was the carpentry. There was evidently yet, as the many
dated buildings prove, a large body of men who had complete mastery of their particular
crafts, men versed in that traditional skill which had come down unbrokenly from mediæval
days. Prominence was given to the numerous door and window openings, which were heavily
[72]moulded and often surmounted by pediments. Gables were shaped in endless ways and
upon them almost every conceivable combination of curves was employed. Pilasters and
cornices, swags and festoons, with strap ornament, scrolls and ornate iron wall-ties,
all generally of debased Renaissance character, contributed to the rich profusion.
Whither events in architectural history were tending will be seen in the following
illustrations. The “Goudkantoor” at Groningen (page ), bearing a motto and date of 1635, and a house near to it of the year 1661 (page
), have quaint gables, curiously shaped and laden with carved stone decorations. On
the walls below the same complex treatment continues, especially on the “Goudkantoor,”
the entrance doorway of which is emphasised by the work surrounding it. At Franeker
(page ) is an extreme development of the step gable, with the four steps supporting masses
of coarsely-designed ornamentation. The heavy pediments to the windows are conspicuous,
as are the many stone details. Two panels are inscribed with “ANNO 1662.” With the above-mentioned may be compared the two gables at Alkmaar (page ) which betray the same source of origin. Each is crowned by a stone pediment, and
the steps have carvings resting upon them. Applied to the wall of the farthermost
house, and placed centrally between the windows of the second storey, is a notable
iron wall-tie of much larger size than was usual. An enlarged drawing of it is reproduced
on page . Another variation of gable outline is illustrated from ’s Hertogenbosch [74](page ). In this case the stone-capped sides follow the lines of sweeping curves, and on
them, facing outwardly, are little carved bunches of fruit and flowers. The front
face of this building is remarkable for the use of pilasters. They are boldly carried
up from bases to the head of the gable. The pillars, executed in unrelieved brickwork,
have stone capitals of the Ionic order which carry an entablature. There appears the
date of MDCLXXI. The bricks are 2 inches wide by 9 inches long and are laid about
five courses to one foot.
It eventually came to pass that the gabled treatment, which had been the guiding principle
of house design for so many generations, was given up. And with the disappearance
of it there went that which had given character to the architecture of Holland. The
links of the tradition were broken. The old sources of inspiration no longer served.
Inherited ability and skill, originality and vigour, were being lost, and the last
traces of native ideas are to be found in inconspicuous buildings such as that given
from The Hague (page ). Although hipped roofs, wide projecting cornices and other Renaissance features
were employed, as is shown by the drawings from Velsen (page ), and Zutphen (page ), a pure Renaissance domestic architecture did not become established. When the traditional
style, owning both Gothic and Renaissance motives, had ceased to [76]hold its ground, the stream of design—which until then had flowed continuously—ebbed
low, and houses became uninteresting and commonplace. Away in the country the town
architecture is mirrored in the brick buildings of the numerous villages. Less pretentious
in appearance, their style is well suited to the simpler conditions that there obtain;
for the crowded activity of the town waterways is absent on the calm canals that wind
between meadows, and give communication from village to village; on the quays life
moves placidly. Spaarndam (page ) furnishes a typical village view, with its gabled brick and white-fronted houses,
screened by delicate greenery. The Ferry House, near Gennep (page ), has more ornate gables, curved and stepped, and on the front is diaper brickwork.
There also developed a type of building peculiar to the countryside. It is shown by
the many farmhouses and cottages. Their outward forms were determined by constructional
principles, and added adornment was but little employed. They are unobtrusive examples
of honest work, not claiming especial distinction, yet in thorough harmony with their
natural environment. They were brought into being by prevailing needs, and are the
local representatives of that phase of native art which is to be found in almost every
country. Such village homes exist in all parts of Holland. The style of them shows
little variation in the different localities. They [78]are equally suited to the windswept Friesland landscape, the watered provinces of
North and South Holland, or the beautiful country of North Brabant, with its hedgerows
and woods and distant hills. Grouping, perchance, around old brick churches and sheltered
by trees, as at Spaarwoude (page ), they are pleasant and rustic to see.
Under one great thatched or tiled roof all the covered accommodation necessary for
farm life is contained. One side of the building is occupied by living apartments,
the remainder providing a huge barn, stalls for cattle, and other conveniences for
the farmer’s work. These buildings were solidly constructed on a timber basis in the
manner shown by the sectional view from Halfweg (page ), where centre and side aisles are divided from each other by the stout upright timbers.
Extreme durability was the keynote and the materials were employed according to their
quality. This traditional form of building, practised for many generations, continues
in use to the present day. An illustration of the exterior of a similar homestead
to that mentioned above, and from the same village, also appears on page . The great roof, hipped at each end and covered with pantiles, will be observed.
Beneath the eaves are the domestic rooms, in this instance all upon the ground floor;
often they extend to a second storey in the roof, which is then lighted by dormers.
The cottages follow the same general constructive principles as the farms, and have
similar low walls and large roofs. A lean-to was frequently added to give an additional
room, and the main roof brought down over it at a less steep pitch. The roof space,
valuable as a store, is in many cases reached from the exterior by a ladder. In addition
to the customary steeply-pitched roofs, those of the Mansard pattern occur less frequently,
as is exemplified by the drawing from Schooten (page ).
Country work does not exhibit a great variety of building materials. Bricks, being
made from the natural product and consequently readily available, were principally
used for the walls. Rather than left in their normal state, they were often thinly
coated with plaster on the outer face, and the lower parts, for about two feet upwards
from the ground, were tarred. Houses [80]and cottages of this description together form a characteristic group in the country
architecture of Holland. They were built upon a traditional system which grew out
of the accumulated experience that was transmitted from generation to generation.
Customary examples are shown in the two drawings from Beek (pages and ), and by that from Broek in Waterland (page ). The farmhouse from Brigdamme (page ) is of a similar character; at the entrance are two stone gate-piers, dated 1622.
Two influences are to be traced in the farm at Bloemendaal (page ). The main building has the white plastered walls and large roof—which in this case
comes forward to cover an open verandah—while the adjoining gable is of natural coloured
bricks and more in the style of town work.
Houses with wooden walls are prevalent, especially in North Holland. Upon a low brick
wall, tarred, and varying in height from 18 to 30 inches, the timber frame was erected.
Boards were simply nailed to it and the framing was commonly left exposed to view
on the exterior. The boarding was well coated with paint or tar for protection against
the weather. A roof of thatch or tiles, well projecting at the eaves, covered the
whole. There was thus provided, by simple and economical means, a type of building
well suited for its purpose. The village of Broek has many examples of timber houses,
such as those here given on page ; while near by, at Monnikendam, Volendam, and on the Island of Marken, are numerous
others.
[81]
[82]
An extravagant use of paint is conspicuous in the country as well as the towns. It
is renewed at frequent intervals and, in the main, it is well applied. Shutters and
doors and window frames, and frequently the whole house front, are freely covered
with it. But the effects are not unpleasing. They give to the villages an air of gaiety
and freshness. Plain schemes of colour are wisely adhered to, while throughout a district
one general note will be followed. On the island of Walcheren it is apple-green and
white; north of Amsterdam bluey-green and cream; while the woodwork of the house at
Beek (page ) is painted in the tones of buff that find favour in the locality of Nijmegen.
There are many other domestic features worthy of note to be seen in the villages of
Holland; quaint appliances for wells, ingeniously worked (page ), or little bridges that span dividing dykes, and connect homesteads with the highways.
One from Zuiderwoude, near the edge of the Zuider Zee, is illustrated on this page.
It is built of brick relieved by a little stonework. On the keystone of the arch appears
the date of 1799. The wooden gates above give access to the farm and the fields. The
Dutch, too, have a marked fondness for natural beauty, as is demonstrated by the skill
they display in laying-out open spaces. All towns can show flower gardens and lawns,
or old fortifications overlooked by gaunt watch-towers, transformed into pleasant
parks. Nijmegen and Arnhem are noteworthy in this respect. Very charming, too, are
the village streets, of which that at Brigdamme (page ) is a typical instance. They are lined with many trees that afford kindly shade in
summer and shelter from the wind, and gratify the eyes with traceries of green.
[83]
