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 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 21), 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 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 24); 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 25), 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 from Franeker (page 26), 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 27), 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 29) and St. Laurens (page 31). 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 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 30) 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 33. On the other hand, the narrow house at Hoorn (page 34) 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 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 35) 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.

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 37). The dormer eventually became a much developed feature. In examples such as those shown from Leiden (page 39), 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 36) 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 38) 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 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 40) 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 41) 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.

On the exterior walls of the house from Zutphen (page 43) 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 42.

A noticeable treatment of the ground floor elevation is exemplified by the two drawings from Alkmaar and Hoorn (pages 33 and 34), already considered, and by that from Veere (page 44). 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 45). Sometimes one influence shows predominantly, sometimes another. The brick and stone faÇade at Delft (page 46) has all the attributes 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 47) and Alkmaar (page 48). 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 51), 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 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 50), 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 50), 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 49) 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 52) 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 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 53)—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 54) 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 55), erected thirty-five years earlier. Its too fussy elaboration is in sharp contrast with the comparative 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 50) and Flushing (page 56), 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 57. 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 59), 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 58, 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.”

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 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 60), bearing a motto and date of 1635, and a house near to it of the year 1661 (page 61), 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 62) 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 65) 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 64. Another variation of gable outline is illustrated from ’s Hertogenbosch (page 63). 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 66). Although hipped roofs, wide projecting cornices and other Renaissance features were employed, as is shown by the drawings from Velsen (page 67), and Zutphen (page 69), a pure Renaissance domestic architecture did not become established. When the traditional style, owning both Gothic and Renaissance motives, had ceased to 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 71) furnishes a typical village view, with its gabled brick and white-fronted houses, screened by delicate greenery. The Ferry House, near Gennep (page 73), 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 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 68), 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 70), 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 70. 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 72).

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 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 74 and 76), and by that from Broek in Waterland (page 78). The farmhouse from Brigdamme (page 75) 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 77). 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 79; while near by, at Monnikendam, Volendam, and on the Island of Marken, are numerous others.

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 81) 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 80), 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 18) 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.