2.1

Architectural Description and Context

Background

In his 1981 Historic Structure Report on the Bowne house, Gordon W. Fulton recorded early traditions and some documentation regarding the first house that JohnBowne had lived in on Long Island.

John Bowne and his father are believed to have lived in the vicinity ofNorthern Boulevard and Union Street or Whitestone Avenue and State1

Street. Samuel Parsons Journal notes that “John Bowne’s first house was2

on ground now known as State Street [35 avenue] near East side ofth

Whitestone Ave. [Union Street]. The foundations of the building remaininguntil about 40 years ago [1800] Samuel Parsons built his house on this land.3

This farm of some 40 acres apparently remained in the Bowne family untilpurchased by William Urlick from Robert Bowne when he went to New Yorkin 1776. Urlick sold the farm to Samuel Parsons in 1806, the same year4

Parsons married Mary Bowne, great-great-granddaughter of John Bowne.5

This house was occupied by John Bowne until, it is presently thought, c.1660,when he moved to the house which is the subject of this report.

The John Bowne House

Description

The John Bowne house is a wood-framed dwelling comprised of three distinctcomponents: a six-bay wide 1½ story gable-roofed section, the roof of which is raisedto two stories on the north elevation; a 1½ story kitchen wing with gable roofattached to the east end of the first section; and a one story laundry addition withlean-to roof attached to the east end of the kitchen.

The westernmost portion of the house is presently believed to have beenconstructed during four distinct building campaigns. The eastern half of the house isbelieved to have been largely constructed c.1660, and utilized a bent frame type ofstructural system. The west half of the house was constructed c.1669, and utilized anear-identical structural system as the earlier portion. A one-story lean-to additionwas constructed across the north side of the house, extending across the north face

2.2

of both of these portions of the house, sometime before c.1763, and possibly as earlyas c.1696. Finally, additional rooms were created c.1845 when the north elevationwas raised to two stories in height. Minor alterations c.1880 updated some of themechanical systems but left the plan of the house largely unchanged from its c.1845configuration (Figs. 2.1 thru 2.3).

Figure 2.1. Basement floor plan with room number designations (2006, redrawn from a drawingby Cowley & Prudon Architects, 2000).

2.3

Figure 2.2. First floor plan with room numbers (2006, on modified HABS basedrawing, 1936).

Figure 2.3. Second floor plan with room numbers (2006, on modified HABS basedrawing, 1936).

2.4

This portion of the house is sheathed with wood shingles on all faces, exceptfor a small area of its east elevation, located within a recessed porch associated withthe kitchen wing, which is covered with weatherboards. The shingles appear to dateto the c.1845 alterations but some may predate that period. A porch with low6

hipped roof supported on two square columns shelters the front door on the southelevation. It replaced a pent-roofed porch of similar size c.1845. The presentcolumns are 20 century replicas of a late 19 century design.th th

A basement currently exists under the entire house except the kitchen andlaundry wings. Evidence from 1936 HABS field notes and observation of existingconditions indicates that the east half of room B03 is the oldest part of the basement(located under the c.1660 portion of the house), and that its western end was largelyunexcavated as late as 1936. This may have been left unexcavated in order tosupport the chimney, or to provide a base for the hearth if it was a jamblessfireplace. During work undertaken in 1938 much more of this area was excavated(compare Figs. 2.1 and 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Basement plan, existing conditions as of 1936 (2006 from 1936 field notes). Window wells, location of stair to basement and second bulkhead were not indicated innotes, but they appear in the first floor drawing from the HABS set.

2.5

The area under the c.1669 portion of the house and the west end of the lean-to are excavated to a higher elevation than that under the c.1660 part of the building(room B01). The east end of the basement under the lean-to (room B02) is excavatedto the level of room B03.

The plan of the first floor of this portion of the house is similar to the centralchimney plan, featuring a hall, parlor and lobby, which was transplanted fromEngland and which found popular application throughout New England, andparticularly in the Connecticut River Valley and the Massachusetts Bay areas. As withmany of those houses, the lean-to portion of the plan contained a range of roomswhich communicated directly with the hall and parlor. Their original configuration atthe Bowne house is not presently known—it is possible that the partitioning was notchanged substantially after their initial construction, with the exception of theinsertion of a stair in room 103, c.1845. The second floor largely replicates thearrangement of rooms on the first floor.

The kitchen wing appears to have been constructed c.1795 and was altered byraising the north slope of the roof c.1845, similar to what was accomplished on theolder part of the house at that time. The roof of the south porch was also raised7

contemporaneously, so that the south slope of the roof was made continuous.

The arrangement of rooms, and the belief that this was the oldest part of thehouse, lead Gordon W. Fulton to make comparisons between the kitchen wing and17 century houses in Rhode Island, including the Roger Mowry and Thomas Fennerth

houses. While there are some superficial similarities to these dwellings, Fulton’s8

observation that this part of the house was framed in bents was erroneous, and waslikely based upon examination of the rafters and collar ties, the only parts of thestructure visible in 1980. In fact, the framing is comprised of two H-bents, thewestern one set about three feet east of the older portion of the house, joined onnorth and south by dropped girts upon which the second floor joists rest. This hybridof New World Dutch and English traditional framing systems, frequently seen in thelate 18 and 19 centuries within the New Netherland cultural area and adjacentth th

areas, was utilized in the framing of barns and outbuildings as well as dwellings. Theexterior of this portion of the house is sheathed with weatherboards.

The first floor plan is comprised of a large room on the south and two smallerrooms divided by a north-south hall on the north. A small stair hall rises to the eastend of the wing and turns south to land in room 212. The second floor is currentlydivided into three rooms and a hall. The southeastern room (room 214) has afireplace, the firebox of which has cheeked walls.

2.6

The laundry wing is attached to the east elevation of the kitchen wing. It wasconstructed after the kitchen wing, but before c.1822 when the Milbert view wastaken, and so it is speculated to date to c.1815. The laundry wing is a one storystructure with shed roof, and containing one room. The weatherboarded eastelevation of the kitchen wing remains exposed in this room as the west wall. Theexterior of the laundry wing is sheathed with weatherboards.

A more detailed description of each construction phase and an examination ofsome of the diagnostic features of those phases are presented in the next section.

Background

The Bowne house is one of a small handful of buildings constructed in the 17th

century which still stand within the historical boundaries of New Netherland. Thesuperstructure of the house remains essentially unchanged since c.1885, when thelast substantive changes to the dwelling established the floor plan that exists today.

As it stands today, the Bowne house is the product of more than 200 years ofalterations and additions. During its long history, the house has been constructed ormodified to fit into the ideals of three distinct vernacular typologies. These will beexamined in this chapter, and the major episodes of construction will be presented. Conjectural reconstruction drawings and photographs illustrate key periods of thehouse’s development.

Contemporary buildings

A small number of 17 and early 18 century buildings remain standing withinth th

the former New Netherland cultural area and eastern Long Island. These are amongthe earliest of houses constructed for European immigrants that yet exist in thenortheast United States. Included in this group are the Pieter Claesen Wyckoff house,Brooklyn (c.1652); the Bronck house in Coxsackie, Greene County (1663); the WilliamBowne house, Atlantic Highlands (alt. The Leonardo section of Middletown or AtlanticHighlands), NJ (1664?); the Ryves Holt house at 218 Second Street, Lewes, DE(c.1665); the Brewster house, North Country Road (Route 25A), East Setauket, LI(c.1665); the Old Halsey house, South Main Street, Southampton (1666); the NathanielBritton house (“The Britton Cottage”), Staten Island, now at Historic Richmond Town(c.1670); the Jan Martense Schenck house, formerly in Flatlands and now installed atthe Brooklyn museum (c.1676); the William Van Nostrand-Joseph Starkins house,

2.7

221 Main Street, Roslyn, Nassau County (1680); the Peter Cooper house, formerly atHempstead and now at Old Bethpage Village Restoration (c.1680); the ChristopherBillop house (“The Conference House”), near Tottenville, Staten Island (c.1680); theAlice Austen house, Staten Island (c.1690s); “The Dutch house,” New Castle, DE(c.1690-1710); the Quaker meeting house, Flushing (c.1694); the Dr. Robinson house,Clark, New Jersey (c.1696); the John Budd house (“The Old House”), Case’s Lane,Village Green, Cutchogue (c.1699); and the Paulus Vander Ende-Adrian Onderdonkhouse (stone), 1820 Flushing Avenue, Ridgewood, Queens (1709), which mayincorporate wood frame components dating to c.1655; and the Terry-Mulford house,Orient Point, Southold (c.1716). 9

This group of buildings forms the contemporary context for understanding theconstruction techniques and form of the 17 -century portions of the Bowne house. th

They, along with additional contemporary buildings in Connecticut, and others oflater date in the New Netherland cultural area, will be referred to in the followingessay to establish the spatial and temporal distribution patterns for various diagnosticfeatures used in the construction of the Bowne house.

c.1660: Construction of the house

The exact date of initial construction of the Bowne house remains unknown. The date traditionally assigned to the completion of the dwelling—1661—does notappear in either the account book or journal of John Bowne. Bowne noted in hisjournal his arrival in Flushing on “the fifteenth Day of the 4 month June old styleth

1651 with my brother [in law] Edward Farrington.” Bowne returned to Boston, wherehe was a successful merchant, but came back to Flushing in 1653. In 1656 he wasmarried to Hannah Feke. Construction of a house could have occurred at any point10

after 1651 when Bowne purchased a large tract of land , but more likely occurred11

soon after their marriage. Hannah knew Dutch, but did not typically make use of thatlanguage while at home; she is known to have made use of it while in the LowCountries in 1677, though. This is our strongest indication of her New World Dutch12

acculturation.

The earliest evidence we have for the existence of a “John Bowne House” is inBowne’s testimony at the funeral services of his wife in 1677, during which herecalled that in June [“English count”] 1661 he and his wife had journeyed from “ourhouse at Flushing towards Rhode Island.” This may be the source for the traditional13

construction date of 1661 for the dwelling. John Bowne noted in his account bookunder the date of “1662...on the first day of 7 month Resolved [Waldron] came toth

2.8

my house att vlishing.” Bowne was detained first in New Amsterdam [New York]14

and subsequently in Europe from 24 August 1662 until the “30 of 1 month” [March]th st

1664, at which time he arrived in New Amsterdam and made his way back to hishouse. Thus construction between the years 1662 and 1664 is unlikely.15

John Feke, John Bowne’s brother-in-law, may have contracted to build thehouse. Feke is documented as the builder of much later work undertaken by Bowne. One source has him active as a carpenter in Oyster Bay as early as 1663. He is first16

mentioned in Bowne’s account book in 1666. Little else is presently known of Feke17

except for the date of his marriage to Elizabeth Pryor: 15 July 1670. 18

Components of the Original House

A number of the structural features used in the construction of the c.1660Bowne house are strongly associated with either the New World Dutch cultural area,17 -century vernacular building, or both. Several of these features are described inth

more detail below, and an attempt at discerning their spatial and temporaldistribution in America is presented.

Bent frame with corbels

As initially constructed, the John Bowne house utilized a conventional bentframe structural system, which likely would have been familiar to both the carpenter,and to his sister, John’s wife Hannah. The bent frame, consisting of parallel H-19

shaped frames comprised of pairs of posts joined by an anchor beam which alsoserved as the second floor support was utilized as the structural system for houses,but also for barns, mills, and other outbuildings. The bent frame system is recordedin the earliest surviving contracts for structures built in the New Netherland culturalarea and was utilized as late as c.1830 for houses, and c.1860 for the construction ofoutbuildings, including barns and carriage houses.

As initially constructed the Bowne house is believed to have had eight bentsand seven rafter pairs. The rafter pairs retain the Roman numerals which werescored into their west faces to aid in their erection. At least two of the bents werereinforced with corbels at either end. Corbels are curved, or—rare in the newworld—carved braces that provide support against wracking of a particular bent byforming a triangular joint at the point where the anchorbeam frames into the posts. Early contracts for buildings constructed in New Netherland support the contention

2.9

that the use of this old world feature was widespread. Corbels were not needed inthe end walls, which received additional support from the exterior sheathing. Onlater examples, the use of corbels tends to be limited to the bent immediately infront of the hearth, that is, the bent which is free from a wall, yet supporting thechimney mass venting the jambless fireplace. Likely this habit continued in thebelief that the corbels strengthened the structure at this point, and helped totransfer some of the load from the anchor beam to the columns. Regional variationfrom this trend means that today one can see examples of dwellings where all of theinterior bents have corbels in houses constructed as late as the mid-18 century.th 20

Because a substantial number of the anchor beams and posts remain covered inthe c.1660 portion of the house, it is only possible to say with certainty that bentstwo and five (counting from the west) had corbels, and that bents one, three, fourand eight did not. The presence or absence of corbels on bents six and seven isunknown.

A peg at thebottom of one of thenorth posts visible inthe dining room (room107) is an unusualfeature, as is theexposed sill in thislocation. In most21

instances of bentframing a narrow sillwas used, and a tenonat the bottom of thepost was let into amortice in the sill. The presence of a pegin this location is acurious variationwithout knownprecedent and is notstructurally necessary(Fig. 2.5).

Figure 2.5. Detail of the exposed sill near the northeast corner of thec.1660 house, 2006.

2.10

The top corner of the sill is cut to receive the north edge of the northernmostfloorboard. This is a marked variation from the typical arrangement wherein the firstfloor boards are attached to the top of the joists and either abut or are cut aroundthe posts, and was necessitated by the unusual height of the sill.

Very little of what the visitor to the Bowne house sees today can be dated tothe 17 century. Possible clues to the early finishes in the house were uncoveredth

during the course of archeological investigations on the property. Lead windowcames and delft tile fragments were found during the course of excavationsconducted at the house during 1997-2003. Unfortunately, these are not presently22

available for examination so nothing further can be said about them at this time.

A single tile that reportedly came from the Bowne house was returned by arelative in the early 20 century (Fig. 2.6). Its polychrome decoration places it in ath

different aesthetic sphere from the monochromatic tiles most frequentlyencountered; its likely date and point of origin—whether Dutch or English—has notbeen determined.

Figure 2.6. Tile of unknown date, said to have come from theBowne house (BHHS collection).

2.11

Chimneys and Fireplaces

The types of fireplaces constructed in the c.1660 and c.1669 portions of thehouse remains a mystery. While in many instances houses with bent frames wereconstructed with jambless fireplaces, contemporary houses were also constructedwith “English” fireplaces, or with “swan’s breast” jambs, which were similar tojambless fireplaces but with the added feature of having the smoke hood supportedon corbels, which were typically carved, and which sometimes featured shallowjambs. The large area under the central chimney mass which remained23

unexcavated until 1938 would have been useful for the support of hearths forjambless fireplaces, or to support the weight of a chimney, and so does not support adefinitive answer.

Both “English” and “Dutch” (jambless) fireplaces were constructed throughoutthe New Netherland cultural area during the 17 century. The use of the jamblessth

type of fireplace gradually died out during the 18 century, but examples as late asth

c.1771 are known in the upper Hudson Valley.

Trenched rafters

The c.1660 portion of theBowne house was constructedutilizing a system of pit-sawntrenched rafters and lath tosupport the roof sheathing. Trenched rafters are roof supportswhich have been cut to receivepurlins, or in this case, roofshingle laths, the outside surfaceof the lath being flush to theexterior face of the rafters. Thelaths at the Bowne house measure2¼" x 1½", are oak, and arespaced approximately 16" oncenter.

Trenched rafters are a rare survivor in American vernacular buildings. Amongthe few examples that remain is the Sloop Point house, east of Wilmington, NorthCarolina (late 1720s?). The Van Nostrand-Starkins house in Roslyn, North24

Figure 2.7. Detail of the rafters of the Schenck housetaken during its reassembly in 1963 (BrooklynMuseum).

2.12

Hempstead, Nassau County, New York, believed to have been constructed c.1680,retains portions of three rafter pairs with trenching for lath. The notches are 1" deepand 3" wide, and are spaced 16" on center. The spacing on the Van Nostrand-25

Starkins house roof is identical with that used at the Bowne house. The Jan MartenseSchenck house (c.1676) retains its trenched rafters, without the shingle lath (Fig.2.7).

The Jarvis Mudge house (c.1690), formerly in Roslyn but relocated to LocustHill in 1987, also had trenching on the surviving fragments of its rafters. Stevens26

records that the Captain Sands house, Sands Point, Nassau County (c.1690) has similartrenching, on 12" centers, and that “Some pieces of the shingle lath survive inplace.”27

An example in Rhode Island is known, and at least two examples in southernNew Jersey. These include the “Caesarea River House” near Stow Creek inCumberland County, and “Vauxhall” outside of Greenwich, Cumberland County. Bothare tentatively dated to c.1700. The original owner of Vauxhall was Thomas Maskell,who came from Simsbury, Connecticut. Additional examples known in Connecticut28

include the Thomas Lee house at East Lyme.29

The trenched rafters and remaining roof laths are among the most historicallysignificant architectural features of the Bowne house. Abbott Lowell Cummings hasrecorded additional houses that retain trenched rafters in Connecticut, including theWheeler house in Bridgeport, but none of these retain the laths. Later New York30

State examples include the Lawrence house, formerly at College Point.31

Although it has been said that no English precedent for the use of this type ofroof laths has been located, Nat Alcock of the University of Warwick believes that thistype of roof is a simple variant of the “common purlin” roof system, used in bothEngland and in America. The 17 century “high-roof” of the choir of Worcester32 th

Cathedral appears to most closely approximate the roof system used in the c.1660portion of the Bowne house in the old world. 33

Cobbing

In the area of Cornwall, England, the term “cob” is used to describe the clayand straw mixture with which walls are constructed, and its first recorded use as aterm dates to 1602. In other areas of England it was known as “clob”, “mud,” or“clay” construction. All of these terms were applied to buildings constructed ofunfired earth, almost always without a supporting frame.34

2.13

As used by John Bowne in January 1681, the term “cobbing” appears to havebeen applied to a different construction technique. The walls described were to be35

covered with shingle or clapboards, indicating the presence of a wood frame. Whilewe cannot connect this construction episode to an identified portion of the presenthouse, a similar if not identical technique is present in the c.1660 part of the Bownehouse (Fig. 2.8).

The north wall of the c.1660 portion of the house was enclosed by cutting oaksticking generally about 2" in diameter, whittled down at its ends and fastened eitherinto grooves or into holes cut into the sides of the posts of each bent, and sethorizontally. These sticks were placed roughly on 6" centers. These were used as anarmature to support a mixture of clay and marsh grass or straw, which was packed onboth sides of the sticking, pressing against the already-set exterior cladding andsmoothed to receive a thin layer of plaster or whitewash on the interior. Thistechnique for infilling walls is seen in a number of dwellings with New World Dutch orPalatine cultural affiliations. Whether the technique, the grass and clay mixture, orthe cob-shaped wood sticking was being identified by Bowne in his use of the term“cobbing” is not presently clear. For purposes of comparison, the term will beapplied to the system of construction: infill comprised of a mixture of clay and grassutilizing sticking as a support.

Figure 2.8. Detail showing exposed cobbing in room 107, 2005.

2.14

This construction technique is a variation of an ancient method of wallconstruction used in Europe and later in New England and known as “wattle anddaub,” and was used in buildings up to the 18 century. Wattle and daubth 36

construction typically was comprised of “vertical wooden stakes, or wattles, [whichwere then] woven with horizontal twigs and branches, and then daubed with clay ormud.”37

Few examples of cobbing are preserved in America today, but those that areknown have a large spatial and temporal distribution. Examples include theCoeymans house, Coeymans, Albany County (c.1710); the Pieter Claesen Wyckoffhouse, Brooklyn Kings County (in alterations thought to date to c.1730-1750); theJuria Sharpe house, in DeFreestville, North Greenbush, Rensselaer County (c.1740);the Nellis Tavern, St. Johnsville, Montgomery County (1747); and an identified housein the town of Minden, Montgomery County (c.1780).

John Stevens has recorded a number of examples including the Minne Schenckhouse (c.1730); a house beside abandoned lock 55 of the Delaware & Hudson canal atGodeffroy, Orange County; the Lutheran Parsonage in Schoharie, Schoharie County(c.1750), an unidentified house in the Town of Saugerties, Ulster County; and theDuBois-Kierstede house Saugerties, Ulster County (1727). Additional examples38

identified by Stevens from fragments in reused contexts include the Daniel PieterWinne house, Bethlehem, Albany County (in a context dating to c.1750), and in thePeter Cooper house, Hempstead, Nassau County, now moved to Old Bethpage VillageRestoration, Nassau County.39

Additional examples of the use of this technique in the mid-Hudson valley areseen in the Jacob Hasbrouck house in New Paltz, Ulster County on an interiorpartition (1721), and in the Melius-Bentley house in Pine Plains, Dutchess County. 40

Thus extant examples can thus be found throughout much of New York State alongthe Hudson and Mohawk valleys, and on Staten and Long islands, spanning the periodfrom c.1660 to c.1780.

Only three counties in New York—Queens, Kings, and Nassau—retain examplesof three of the known building techniques (the bent system of framing, cobbed walls,and trenched rafters) utilized in the c.1660 Bowne house. While the original range ofthis area of overlap cannot be determined, the surviving examples point to westernLong Island as the locus of the contemporary use of all three techniques during thelate 17 and early 18 centuries.th th 41

2.15

Subsequent Alterations to the house

c.1669 and 1676

As originally constructed, the Bowne house measured about 31 feet long by justunder 21 feet in width (Figs 2.9 and 2.10). During the winter of 1668-1669 the oaktimbers for an addition to the western end of the Bowne house were cut, likely froma nearby wooded area. The addition measured approximately 21 feet square, and42

was also constructed with a corbeled bent frame, one of the corbels from which ispreserved in situ (Fig. 2.11). Because most of the structural components in thisportion of the house are hidden, we know less about this part of the building than theremainder of the structure.

Figure 2.09. Conjectural first floor plan of the c.1660 Bowne house (John R. Stevens, 2003).

2.16

However, a few additional facts can be ascertained. The frame is comprised offive bents and six rafter pairs. An examination of the rafters in the attic of thec.1669 part of the house reveals that they are not trenched, but rather appear tohave supported roof boards from the beginning. The frame of the addition wascomprised of five bents. At the present time we do not know what kind of supportlies behind the plaster walls and paneling of room 105, which today comprises most ofthis addition.

Although John Bowne’s account book and journal are silent about theconstruction of the frame of this addition, an agreement for work on the house lateron in 1669 was recorded by Bowne in his account book, and likely constitutes finishwork conducted during this same building campaign. This included the constructionof an enclosed bed in a corner of one of the rooms and relocation of a trap door:

Figure 2.10. Conjectural restoration of the south elevation of the frame and a cross section ofthe c.1660 Bowne house (John R. Stevens, 2003).

2.17

An agreement betwex frances blodgood and John bowne of a parsel ofworke frances is to doe for John in payment for a chare of fresh medoethat is to say to make one [ye cla?]bort one standing louse bedsted oneCabein bedstead two dores to bee verie close smouthing and ledging atable to put up a shelfe and dreser and and a few Clabords and to clos upthe ould trap hole and make a new one and to new hang a dore and tomake a slade and a wheelbarow this agreed upon betwext us this 21 of thetenth month cald desember 1669.43

Figure 2.11. View north-northwest in room 105, 2006.

2.18

Frances Bloodgood is noted as a carpenter as early as 1659 in Flushing. Members of his family were carpenters active there for at least the next 150 years. 44

Bloodgood undertook further alterations to the house in the autumn of 1676. JohnBowne

reckned with ffrances Blodtgoet the 15 of y 7 month caled septem[ber]:th e :th

in the yeare 1676....[for] th[e] makeing a bedstid by the Chimnie i[n] theChamber and a smooth partishi[on] and dore a bout it for a lityl Close[t] &a shelfe runnd above...45

A few facts about the Bowne house as it then stood—in 1676—can beascertained from this brief agreement. First, there were at least two rooms in thehouse, one of which was called the “chamber.” The chamber had a chimney in it, orat least a hearth. It is unlikely that the built-in bed, or bed-box, which Bloodgoodconstructed in 1669 was in this room since the agreement of 1676 calls for theconstruction of a bed, which was to be enclosed by a smooth-planed partition wallwith a door for a closet above it, in this space.

It is not known if any of these alterations had anything to do with the presenceof slaves in the Bowne household, which is first documented at this time. No mentionis made in the historical record of where the family’s slaves were housed. It ispossible that the east end of the attic served as a sleeping and work area for slaves atthis early date, but evidence is scarce. The presence of a barred window in room 210may be an indication of this use, or may simply represent a desire to protectfoodstuffs stored in the loft from larger mammals.

c.1681-1684 alterations to a dwelling

It has traditionally been thought that an agreement between John Bowne andJohn Feke from January 1681 recorded in Bowne’s account book refers to work doneon his own house:

Agreement made with brother John ffeke y: 31: of y: 11: month 1680e th e th

[January 1681]: as foloweth hee Is to frame y: house I intend to buld Ie

providing y: timber redy hughed or sawne hee is to smouth frame and sete

by Joyning it suffishantly to the house alrdy bult (John Clay to worke withhim hee instruckting J: C: what hee cann in y: doeing of it) finishing alle

framing both for dores windos and Chimnis leveing it fitt for Clabording and

2.19

Shingling and Cobbing as it shall requyer for which I am to pay him sixpounds three in winter wheat and three in indiferent good youe sheepe attwelfe shilings a peece at the begining of winter.46

However, it has not been possible to associate the above contract with anextant portion of the present Bowne house. None of the wood that has dendro-datedso far can specifically be connected with this construction episode. More critically,however, the inclusion of “Chimnis”—apparently intending the plural—removes thepossibility of the lean-to having been the subject of this agreement, since no chimneywas constructed in that part of the house until c.1845. The fact that the walls wereto be cobbed accords with the technique as seen in the north wall of the c.1660portion of the house, but even if that portion of the dwelling had actually beenconstructed in 1681, there remains no indication for the sites of more than onechimney within its frame. 47

Several additional entries in the account book give information about thisconstruction episode, which appears to have extended into 1684. John Feake wasrecorded as to be paid “for workeing one day in y: woods and for framing the housee

when it is finished” on 31 January 1682. Jasper Smith worked for a number of days48

on the stone work of the “seler” [cellar] some time between 1679 and January 1682. 49

On the same date that John Feake contracted to construct the frame of the house,two other carpenters agreed to enclose the house.

John hinds and Nathanell lynas agreement y 31: of y: 11: mo: 1680e th e th

[January 1681]: was to have four shilings per hunderd with John Clays helpeto gett and lay on y: shingle and Clobord of a house for mee after wintere

wheat at five shil: soumer fonc and 6 pence Inden [Indian corn?] two &:6:pc

as agreed by y: agreement; aded since to shingle mee a stable at y samee e

[Beay?] receving two barills of syder they providing Casks at fifteen prebarill haveing recevd as followeth...50

John Hinds and Nathaniel Lyons were paid on 21 November 1681 for “Clabordand shingel work” done on the house indicating that it was enclosed by that date. Unfortunately the remainder of the page of the account book is largelyindecipherable, but the word “Cithin” [kitchen?] in association with work done byJohn Hinds in the spring of 1683 is probably the earliest reference to this room. 51

Accounts with John Feake in August 1684 may be for the end of thisconstruction phase. Feake was paid for “worke to wards the laying the hous flour,”for “5: days work about Stayrs and other worke,” and for “mending a [door] sadle a

2.20

panill and makeing lathbrads.” Apparently a man named John Robeson was workingwith Feake at the time, since payments to him are also recorded. A “John Robison”52

was active as a joiner in Oyster Bay in 1676.53

Until other evidence is obtained to the contrary, this documentation has beeninterpreted to represent work on a second dwelling on the Bowne property; perhapsit was for work on his father Thomas Bowne’s house, referred to at the beginning ofthis chapter. The elder Bowne had died in 1677 and it is not unlikely that his sonwould have improved the house within a few years of his father’s passing.

1695-96 Addition of Lean-to

By 1693 dissension in the Bowne family made the possibility of movingdesirable for Samuel Bowne and his wife. On 29 2m. 1693, he wrote to PhineasPemberton:

...My father is urgent with us to get about building for hee saith hee shallhave accetion [occasion] for all his housing; But wee first desire thyapprobetion & advice before we proceed in it; I tell him I hoop hee willhelp to buld if we must buld. He saith he will be provoked to nothing butwhat he pleaseth to doe. I expect it will not be very much; wee belive hewill marry quickly with won or other.

I see no wey better at present then to buld by my father upon hisplantetion it were better for us if we were in a house by our selves soe Idesire thee plese to give us a few loynes of advoice...54

From a subsequent letter by Mary Bowne it appears that they decided to moveinstead of building new. Despite this they had not moved out by 13 6 mo. [August],55

1693, on which date Samuel Bowne wrote that “...my dear and I both long to get outof this house & others as much desire to see us out.” There is some evidence that56

Samuel and his family, which by mid-1694 included the then-expecting Mary BecketBowne, his wife, and their first child Samuel, had not moved out at that date. On 303 mo. [May] 1694, Samuel had an accident while riding a wagon. In a letter Mary, hiswife, described “the Rest of the family” as having gone to see about his conditionwhen the accident was reported by his slave. It is likely that the phrase “the Rest ofthe family” referred not simply to little Samuel, but to John Bowne’s household aswell, suggesting that they lived together or in very close proximity.57

2.21

The fact that the two generations continued to share the house is furthersubstantiated by a letter from 1694 in which Mary Bowne reported that

...wee are about to build an ordnery house I thinck there is a bout oneweeks worck don to wards it and when the Rest will be don I cannot tellbut wee expect to bee in it bee fore winter I am quite awery of living herein this house, it is not wide an uf for my husband and his father hee manytimes thretnes to turn us out of his house, and I do not Know but in a shorttime hee will do it. 58

Whether or not this house was completed before the death of John Bowne in1695 is not currently known. It is likely, however, that if the Samuel Bowne familyever occupied the house that was reported as begun in the spring of 1694, it was for abrief period only, since the family homestead came to him when the estate wasdivided up in 1696. Two references to work contracted for by Samuel Bowne mayrepresent work done on this house, or (more probably) may represent additions to theJohn Bowne house. Bowne recorded in his father’s account book that

My agreemenment with John Thorn was thus he was to buld my house ye

same bigness as it now is and to finish all y: Carpinters work thereunto bee

longing this declerd by me this 26: 1 [March 16]96—mon 59

This work had begun as early as December 1695, as attested to a note in whichSamuel Bowne records payment

f me Samuell Bowne this 26: 1: 96 mony ped to John Thorn forr[om] da mo

bulding my house at Sundri times before this day abou d y: 19: 10:d e day mo

95...60

Thus by late 1695 Samuel Bowne had entered into an agreement with JohnThorn to build a house of the same “bigness” as it then was. But what does thismean? It could be taken to mean that ‘the house I contracted with John Thorn tobuild was to be the size that it was actually built,’ thus suggesting that the nature ofthe note from March 1696 was an affidavit. But there would have been little causefor Bowne to record such a thing in his account book, and a house begun in the springof 1694 would likely have been completed “bee fore winter,” of 1694/95 as MaryBowne noted. With the death of John Bowne on 20 October 1695 the need tocontinue work on such a house was obviated at any rate.

2.22

A second interpretation is possible. In this reading the phrase “same bigness asit now is” may be understood to mean ‘he is to build the addition to the same widthas the existing house.’ This might then refer to the construction of the lean-to. MaryBowne had recently commented that the house was not “wide an uf”; was theconstruction of a lean-to meant to alleviate the cramped conditions of the house forthe growing Samuel Bowne family?

John Stevens has indicated that little evidence for roof sheathing is found onthe remaining portions of the north rafters from the c.1669 portion of the house, andfor this reason suggests that the lean-to may have been constructed at the sametime. But such a small portion of these rafters survives that it seems unlikely that61

much evidence would be seen even if there had been roof boards nailed to therafters, and similarly, little evidence is found to indicate that rafters to support theleanto roof were nailed to the earlier north rafters. The evidence contemporaryexamples of “catslide” or lean-to roofs strongly supports the two-phase scenario; inhouses where a lean-to roof was constructed contemporaneously with a steeper andshorter opposing roof slope the roof structure was modified to prevent redundancy ofstructural elements. If the lean-to roof had been constructed at the same time andwith the same slope as the c.1669 rafters, the north member of each rafter pair thatexists today would have been redundant.

If constructed separately as alterations during the years 1695-96, the workundertaken at that time would have included the construction of a one-story additionto the north of the house, encompassing the area now occupied by rooms 101, 102,103, and 104 and measuring approximately 52'-6" long and 12 feet wide (Fig. 2.12). The granary door seen in the Milbert view c.1822 was likely installed at this time toallow the loft over these rooms to be used for storage. The presence of such a space,necessarily separate from the chambers to the south (rooms 205 and 207) is stronglysuggestive of the presence of at least partial boarding of the north rafter faces of thec.1660 and c.1669 portions of the house at some time before they were largelyremoved c.1845.

Work undertaken during 2000-2001 exposed parts of the interior face of thenorth wall of the lean-to, and a substantial portion of its structure. The wall iscomprised of oak studs, and supports lath and plaster. Examination of plasterfragments from the c.1695/96 wall surface in room 101 was attempted in 2001 by agraduate student at Columbia University. Hair used as a binder in the plastersampled at that time was identified as both horse and deer hair. A third type of hairwas tentatively identified as belonging to an antelope. There was no lime present inthe plaster sample, being composed of clay.62

2.23

Figure 2.12. Conjectural south and east elevations, and first floor plan, showing possibleconditions after c.1696 lean-to addition (John R. Stevens, 2003). Stevens does not indicate thepartitions that would have been in the lean-to portion of the plan.

The wall support system used in the c.1696 lean-to differs in two respects fromthe earlier work seen in the house. The earlier clay and grass mixture used in thewalls—exposed in the north wall and east attic wall of the c.1660 portion of thehouse, and in the west attic wall of the c.1669 portion of the building—contains noanimal hair. In addition, the earlier walls do not make use of the riven lath used inthe north wall of the lean-to. Although not definitive, these differences support theinterpretation of the lean-to as constructed some time after the c.1669 portion of thehouse.

2.24

The Friends Meeting House

Contemporary with the building projects privately initiated by the Bownes,members of the family were also involved in construction of a new meeting house,not far to the west of the Bowne house (Fig. 2.13). Inasmuch as these recordsprovide additional information regarding contemporary construction processes, theirpresentation here is appropriate. Gordon W. Fulton was able to supplement the briefreferences to the construction of the Friends Meeting House in Flushing with accountsfrom the church. The latter records were not available at the time of this writing; anextended quote from the 1981 Historic Structure Report is included here.

John and Samuel [Bowne] were involved in the construction of amore significant (we would assume) and substantial building in Flushing,the Friends’ Meeting House. The contemporary documentation of its63

construction sheds some supplementary light on the Bowne Houseagreements and accounts.

In the ninth month (November) of 1693, John Bowne and JohnFarrington were appointed by the Friends to “take ceare to im ployworkmen to get in timber they shall see needed for ye fitting ye house forRaising against ye next 1 mo.[March, 1694, o.s.]” John Bowne kept64

accounts for the construction of the Meeting House, and his first credits tothe account were dated 4 month (June) 1694. By this date the rearing ofth

the frame had taken place, and John had credited himself nine shillings“for my carting the ground sils and clabor boults.” John continued the65

accounting until August, 1695; beginning on March 25, 1696, Samuel keptthe accounts his late father had started. The first recorded meeting inFlushing Meeting House was on November 24, 1694, but debts against the66

Friends’ account were recorded well into 1697. Whether the building wasoccupied before completion, or the accounting lagged behind the work isnot clear. If the former was the case, some important elements were leftwanting for a long time. Hinges and “600 foot of bords to meeting house”were two of the last items accounted for in Samuel Bowne’s records.67

The more detailed records of the Meeting House can indicatepotential material sources and craftsmen whom Bowne may have called onwhen building and enlarging his house. A different carpenter was used forthe Meeting House than had been employed on Bowne House. GeorgeLangley was paid “for worke done about y meeting hous” in June 1694,e

May 1695 and March 1696. There is no record of his working on Bowne68

2.25

House, but other Meeting House craftsmen may possibly have suppliedBowne with necessary materials. For windows, an unnamed smith waspaid eighteen shillings “for windoe Iron rods,” and “Johanus De[n]uregles[b]u[re] at yourk” was paid two pounds “for glass for y meetinge

house.” That the Friends had to travel to New York for their glass69

suggests that this was a unique source for glazing, and may therefore havebeen used for the Bowne House windows.

Other suppliers for the Meeting House were Will Fowler, paid twelveshillings “for making hinges for y meeting house,” and Hughe 70

Copperthwaite, paid two shillings threepence for nails and fifteen shillingsfor lime. The implication is that these men did not necessarily supply71

goods or services to John and Samuel Bowne, but that such goods andservices were available, and used at that time and in that place.

Figure 2.13. The Quaker meeting house looking north, 1897 (BHHS archives).

2.26

c.1763 alterations to the Bowne house

The Bowne house was converted to serve two households c.1763 in accordancewith the will of John Bowne (1698-1757). The terms of the will stated that the housewas to be divided, with his widow Dinah Underhill Bowne (1705-1770) occupying thewest half of the house. The division was to be accomplished when his son John (1742-1804) reached his majority. Thus the division of the house occurred some time72

between 1757 and 1770, and likely between 1760 and 1764 if the terms of the willwere obeyed. Circa 1763 has been selected as a representative date for thesealterations.

The work of c.1763 radically altered the plan of the house, bringing it intoconformity with a common vernacular house type, known as the “lobby entryfarmhouse” in England and frequently referred to as a “central chimney plan” house,a form frequently seen in the Connecticut River Valley, and in coastal Massachusetts.(Figs. 2.14 through 2.16). The possibility exists that the house was remodeled to thisplan arrangement during the c.1695-96 alterations, but no definitive evidence for thishas been identified, and that work appears to have been largely supplanted by thec.1763 work. 73

2.27

Figure 2.14. Conjectural west and south elevations, and first floor plan, c.1763 (John R.Stevens, 2003). Stevens has not speculated on the arrangement of rooms in the lean-to, andindicates the kitchen chimney in this drawing.

2.28

Figure 2.15. Hall and parlor house (Brown 1985).

Figure 2.16. A more fully-developed form of the plan, similar to thatseen at the Bowne house (Kelly 1924).

2.29

The work undertaken at that time included the creation of a new centralchimney stack and finishes in the newly created parlors (rooms 105 and 107). Woodpaneling was installed in both rooms, although its original extent is not now known. It presently extends along the north, west and a portion of the south walls in room105, and on the east wall of room 107. Cupboards with upper and lowercompartments closed by pairs of doors were installed in each of these rooms. Thecupboard in room 105 remains in its original location; it is unclear whether or not thisis the case for that in room 107. Gordon W. Fulton generated a drawing comparingthe profiles of the cornice in room 105 and that surviving in other contemporaryhouses. His examples all dated to the second half of the 18 century, and are closelyth

related to the profiles used at the Bowne house (Fig. 2.17).

The framing to the south of the chimney was removed during the course of thiswork, and a new system of framing, comprised of joists oriented east-west, securedto the adjacent surviving bents, was constructed on both the first and second floors. This facilitated the creation of a winding staircase connecting the two floors.74

New windows were installed in the house, replacing the leaded glasscasements—the presence of which is documented by the aforementionedarcheological work at the house—with divided light sash windows. Substantialportions of at least two of the mid-18 century windows are preserved in the houseth

today (windows 115a and Attic E).

Figure 2.17. Profiles from 1. The Prince house, Flushing, 2. The Wyckoff house, Brooklyn, 3.Rock Hall, Lawrence, 4. Big House, Palisades, and 5. The Bowne house (Fulton 1981).

2.30

c.1795 Addition of kitchen wing

The work conducted c.1795 at the Bowne house seems to have been confinedto the creation of a kitchen wing, although it is possible that additional work(including the lath and plastering of the ceilings of rooms 105 and 107 and theattendant trimming of the bottom surface of the anchor beams) could have occurredat this late date.

As originally constructed the kitchen wing appears to have been comprised of alarge kitchen—occupying most of the first floor—with an open porch to the south, anda recessed porch to the north, where room 111 is at present. The originalarrangement of rooms 112 and 113 cannot be verified at present; in their currentconfiguration they are similar to other contemporary examples, however.

The second floor was comprised of two or three rooms, with a fireplace in theeasternmost room. That space (roughly room 214) was likely used as both a parlorand chamber, and a second chamber (reduced in size to room 213 at a later date)occupied the remainder of the south range. The remaining space (occupying some ofthe area of room 211) may have been a second chamber or a large closet.

This work is dated to c.1795 through an assessment of the technologies used tocut the wood, the type early mill-sawn lath used to support the plaster, and byanalysis of the nails used in its construction. The first floor joists were first hewn andthen halved by a reciprocating saw, a technique seen in a number of houses dating tothe 1790s. The hypothesis that room 111 was originally an open space is supported75

by the presence of layers of whitewash on the original plate, visible at presentbecause of the dismantling of the north wall.

It is interesting to contemplate why a new kitchen wing may have beenconstructed c.1795. Surely the date, which falls about the same time that the Bownefamily divested themselves of their slaves, cannot be a coincidence. Perhaps theconstruction of this portion of the house reflects—and articulates—the changingrelationship between the Bowne family and their servants.

An alternate theory would place the date of construction of the kitchen wingabout ten years later. Even if it were constructed as late as c.1806—the date of themarriage of Mary Bowne to Samuel Parsons—the purpose of the addition, and itsspatial arrangement, would have been the same. 76

2.31

As completed, the older portion of the house and its new kitchen wingfollowed a typology noted by visitors as frequently encountered within the New WorldDutch cultural area. In December 1778 James Thacher observed that “There is apeculiar neatness in the appearance of their [the Dutch] dwellings, having an airypiazza, supported by pillars in front, and their kitchens connected at the ends in theform of wings....” Although he was typifying houses in New Jersey, he might as well77

have been standing in front of the Bowne house or one of its contemporaries in theearly 19 century(Fig. 2.18).th

c.1815 addition of laundry

Some time between c.1795 and c.1822 a laundry was constructed at the eastend of the kitchen wing. An approximate date of c.1815 is given for its construction. Contrary to previous interpretations, the laundry wing does appear in the Milbertview taken of the house c.1822 (Fig. 3.1). While this view was published in 1825,James Parsons recalled that drawings for the “lithographs... were taken about 1822,by a Frenchmen [sic]...”78

Figure 2.18. The Vander Ende-Onderdonk house, showing its typical kitchen wing(unidentified source).

2.32

As originally constructed, the wing was (and remains) a single room, measuringapproximately 25 feet long and 11 feet wide. From what little can be seen of itsstructure, it appears to have conventional stud framing, with corner posts. Twosliding windows light its east wall, while a single 18 century sash relocated from anth

unknown previous installation was placed in the south wall, adjacent to the doorwhich leads outside. The floor is comprised of wood sleepers laid on the ground, towhich floor boards have been nailed. A cistern or well is located under the floor atthe south end of this room. The walls and ceiling were simply finished, the flushboards appropriate for an unheated work space where water was used.

With the completion of the laundry addition c.1815, the Bowne house was onceagain brought in line with a common vernacular type. In this typology the variousfunctions of the house were expressed as volumes of decreasing size. The livingquarters of the family were generally one-and-a-half or two stories in height andsurmounted by a gable roof the ridge parallel to the principal elevation. A kitchenwing—typically constructed either before or after the living quarters portion of thehouse—of one or one-and-a-half stories (both of shorter height) is attached to one ofthe short sides of the house, and its gable roof echoes the orientation of the largerpart of the dwelling. The lean-to addition, which frequently served as a laundry butalso served as a general interior domestic workspace and wood shed, was attached tothe available gable end of the kitchen wing, and almost always features a lean-to roofabutting the gable. This form may have been developed from a type of open porchcommonly encountered in the Netherlands or may have had an English antecedent. 79

It is not presently known when this typology first took form, but it clearlyachieved widespread popularity at the beginning of the 19 century. Examples areth

known in many locations throughout the northeastern United States, and Englishexamples are also known. Western Long Island preserves a concentration of thistype. Among the examples presently or formerly in Kings County, Maud E. Dilliardrecorded the Pieter Wyckoff house, the Van Nuyse-Ditmas house, the Stoothoff-Williamson house, the Stryker house, and the Stoothoff house.80

2.33

Visitor’s Accounts from the 1830s

Thomas Kelah Wharton, apprentice in architecture to Martin E. Thompson ofNew York, but accomplished as a draftsman in his own right before emigrating fromEngland in 1831, taught drawing at the Flushing Institute during 1832-1833. At thattime he made several drawings, among which were a general view of Flushing Bay(Fig. 2.20), and a view of the Bowne house, later reproduced as a lithograph (Fig.3.3). Wharton, who later rose to prominence in New Orleans as an architect, left thefollowing description.

The country around Flushing was rich and diversified and the shores of theBay, with its points, and, Riker’s Island formed numurous combinations ofgreat pictoral beauty, quiet and unobtrusive, and the clear waters whichflowed in from the “Sound” were dotted with sailing craft of everydescription— the East River being one of the avenues to the Harbour of

Figure 2.19. Pieter Wyckoff house, Brooklyn, 2006. The arrangement of kitchen andlaundry addition is the same as that of the Bowne house.

2.34

New York—At the head of the Bay a wide salt marsh runs far up into theisland (Long Island) as is generally The case with the numurous inlets thatindent this part of its shore—Flushing Creek winds thro’ it and drains thehigh cultivated lands on either side—from one of these elevations the viewis taken—the “Boat” that plyed twice a day between Flushing and the cityis on her way—and the daily “stage” crossing the causeway which carriesthe road over the Marsh around the head of the Bay—On the high groundto the left lay the fine estate of Majer Williams—beyond the Bay the grassyslopes and woodlands of West chester, washed by the East River—and in thefar distance the long level line of the Palisadoes on the Hudson—Thesewere an ever present and very fine feature in the scenery of this part ofLong Island...81

Figure 2.20. Flushing Bay, Long Island by Thomas Kelah Wharton (NYPL).

2.35

Wharton likely generated his view of the Bowne house during 1832-1833 when hewas a drawing instructor at the Flushing Institute. In his Diary entry of 2 January 1833he writes that he

Made a sketch of the “Flushing Oaks” two fine old trees rendered famousby the preaching of Thomas Fox [“George” interwritten] a Quaker of earlycelebrity. The old farm house opposite is also a remnant of the [?undecipherable word] age—on the gable end is the date sixteen hundredand something—near the trees is the pleasant residence of Mr. Parsons—afine old thrifty Quaker—and numerous families of the same sect in andaround Flushing still attest to the power of “Fox’s” elegance andinfluence.82

Wharton’s description provides the earliest reference to the painting of thedate on the west end of the Bowne house.

During the first three months of 1839, John Joseph Gurney toured Long Island. He described Flushing at that time.

The village of Flushing stands on the coast of a beautiful bay near thenorth-western extremity of the island, and within a drive of an hour anda half from Brooklyn...It is remarkable for its bright and pleasant dwellings.Many of these are on either side of a broad road which runs up a hill, intoa well-cultivated district of the country....I know of no part of the UnitedStates more carefully cultivated than the neighbourhood of that village.The farms—each under the care of its own proprietor—are in excellentorder. The country is also well wooded; and peculiarly agreeable are theresidences (for the most part white frame houses) which are scattered overthe district....Land fetches a high price—in the immediate neighborhoodof the town, it sometimes sells for £50 per acre. A proportion of it iscultivated in nursery grounds. Indian corn here produces from 80 to 100bushels per acre; and I was assured that the profits of the farmer averagea high per centage. The produce of one farm of 200 acres, the year before[1838], was 7000 dollars, besides the living of the family; but from thisgross sum the expense of labour was to be deducted.

One of the common productions of the waters of Long Island sound,is a shell-fish, called the clam, which, like the oyster, is a common articleof diet.83

2.36

c.1845 Additions and Alterations

About 1845, and certainly after 1841, the Bowne house was expanded andremodeled. The latter year is the date of a lithograph view that does not appear todepict the alterations and shows both Flushing Oaks standing to the west of thehouse. Of the two “Flushing Oaks” contemporary sources record that “the larger wasblown down September 25, 1841.” This date is important to recall when estimating84

the age of various early views of the Bowne house and its environs. The secondFlushing Oak was destroyed by fire in October 1873 ; many of the 19 -century views85 th

of the house can thus be dated with some certainty when these dates are kept inmind.

During the c.1845 work, a range of rooms (201, 202, 203, and 204) wereconstructed over the c.1695-96 lean-to portion of the house, the first floor roomsunder these (rooms 101, 102, 103, and 104) were remodeled, and their partitioningmay have been altered. A new stair was installed in room 103, rising to 203. A holewas cut in the floor of room 103 for a stair leading down to the basement. Theremodeling of rooms 101 thru 104 was necessary because in the process of raising thenorth elevation to a full two stories in height, the first floor ceilings were raised inthese rooms as well. To affect this, a new wall was constructed along the south faceof the original north wall of the lean-to. The second floor framing was supported bythis new work. It seems likely that this was done because the original wall wasdetermined to be too flimsy to support an additional story. Machine-cut nails wereidentified in portions of this partition exposed in rooms 101, 102, and 103 during thecourse of work in 2000.86

It was at this same time that the original lower collar ties supporting theceilings of rooms 205 and 207 were removed, and replaced with joists secured at ahigher elevation. This became necessary when the north rafters were sawn off, andtheir associated collars lost their means of support. In the pre-1845 condition, rooms205 and 207 extended approximately four feet further to the north, and would havehad knee walls similar to the south walls in these rooms. If these had been retainedit would have made a significant area within the center of the second floor unusable. Thus the ceilings and north walls of rooms 205 and 207 date to c.1845. The mantlesin both of these rooms appear to be contemporary with that date as well.

2.37

In addition to the work in the main portion of the house, the north slope of thekitchen wing roof was raised at this time. Room 211 was created, and it may havebeen at this time that the south wall of room 212 was constructed also. The wallbetween rooms 213 and 214 appears to predate this work, as does the wall separatingrooms 211 and 212. It is surmised that room 212 may have originally extended furtherto the north, while room 211 was either a very small chamber or a large closet whenconstructed c.1795. The remainder of rooms 212 and 214 may have been one space,perhaps used as a parlor/chamber by servants.

The granary door with transom that appears in early views of the westelevation of the house may have been reused in room 111 when it was removedduring the course of the c.1845 work. Window 111a in that room appears to be thesame as that depicted in the views, with perhaps the bottom foot or so cut off (Fig.5.65). Based upon this observation, it is believed that room 111 was enclosed at thattime. As part of the work, new six-over-six double hung sash replaced the mid-18thcentury windows in most of the principal rooms of the house including rooms 105,107, and 205, and in the newly-configured rooms 101, 102, and 103.

Door and window architraves installed at this time were generally GreekRevival in style, their profiles in the form of a flat Grecian ogee and bevel. Aconservative approach was taken to the installation of new architraves; even inspaces such as rooms 205 and 207, where some of the trim needed to be new, oldarchitraves were left in place unless disturbed by the new work. This frugal approachmay have been founded in economy.

The details of the newly-constructed south porch and the box cornices on thenorth and south elevations of the 17 century portion of the house follow conventionsth

of the period, and are in the Greek Revival style.

1850s Renovations

Samuel A. Smith, a builder in Flushing, noted in his account book in March1852, a “contract for the mason work of a house being repaired” that he entered intowith Walter Bowne. The work was undertaken between March and 5 August 1852, andaccounts for 17 man-days are included in the bill. The bill included the provision oftwo barrels of mortar. 87

2.38

Additional work was performed by Smith for Robert B. Parsons betweenNovember 1856 and 15 July 1857. This work included “filling in Parsons House & c.”,which included lath and plaster work, and some unidentified mason work. It88

remains unclear whether or not either of these projects involved work at the Bownehouse, but the timing falls in line with known renovations.

A program of repairs is known to have been undertaken by c.1858. An accountpublished in 1860 notes that “In repairing the house a few years since a hole wasdiscovered in one of the walls, which had been plastered over, and in which doubtlessvaluables were once concealed.” This hole, or niche, exists today in the Library89

(Room 102) (Fig. 5.28). The same source records that the house was equipped at thattime with “modern innovations, being heated by a furnace and illuminated by gas.” 90

Nothing further is presently known of the scope of the work undertaken at that time.

The earliest record of the house being interpreted as an historical relic tovisitors dates to this period. William Tallack visited the Bowne house c.1860 anddescribed it as then “still inhabited by one of the family [of John Bowne]...it[contains] many interesting relics of the past; as a very ancient clock and table, manyold manuscripts and books, and, amongst the latter, a Bible dated 1622.”91

A visitor to the house in 1878 provided an extensive description, which includesinformation on room use and the furnishing of the house at that date.

To-day one may reach the old house by a short walk up Broadway inFlushing and a turning into Bowne road. It lies low among the trees, andthere is a suggestion of age about it at first glance. The plan sets it skew-wise to the road, and whoso goes up from Flushing sees its back-door first,then the gable end, then the front. It never was a “mansion.” It was builtas a farm-house, after John Bowne had picked out 250 acres of the fairfields which lay out about the town of Vlissengen. The entrance is undera broad, square porch, through a door made to open in sections so that theupper part could be thrown back when the housewife felt like leaning overit to gossip with a passing neighbor. This portion carries a “knocker,”which in the hands of an earnest seeker must have had a rousing effect onthe household. It is of iron, well bolted back to the door style and notafraid to show the bolt-head either. The tongue hangs down about eightinches and is heavy enough to crack a man’s skull like a walnut. Beyondthe door is a cramped little lobby from which winds up a dog-leg stairs tothe attic story or chamber floor. The parlor or living room is low andretains from the past an evident attempt at grandeur in the skimpedmoulding about the windows and doors, while the mantelpiece is a very

2.39

unquakerish piece of work, with fancy panels and turned sidings. Threesides of the room are broken by doors, while along the other side are thethree windows, so small that they let into the room only a “little gloominglight, much like a shade.” There is a short “passage” to the kitchen, andalong this corridor and in the pantry or store-room adjoining may be seenthe old oaken floor, held down to the immense oaken sleepers by stouttrenails, driven into inch holes bored boldly through plank and beam. Thescrubbings of then generations of housekeepers have left the oaken floorjust as it was left by Bowne’s workmen, and it resembles more than aughtelse modern a ship’s bottom, well plugged and trenailed.

The kitchen was once a right royal one. The fire-place stretchesalong all one end of it. The ceiling is barely seven feet high, and thechimney arch almost reaches it. Now, alas, a great board screen shuts upthe opening, and before it stands a trim and lamentable little cook-stove.Off toward the rear is another room opening form the parlor, a sort ofmorning room, or perhaps a special ground-floor guest chamber. This roomwas originally plastered with a pure clay so soft that it could be scraped offwith the finger-nails. In replacing it with something more modern a recessa foot square and two deep was discovered. It had been carefullyplastered over, and though nothing but a stone was in it, the impressionwas that at some time it was intended as a hiding-place for some PeterGoldthrwaite Bowne’s treasure-chest. It now remains open.

Hanging in one of the rooms is a long mahogany box, with a drawerat the bottom. This was a pipe-case; the long-stemmed pipes were loweredcarefully in above, and the drawer was for fragrant Virginia. In the kitchenis a table, the great dropsically-turned legs evidently the effort of someDutch workman and the pattern of Ten Broeck. In the parlor is a moredelicately made table, but its legs are too fat and sturdy. A settee in thisroom is the quaintest piece of furniture in a house where for two centuriesodds and ends have been gathering together. It is a lounge or sort of camp-settee, with a leather bottom, and at one end a loose, leather-coveredsection sets at a slant between turned uprights, a pair of small chainsregulating the slant. Up stairs in the attic chambers old china is ranged onoddly built and queerly trimmed buffets. The chairs have the spindle legsand curved backs pleasant to see in pictures, but not so pleasant to sit on.One or two are old “grandmother’s chairs”–low and snug, soft and cosey.Hanging on a door-jam is a polished brazier, in which live coals were wontto be conveyed to the master of the house when he would light his pipe.92

2.40

c.1880 Renovations

Additions including aesthetic tiles and a mantle suggest a date of c.1875-1890for the next phase of alterations at the Bowne house. An article from 1879 describedMary B. Parsons, sister of Samuel, James and Robert Parsons, as “the last occupant ofthe old Bowne house, and a conscientious and loving guardian of its treasures. Shewas buried from it on the 29 of November last [1878].” Her advanced age makesth 93

it unlikely that the work was undertaken during her lifetime, and the fact that thehouse was occupied by a caretaker until at least early 1880 makes a date in the 1870sunlikely.

Providing a more secure date for the renovations has proven elusive, however. In 1879 Eliza Rapalje Bowne purchased the house. She was described as having“wealth in her family,” and so the prospects for the house were deemed good byconcerned family members. Mrs. Bowne died soon afterward and was described as94

suffering from “infirmity of mind” at the time, making her a poor candidate forordering the renovations, unless they were begun soon after her purchase.95

The house was purchased at auction in March 1886 by Mary Elizabeth MitchellParsons. It has been said that the house was occupied from that date until c.191596

by caretakers, making renovations and improvements during that period seem lessthan likely. However, a number of renovations and improvements to the house canbe definitively dated to this period. In the end it has been resolved to date therenovations to c.1880, toward the beginning of ownership by Eliza Rapalje Bowne.

The renovations undertaken at that time were chiefly aesthetic in nature, andin style. New tiles, with floral and vegetable themes, were installed on the front ofthe fireplace in the parlor (room 107) (Figs. 2.21 and 2.22). The ceiling in room 107was taken down, the anchorbeams encased in wood mouldings, and the areasbetween the anchorbeams were filled with beaded board paneling. Simple woodpaneling was installed on the north wall of this room between the mantle at the westend of the room and the door centered on that wall. It is presently unknown why thepaneling was not extended across the entire width of that wall.

A new mantle was installed in room 201, replacing an earlier c. 1845 mantle. Aceramic tile with a faux mosaic motif in bold colors which is inset into this mantleexhibits a design type known to have been available by c.1875. Perhaps that room97

was being prepared as a part of a master suite, as at the same time a new door,communicating between rooms 201 and 205, was installed.

2.41

It is at this same time that the first indoor plumbing appears to have beeninstalled and the conversion of room 108 to a water closet with lavatory dates toapproximately this time. Beaded paneling, similar to that used on the ceiling in room107, was installed in room 110, and was used in the construction of a new wallbetween rooms 212, 213, and 214. The same beaded board paneling is found, reused,in the annex building on the property, suggesting its use in the carriage house or barnconstructed after the 1880s fire that destroyed the major outbuilding.

The creation of room 208 (taken from room 207) and room 209 (taken fromroom 210) appears to date to this period. These alterations were both necessitatedby the desire to create a bathroom in the north portion of room 209. The partitionseparating room 207 from the newly-created room 208 is comprised of vertical board-and-batten partitions. The battens used on this partition were also installed on thealready-extant wood partition at the west end of room 207 as well.

Oil cloth was installed on the kitchen floor at about this date. It is likely thisfloor cloth is the same as that which appears in a postcard view of the kitchen datingto c.1900, and which bears a pattern similar to that of the tiles selected for thefireplace in room 107 (Fig. 5.70). The floor cloth protected new floor boards installedin that room.

Figure 2.21 Detail from photograph, 1936(HABS).

Figure 2.22. A second detail from the samephotograph, 1936 (HABS).

2.42

Door and window architraves installed during this time have a different profilefrom those installed c.1845. While they are still in the form of an ogee with a bevel,the ogee on this group of architraves have a more pronounced curve, indicative of theinfluence of the Italianate style. Similarly, the front porch appears to have beenrenovated by the alteration of its columns to a form which reflects Italianateinfluence.

The mechanism for asmall elevator or dumb waiterappears to have been installedat about this time (Figure5.125). Contemporary tradecatalogues illustrate similarmechanisms (Fig. 2.23). Thelocation of the still-extantmachinery in the attic indicatesthat the car would have openedinto the small passage attachedto room 203, and thus may haveserved the occupant of themaster suite.

Figure 2.23. Contemporary illustration of the Humphreyhand elevator (reproduced from Fulton 1981).

2.43

Late 19 century visitor’s descriptions of the Bowne houseth

A visitor to the house in 1886 recorded in general terms the renovations thathad recently been accomplished. The house was described as “in beautifulorder—you would not notice any material change, tho many conveniences have beenadded...” Two alterations were specifically noted. A “new floor [was laid] in thekitchen & the casins [casings?] [....] it of carpentry taken away I was sorry to hear.” 98

Although the text is partially illegible, it is clear that some removals of carpentrywork were undertaken. Given that there is no identifiable loss of casings orarchitraves to any of the doors or windows in the house, it is possible that this quoterefers to the removals undertaken in room 107.

In about 1894, the Reverend Samuel Reynolds Hole, dean of Rochester,England, visited Flushing and stayed with Robert Parsons. He described his stay, anda visit to the Bowne house, in a later publication.

I lectured in Flushing, a bright and pleasant town, “a goodly place,” andwe had “a goodly time” under the hospitable auspices of Mr. RobertParsons. He resides in a modern mansion with charming grounds, and withtwo of the tallest tulip-trees I ever saw, guarding, like gigantic warders, hisentrance door; but he is also the owner of one of the most ancient—if notthe most ancient—habitations in the States, the old Bowne homestead,which he inherits as representing the seventh generation in descent fromhim who built it....a genealogical tree with seven “rings” is, in these daysof sudden splendour and eclipse, by no means common in the old country,and, of course, more rare in the new; and it was interesting to inspect “thehouse,” not “with seven gables,” but with seven owners, who werekinsmen in sequence, accompanied by the present owner. It is one ofthose unpretentious but comfortable houses—with its low ceilings and smallwindows, its simple furniture, its cleanly sweetness, its huge fireplace—inwhich the American pines burned with an exhilarating glow and warmthwhich no other fuel gives; its snug recesses in the lower chimney, wherein,when the snow lay deep upon the Broadway, the goodman smokes his pipeand the good dame sat at her spinning-wheel; with doors on either side,through one of which the ox brought in his load of logs, and, having noroom to turn, went round the long dining-table, and so passed in and out;such an abode as was occupied a hundred years ago by our substantialyeomen, before fine clothes, and mirrors, and bad champagne wereregarded as essential to human happiness, and a thing, which saunteredabout with its hands in its pockets, was supposed to be a gentleman.

2.44

There is, however, an explanation of the plainness, without andwithin, which involves a much higher principle than that of thrift orpropriety. The builder was the leader of the Society of Friends, who werenumerous on Long Island. He came from England in 1651, and in 1661erected this house.

The British forces were encamped in the neighbourhood during thewar, and I saw the aperture which had been made in one of the walls forthe secretion of plate and other valuable articles.... 99

It is interesting to note the 19 century origin of the “ox tale,” undoubtablyth

relayed by Robert Parsons to his guest.

c.1900 Alterations

An undated specification, written by S. E. Gage in the office of R. E. Parsons,architect of New York, proposed the “introduction of water and additional plumbingin the house for Mrs. R. B. Parsons.” Much of the later residential work of Samuel100

Edson Gage (1865-1943), was in the Georgian Revival style. He is said to have“designed several new houses and facade alterations” in what is now known as theUpper East Side Historic District. Since Robert Bowne Parsons died in late 1898,101

these specifications appear to have been created between 1899 and the death of Mrs.Parsons in 1915.

The work done at that time included installation of new water pipes to servethe kitchen, installed by way of a connection that passed through the bath room(room 108) and the “butler’s pantry” (room 104?), from there “along the kitchenceiling, dropping down to kitchen sink and furnished with 1" brass cock with hosenozzle.”

A water closet, the model called “Favorite,” with a copper-lined tank, was tobe installed in the room over the kitchen (room 213). The toilet bowl was to be “seton [a] slate or marble slab.” This work was contracted to be done by Samuel Falluccifor $105.00 with Mary E. Parsons.102

Some time after 1898 and by c.1900 the lower sash in room 105 were replacedwith undivided sash (Figs. 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17). The alteration of the windows in thisroom suggests that it was considered to be the “best parlor” at that time.

2.45

Major Twentieth-century Alterations to the Bowne House

Alterations to the house, particularly those undertaken since the transfer ofthe building to the Bowne House Historical Society, are extensively documented. They are presented in outline in Chapter 1, and are reviewed in detail in Chapter 4. Only the substantive alterations which occurred during the occupation of the Parsonsfamily are reviewed here.

1901 Repair of the roof and South Porch

A cost estimate dated 5 June [19]01 in an unknown hand (probably that ofRobert E. Parsons) indicates that work on the roof was contemplated at that time. The work appears to have been confined to the kitchen wing, and included provisionof new shingles, shingle lath, and eight spruce plank. This work was estimated tocost $119.95. Also included in the estimate was work on the “South Porch.” This wasto include provision of four locust posts, wide pine flooring, and three 3"x6" pieces ofwood and one 4"x6" piece of wood, all eighteen feet in length. Cost of this work,which may represent work on the kitchen porch, was estimated at $21.93.103

Soon after this work was completed, the house was opened to the public on alimited basis. A description of the house was published in the spring of 1903, underthe title “Oldest House on Long Island is a Semi-Public Museum.” A transcription ofthis document provides insights respecting the interpretation of the house at thattime.

The George Fox room in the house is of great interest, showing thelounge and chair that he used on his visit to the homestead when hepreached to a thousand people under the trees in the dooryard away backin the year 1665.

Granny Grove’s chair is also in this room. This is of solid oak, andsaid to be a Mayflower relic. The wonderful fireplace in the Kitchen is thelargest on Long Island. Oxen were driven in the wide doorways to bring thelogs that fed the huge fire. The brick oven at the side would hold fortypies and fifty loaves of bread at a baking.

The furniture in the rooms and all the household utensils andfurnishings are exactly as they were 230 years ago, telling a correct andremarkable story of old manners and customs.

The white bedroom, with its wonderful bedstead, itself almost aslarge as a room, is where the celebrated George Fox and other noted menof Colonial days slept. Washington also visited the house when he went to

2.46

Flushing, in 1789. The house contains a beautiful and valuable collectionof old china, glass, silverware, copper and brass utensils; also quaintwearing apparel of the Colonial period, probably not equalled [sic] by anyprivate collection in this country.

In fact, the house is kept by descendants of the Bowne family as amuseum, open on certain days to the public. It has a deep interest to theantiquarian and to every one who desires to see how one’s ancestors livedin the “good old times.”104

1917 Installation of central heating

The death of Mary Elizabeth Mitchell Parsons in 1915 appears to have spurred aseries of upgrades to the house, beginning in 1917. The specifications for installationof a central heating system for the house were written by Robert E. Parsons and aredated 25 September of that year. They indicate that a U. S. Radiator Co. “CapitolSteam boiler #256, rated at 1350 sq. ft., covered with 1½" asbestos cemebt [sic],troweled smooth-12" galv. iron smoke connection, with damper and clean out” was tobe installed. The system of pipes that connected the furnace with the radiators wasa “one-pipe steam system, with drips at bases of all risers and at end of mains—wetreturn if possible. All pipes run exposed and risers in closets or out-of-the-wayplaces, where possible. All pipes in cellar to be covered with ¾" air cell, banded on.” A total of 20 radiators were to be installed. They were specified as U.S. RadiatorCompany’s “Triton pattern”.” A more detailed specification indicates that the105

exposed pipes and radiators “in main house on first story except back hall and officetogether with second story N. W. Bedroom to have a heavy priming coat throughoutwith two coats of white enamel before finally connected up. All others after primingto have gold or aluminum bronze as desired.”106

John F. Rogers proposed to do the work of installing the system for $1,448. Inhis proposal he referred to an earlier proposal, which specified “H. B. Smith Co’sBoiler and Radiators” which he believed that he could supply at cheaper cost. 107

However, the U. S. Radiator Co. radiators were installed, and it appears that Rogerscompleted the work according to the revised specifications. A manuscript noteindicates that the furnace installed in 1917 was replaced “about ‘48 or ‘49” byThorpe.108

2.47

1918 Repairs

Between 9 April and 9 May 1918, various small repairs and renovations wereaccomplished at the house. These included “cutting & trimming door opening,building partition, changing door & bathroom sash, building drop shelf...[installingan] oak saddle...” and provision of numerous additional pieces of hardware whichincluded coat hooks, butt hinges, and hook & eye sets. In addition, white pine andspruce flooring was installed in an unspecified location, and a quantity of 1' x 10" pinetongue and groove paneling, and 1"x 6" beaded pine ceiling were installed. It is109

presently believed that this work was performed in rooms 108 and 110. The new doormay have been that identified in the present report as 111.1.

Much of the work done on the house from c.1918 to c.1965 was done bySylvester J. Kennedy, a carpenter living in Flushing. The first recorded instance ofKennedy working on the house was in 1918 when he performed the above-notedalterations. Kennedy was born in Flushing on 12 June 1889 and died there inDecember 1969. He is described as a “builder [of] houses” in the 1920 census.110 111

It is not presently known when electricity was introduced into the Bownehouse. None of the current electrical system appears to predate c.1915, however,and it is possible that electricity was installed as part of the general upgrades of1917-1918.

1936

When the house was opened for public tours in March 1936, the Parsons werein the midst of fending off an attack of termites at the house. “Exterminators were atwork in the house for weeks in an effort to combat the army of tiny attackers. TheMisses Anna and Bertha Parsons...had to temporarily vacate it until the fumesthoroughly penetrated the building.” After the completion of the fumigation the112

structure of the house was left in a compromised condition, and it became necessaryto execute extensive repairs of the first floor joists.

The Historic American Building Survey team recorded the house in drawingsand photographs later on this same year.

2.48

1938 Reconstruction of the foundation

The last major renovation of the house undertaken by the Parsons family wasinitiated in August 1938. The office of George L. Bousquet, architects in Bayside, wasretained to provide the necessary specifications and drawings. The specificationsexist, and bear extensive quoting for the information they contain. The work was toinclude

...excavating in connection with new concrete footings, walls, outsidecurbs and cellar floors...excavate complete area now unexcavated asindicated on plans...shall construct concrete footings for all walls, curbs,piers, columns and chimney foundations shown or required...constructconcrete and cement curb all around outside of present foundation wallsas shown on plans. The same shall be set below grade 3' and above grade6" to 8" as directed. The width of the curb shall be 6". This contractorshall provide for a two inch deep draft to allow the setting of a continuouscopper flashing by another contractor....This contractor shall lay cellarfloors...3" rough and 1" finish. The rough concrete shall be of 1-2-5 mixand the finish 1 part cement to 2 parts sand, troweled to a smooth glossfinish. The finish coat shall also include waterproofing in proportionrecommended by the A. C. Horn Co.

The General Contractor shall...build a solid 8" brick wall aroundinside of outside walls and both side if [sic] interior walls as indicated onplans. All brick to be sound hard burnt....This contractor shall keep brickwall ½" away from present foundation walls to allow space for tar sealbetween the two walls....This contractor shall lay all brick to an even bedand to a height determined by the Architect so as to allow a full copperflashing to be set continuous around all walls before proceeding with thebalance of brick work. The General Contractor shall set and furnish allsteel beams and lally columns. This contractor shall build a solid newfooting and foundation under the two present fireplaces and chimney tothe new floor level. This work shall be done in sections, according to themethod of shoring. Provide open draft joint all around to allow the settingof copper flashing by another contractor.

...After shoring is complete this contractor shall remove all woodgirders, beams and wood posts, to make ready for new steel beams andcolumns also new brick walls. The beams removed shall be used as far aspossible to replace joists rejected by the Architect....All joists which areeaten away or rotted, shall be removed and replaced with sound timbers.This contractor shall cut outside shingles at grade to an even line at levelas directed by the Architect and make ready for concrete curb. This

2.49

contractor shall carefully remove parts for entrance platforms to allow fora continuos curb and replace the same after curb and flashings are set inplace. Curbing shall continue all around all areas so as to create a onecontinuous piece flashing around the three sides of main building, includingall returns and breaks. This contractor shall remove present cellarwindows and set new steel windows to be furnished by Owners.

The contract was signed on 22 August, the work to be done by Nick Valvano for$2,077.00. Thus it was at this time that the entire foundation under the main113

portion of the house was encased in concrete and brick—while carefully retaining theoriginal foundation—and the base of the south porch was replaced with a concreteslab. The tree-bole columns supporting various parts of the first floor structure werereplaced, as were apparently some of the first floor joists. The direction by thearchitect to reuse wood beams as joists in selected areas creates a particularproblem in terms of determining a reliable date for the construction of the house. However, given the probable shorter length of these beams (much of the damage thatis evident in the older beams is greatest at their ends, and would have been trimmedoff), it is likely that if they were reused it would have been to support the first floorof the lean-to portion of the house. No new joists were apparent in the earliestportions of the house during the course of examinations conducted for this report andso it is possible that this approach was abandoned.

In a letter from Henry Hicks to Bertha Parsons dated 12 October 1942, Hicksrecalled that “You explained to me how...the only new features were electriclights....I understand you had the roof and sills repaired.” While the repair of the114

sills may have been included in the foundation work, the repair of the roof is nototherwise documented. The reference to electric service as among the “newfeatures” of the house is also unclear; perhaps the electrification of the house hadhappened since Hicks last communicated with Ms Parsons. Thus this work predated1938 when the foundation work—which he also noted as having been unaware of—wasaccomplished.

No other work on the house is documented for the period from 1938 until thedate of transfer to the Bowne House Historical Society. The work performed by theBHHS from 1946 to the present is discussed in chapters 1, 4, and 5.

2.50

Outbuildings and Other Structures on the Bowne farm

Documents

The earliest reference preserved to buildings on the Bowne farm describe theconstruction of a barn on the property. The contract is dated 12 March 1665/66, andwas made with John Feake.

the first month caled ma[rch] in the year 16[65/6] on the 12 day of themonth was agreed betwixt us John Bowne [and] I John ffeake namly thatI John ffeake doe undertake t[o] beuld for my brother John Bowne a goodstrong suffishant barne of 40: forty fout long 20 twenty fout wide and 9nine fout hay from the top of the ground to the tope of the plate all themaine postes to bear full twelfe inches squ[are] with all the rest of thetimber anser[abl]e a lentwo to one side anserable to [the] b[ar]ne to beenine foute wide within and to c[la]bor[d] sides and ends and the lentworouf past the catels reach and to lath all the rest of the roufe fit forthathing and to ma[ke] all the dores both a loft and a loe and t[o] fit themall to make fast and to laye a good threshing flouer and all the worke thatbelongs to this bulding I am to doe finding my own dyet onely my brotheris to cart the timber and gett the clabord boults and to clene out theplancks f[or] the flore and to provide helpe to rayse the hevie timber inlew herof I ame to receve a mare Coult in ha[...] and eyght pounds thenex[t] winter [...] one in wheat at five shili[ngs...] fore shilings inden corna[...] Oats at two shiling s[...] propotion or in catel [...] five pounds tennsh[ilings...] winter for a good Cow [...] groth witnessd our han[d thetwelfth day] of the first mont 166[5]/6.115

Also among the earliest of references in the historical record that can beassociated with buildings on the Bowne property are two references to thatchingroofs and the creation of stone walls. An entry in John Bowne’s account book, dated1670, notes a “load of thatch [was bought] at half a day’s work.” A second116

reference, dating to 1685 includes “Anthony Woodward creditor...by making Stonewall 28 rod” for 2^ 2s, “4 days cuting (sic) thatch” for 10s, and for “2½ days walling,”he received six shillings. The use to which the thatch was put is unfortunately not117

recorded.

A stable was constructed on the farm before January 1681, for in that monthJohn Bowne contracted with John Hinds and Nathaniel Lynas “to shingle mee astable.” References to “thathing the stable” and for work by Samuel Hoyt “for118

work done above y stable” in January 1696 are found among accounts that includee

2.51

work done for the Quaker meeting house. It is impossible to determine at present119

whether these references are to work done on Bowne’s stable constructed in 1681 orto a new stable constructed for the meeting house.

Little else can be gathered from the historical record, and none of the 19 -th

century views of the house depict any of the associated outbuildings. We do know,however, that by the 1880s these included “a large barn” which was located to thenorthwest of the family cemetery, on Lincoln Street, between Parsons Boulevard andPercy Street. This barn “was burned in the 80's with the loss of 3 horses and 2 mules,the Bowne coupe, together with all the wagons, harness and hay...”120

The current “annex” building appears to have been initially constructed in thelate 19 century, possibly in response to the loss of the barn. It was converted forth

use as an automobile garage c.1915, and was renovated in 1983-1985 for use as officespace, storage, and a small shop.

Figure 2.24. Detail from Elijah A. Smith’s Map of theVillage of Flushing (New York: George Hayward, 1841,Collection New York Public Library). North is to the left.

2.52

While we lack visual documentation for the outbuildings on the Bowneproperty, an 1841 map of Flushing does give an indication of the relationship of thehouse to some of its outbuildings (Fig. 2.24). A similar map from just eleven yearslater suggests a much more circumscribed parcel of land around the house (Fig. 2.25).

Figure 2.25. Detail from the 1852 Mapof Kings and Part of Queens Counties(Collection Queens Historical Society). An unidentified outbuilding is indicatedto the south of the house. North is to theleft.

2.53

There are no illustrations of the “large barn” that existed as late as the 1880s. If it dated to the 17 or 18 century it may have been a New World Dutch barn, ath th

form that survived on Long Island in significant numbers into the 20 century, but ofth

which few examples remain (Fig. 2.27).

Figure 2.26. Detail from F. W. Beers’ Atlas of Long Island, New York (NewYork: Beers, Comstock & Cline), 1872. The barn and outbuildings associatedwith the Bowne house are not depicted. North is to the left.

2.54

Along with a large barn, and the aforementioned stable, a typical componentof the agricultural landscape of western Long Island was the hay barrack. Numerousother outbuildings, including privies, chicken houses, a corn crib, or other specializedstructures may have been components of the farm (Fig. 2.28). The Van Bergen familyovermantel, painted by John Heaton c.1733, gives us our best view of the appearanceof a typical farmstead within the New World Dutch cultural hearth (Fig. 2.29).

Work surfaces paved with cobbles were encountered during the course ofarcheological investigations at the west end of the house, and in the vicinity of thegarage or Annex in 1997-2003 (Fig. 1.15). Similarly paved surfaces have beenencountered in 17 and 18 century residential contexts, most notably at theth th

Schuyler Flatts site in the town of Colonie, Albany County, New York in the 1970s.121

Figure 2.27. The frame of a typical New World Dutch barn(Fitchen 1968).

2.55

Archeological potential for remains of most of the outbuildings associated withthe Bowne house is limited by the small size of the property that the house nowoccupies. Work in the neighborhood may some day bring to light additionalinformation on the early composition and arrangement of these structures.

Figure 2.28. The Rapelyea Estate, showing typical outbuildings, 1866 (Valentine’s Manual).

Figure 2.29. The Van Bergen Farm, by John Heaton, c.1733 (NYS Historical Association, Cooperstown). A New World Dutch barn and two hay barracks are depicted to the left of the house.

2.56

1. Haynes Trebor, Bowne House, A Shrine to Religious Freedom (Flushing: Flushing SavingsBank, 1952?), 2-3.

2. The Bowne House, Flushing, Long Island: 1661-1886. (N.p.: 1886?), [3]. (Bound in “LongIsland History,” Long Island Room, Queensborough Public Library.)

3. Samuel Parsons, “Journal,” cited in “Research,” Research Binder, Bowne House, Flushing.

4. Jacob Bowne MSS, “Bowne Family of Flushing,” 3:87, Manuscript Room, New York PublicLibrary. Author unknown.

5. Ibid. A Deed dated March 25, 1806, and recorded on March 12, 1807, in the County ofQueens (Deeds Liber K:29), gave Parsons land in Flushing bounded northerly by land of JohnBowne, deceased, easterly by land formerly of Samuel Borden, southerly and westerly by thehighway. The 40 acres was “the land that which John Bowne formerly purchased from hisCousin John Bowne of Westchester.” Parsons married Mary Bowne on September 1, 1806.

6. John S. Stevens writes: “There are definitely shingles on the west gable that pre-date theraising of the lean-to roof. They may be mid-18 century, but I would have expected shinglesth

from this earlier period to have had clipped corners?” Email to the author, 26 May 2007. I thinkthat their shape argues for a late-18 century date at the earliest.th

7. Much of the earlier literature on the Bowne house supported the belief that the kitchen was theoldest portion of the house. Some of this was based upon the large size of the kitchen fireplace. The presence of bar iron supporting the fireplace opening and its construction features do notsupport a construction date before the mid-18 century. The alignment of the chimney on theth

second floor is in line with the original (c.1795) peak of the roof. There is a possibility that thechimney is a survivor from an earlier kitchen wing of the same size as that constructed c.1795,from which no other elements of superstructure remain.

8. Gordon William Fulton. The Bowne House, Flushing, New York: A Historic Structure Report(Master’s Thesis, Columbia University, 1981), 77-82.

9. The dates for a number of these houses are conjectural. Those presented here for the OldHouse at Cutchogue and the Terry-Mulford house at Orient Point represent revisions supportedby recent dendrochronology done at these sites, and are thus among the best documented. See D.W. H. Miles, M. J. Worthington, Edward Cook and Paul Krusic,“The Tree-Ring Dating ofHistoric Buildings from Eastern Long Island, New York,” December 2006. The work wasconducted by the Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory, South Oxfordshire, UK, in associationwith the Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, NewYork. The date of construction of the Voorlezer’s house, Richmond, Staten Island has been

End Notes

2.57

estimated as c.1695, but John Stevens is doubtful of this, and I concur (email communication ofJohn Stevens to Walter R. Wheeler, 26 May 2007).

10. Margaret I. Carman, ed. John and Hannah Bowne. (N. p., n.d. [c.1950]), n. p. Copy atBHHS archives.

11. A. D. Brogan. “Flushing Remembers,” The New York Herald-Tribune, 7 October 1945.

12. Margaret I. Carman, ed. John and Hannah Bowne. (N. p., n.d. [c.1950]), n. p. Copy atBHHS archives.

13. Margaret I. Carman, ed. John and Hannah Bowne. (N. p., n.d. [c.1950]), n.p. Copy atBHHS archives.

14. John Bowne Account Book, fol. 49. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY. The account book has multiple paginating; secondary references to alternatepagination have been included where they may prove helpful.

15. Margaret I. Carman, ed. John and Hannah Bowne. (N. p., n.d. [c.1950]), n.p. Copy atBHHS archives.

16. Cited in Dean F. Failey. Long Island is My Nation, The Decorative Arts & Craftsmen, 1640-1830. (Second edition. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Society for the Preservation of Long IslandAntiquities, 1998), 235.

17. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 129. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library,New York, NY.

18. Gilbert Cope. “Our Ancestors and Their Descendants.” 1879. Letterpress family chart. Copy in Bowne Family Papers, Box 2. New York Public Library, New York, NY.

19. In any case, there are examples of “English” carpenters contracting for the construction ofhouses with bent frames and “English” fireplaces. One example dates to 1641. See the contractentered into by John Hobson and John Morris for construction of a house for Isaac de Forest inArnold J. F. Van Laer, ed. New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Vol. 1. Register of theProvincial Secretary, 1638-1642 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1974), 338-339[250].

20. This is particularly true in the northern areas of the former New Netherland. The AbrahamGlenn house (c.1730) in Scotia, Schenectady County, and the Juria Sharpe house (c.1740) inDeFreestville, Rensselaer County are examples of this.

21. Other examples of exposed sills in early houses include the Van Nostrand-Starkins andCaptain Sands houses. The Van Nostrand-Starkins house also originally had pegged flooring. Email from John R. Stevens, 26 May 2007.

2.58

22. Conversation with Jim Moore of Queens College, who directed the work, 19 October 2005.

23. An instance of this type is recorded in a contract dating to 1661. See Jeroen van den Hurk. Imagining New Netherland: Origins and Survival of Netherlandic Architecture in Old New York. (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Delaware, 2006), 96-108.

24. John V. Allcott. Colonial Homes in North Carolina (Raleigh, North Carolina: Division ofArchives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, 1975), 43 and 68.

25. “The Van-Nostrand-Starkins House (Circa 1680) 221 Main Street,” in Roger Gerry, AllisonCornish, Peggy Gerry, John R. Stevens, and Walter Sedovic. Roslyn Landmark Society AnnualHouse Tour Guide 7: 1 (1 June 1996). Roslyn, NY: Roslyn Landmark Society, 1996, 20, 32.

26. John R. Stevens. Jarvis Mudge House framing drawing. In Roger Gerry, Peggy Gerry, andJohn R. Stevens. Roslyn Landmark Society Annual House Tour Guide 6: 2 (3 June 1989). (Roslyn, NY: Roslyn Landmark Society, 1989), 752 (194).

27. John R. Stevens. Dutch Vernacular Architecture in North America, 1640-1830 WestHurley, NY: The Society for the Preservation of Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture, 2005),33.

28. Email from Jeffrey Klee, 24 October 2006.

29. Email from John R. Stevens, 29 May 2007. John provided additional information regardinganother Connecticut example: “There is a lot of re-used timber from an earlier house in ours atEast Haven, including four rafters (re-used as floor joists) that have lath trenches, and either theholes for, or broken-off pins from the lath. We have a pretty good idea that the older house datedfrom the 17 century.”th

30. Conversation with Abbott Lowell Cummings, 19 October 2005.

31. Email from John R. Stevens, 29 May 2007. The Lawrence house has been reconstructed atOld Bethpage Village Restoration.

32. Email from Nat Alcock, 27 October 2006.

33. Cecil A. Hewett. English Historic Carpentry (Chichester, West Sussex: Phillimore & Co.,Ltd., 2001), 245.

34. John McCann. Clay and Cob Buildings (Aylesbury, Bucks., England: Shire PublicationsLtd., 1983), 3.

35. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 41. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library,New York, NY.

2.59

36. Abbott Lowell Cummings. The Framed Houses of Massachusetts Bay, 1625-1725(Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1979), 139-40. Cummings cites the Fairbanks house in Dedham, and the Giddings-Burnham house in Ipswich,both 17 century houses in Massachusetts, as the only two houses which retain wattle-and-daubth

treatment in that state.

37. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076299/wattle-and-daub, accessed 16 April 2007.

38. John R. Stevens. Dutch Vernacular Architecture in North America, 1640-1830 WestHurley, NY: The Society for the Preservation of Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture, 2005),32-34, 42.

39. Ibid, 272. John R. Stevens. The John Bowne House, Flushing, Queens County, New York:A Preliminary Architectural Analysis Report (West Hurley, NY: Hudson Valley VernacularArchitecture, 2003), 3.

40. Email from Neil Larson, 3 November 2006.

41. A more refined idea of the area of coincidence of these three building techniques could beobtained by performing a town-specific survey.

42. See Appendix VI.

43. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 125. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library,New York, NY. The transcriptions from the account book which appear in this chapter are basedupon those by Gordon W. Fulton in his 1981 Historic Structure Report. They have been checkedagainst the original and corrected where appropriate.

44. Dean F. Failey. Long Island is My Nation [second edition](Cold Spring Harbor, NY:Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, 1998), 224, 269.

45. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 41 [II:12]. Bowne Family Papers, New York PublicLibrary, New York, NY.

46. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 41. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

47. One of the dendro samples taken in 2006 from the c.1660 part of the house had ringspreserved that dated to 1680. Yet according to William Callahan, this sample did not retain itsbark edge, and may have lost between 20 and 30 rings during the sampling process. It is morelikely to have been an early replacement. See Appendix VI.

48. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 41. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

2.60

49. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 51. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

50. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 53 [II:26 R]. Bowne Family Papers, New York PublicLibrary, New York, NY. The second half of this passage is barely legible and so the transcriptionmust be considered conjectural.

51. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 53. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

52. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 41. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

53. Dean F. Failey. Long Island is My Nation [second edition](Cold Spring Harbor, NY:Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, 1998), 253.

54. Samuel Bowne to Phineas Pemberton, 29, 2mo. [May] 1693, Bowne Family Papers, NewYork Public Library, New York, NY, Box 5.

55. Mary Bowne to Phineas Pemberton, 27, 4 mo. [July] 1693. Bowne Family Papers, NewYork Public Library, New York, NY, Box 5.

56. Samuel Bowne to Phineas and Phebe Pemberton, 13, 6 mo. 1693. Bowne Family Papers,New York Public Library, New York, NY, Box 5.

57. Mary Bowne to Phineas Pemberton, 30, 3 mo. 1694, Bowne Family Papers, New YorkPublic Library, New York, NY, Box 5.

58. Mary Bowne to Phineas Pemberton, 3 [after the 2 month], 1694, Bowne Family Papers,nd

New York Public Library, New York, NY, Box 5.

59. Samuel Bowne. Account Book [entries in John Bowne’s account book], fol. 75. BowneFamily Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

60. Samuel Bowne. Account Book [entries in John Bowne’s account book], fol. 75 [II:43 L]. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

61. John R. Stevens. The John Bowne House...A Preliminary Architectural Analysis Report. West Hurley, NY: The Society for the Preservation of Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture,2003.

62. Unidentified author. “The John Bowne House Site and Its Location Within The New YorkCity Area,” n.d. [2001], 4. Copy on file in the BHHS archives.

2.61

63. The Meeting House stands today on Northern Boulevard. In 1716 it was enlarged by two-thirds, as attested to by a traveler in that year: “There is a pretty many honest Friends aboutFlushing, they have built a new Meeting House there, 65 foot long and 42 broad.” Life ofBenjamin Holme (ed. 1754), 22, cited in Jacob Bowne MSS, “Bowne Letters,” 1:101. BowneFamily Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

64. John Cox, Jr., Quakerism in the City of New York (New York: By the Author, 1930), 28.

65. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 19. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

66. Cox, Quakerism, 28.

67. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 93. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

68. Ibid., fols. 19, 93.

69. Ibid., fol. 93. A reference perhaps to Joannes Depeister, glasblazer (glassblower), of deWinckel Straat (the Shop Street, now Whitehall Street), in New York. See Trow’s Directory ofNew York 1895-6, v (Directory of New Amsterdam for 1665).

70. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 93. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

71. Ibid., fols. 93, 19.

72. Edith King Wilson, comp. Bowne Family of Flushing, Long Island (New York: Bowne &Co., Inc., 1987), 11, 20.

73. R. J. Brown. English Farmhouses London: Hamyln Paperbacks, 1985), 107-111. Allen G.Noble. Wood, Brick & Stone (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1984), 23-26.

74. Near the top of the stair the cut ends of what may be a wood joist are seen on both sides ofthe stair where it passes through the second floor. Whether this represents a joist that wasinterrupted by the insertion of the stair, or an error or peculiarity of the joiner, has not been ableto be determined. If the former is found to be the case, it may be an indication of an earlier,smaller, stair in this location, possibly dating to the late-17th century when the leanto wasconstructed.

75. The author has seen this type of hewn-milled combination for floor joists in the Ten Broeckhouse in Albany (1796-97), an addition to the Abraham Glenn house in Scotia, SchenectadyCounty (c.1800), and several houses in Lansingburgh, Rensselaer County, which date to c.1785-1800.

2.62

76. Edith King Wilson, comp. Bowne Family of Flushing, Long Island (New York: Bowne &Co., Inc., 1987), 28.

77. James Thacher. A Military Journal during the American Revolutionary War, from 1775 to1783 [second edition] (Boston: Cottons and Barnard, 1827), 154, quoted in Joseph Manca. “Onthe Origins of the American Porch: Architectural Persistence in Hudson Valley DutchSettlements,” Winterthur Portfolio 40: 2/3 (Summer/ Autumn 2005), 105.

78. M. B. Parsons to Jacob Titus Bowne, 9 month 24, 1872, Jacob Bowne MSS, “BowneLetters,” 1:177.

79. Joseph Manca. “On the Origins of the American Porch: Architectural Persistence in HudsonValley Dutch Settlements,” Winterthur Portfolio 40: 2/3 (Summer/Autumn 2005), 106, 109, and110 (Figs. 11, 15, and 18).

80. Maud Esther Dilliard. Old Dutch Houses of Brooklyn (New York: Richard R. Smith, 1945),n. p.

81. Thomas Kelah Wharton, Diary, fol. 218 (c.1832-1833). New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

82. Thomas Kelah Wharton, Diary, fol. 223 (2 January 1833). New York Public Library, NewYork, NY.

83. Joseph John Gurney. A Journey in North America, described in familiar letters to AmeliaOpie (Norwich, England: Printed for private Circulation by J. Fletcher, 1841), 263, 265.

84. “An Old Vlissengen Farm,” unidentified New York City newspaper, 16 December 1878. Copy in the Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, New York.

85. “Local Matters,” The Long Island Times, 9 October 1873.

86. Unidentified author. “The John Bowne House Site and Its Location Within The New YorkCity Area,” n.d. [2001], 31. Copy on file in the BHHS archives.

87. Samuel A. Smith, Account Book, 1852-1860, BV Smith, Samuel A., New-York HistoricalSociety, New York, NY, fols. 8 and 9.

88. Samuel A. Smith, Account Book, 1852-1860, BV Smith, Samuel A., New-York HistoricalSociety, New York, NY, fols. 69-73. Of potential further interest is a copy of The FlushingJournal dated 3 May 1849, now part of the collection of BHHS. This particular copy was mailedto Samuel D. Smith, and announces the marriage of his daughter Naomi A. Smith to John D.Ackerman. Samuel D. Smith is noted as living in Whitestone. Whether or not these twoindividuals (Samuel A. and Samuel D.) are the same person or closely related is unknown. Itwould certainly be a coincidence if they are unrelated.

2.63

89. Mandeville, Flushing, 96-97.

90. Ibid.

91. William Tallack. Friendly Sketches in America (London: A. W. Bennett, 1861), 203.

92. “An Old Vlissengen Farm,” unidentified New York City newspaper, 16 December 1878. Copy in the Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

93. “An Old Vlissengen Farm,” unidentified New York City newspaper, 16 December 1878. Copy in the Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

94. Elizabeth B. Bowne to Jacob Titus Bowne, 15 December [1880], Jacob Bowne MSS,“Bowne Letters,” 2:176, Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

95. Elizabeth Bowne (Mrs.) To Jacob Titus Bowne, 3 April [1886] Jacob Bowne MSS, “BowneLetters,” 3:21, Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

96. Elizabeth Bowne (Mrs.) To Jacob Titus Bowne, 3 April [1886] Jacob Bowne MSS, “BowneLetters,” 3:21, Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

97. Tiles of apparently identical design are incorporated into the mantle in the cashier’s room atthe Troy Savings Bank in Troy, New York, designed by George B. Post and constructed 1871-75.

98. Elizabeth Bowne to Jacob Titus Bowne, April 3, 1886, Jacob Bowne MSS, “Bowne Letters,”3:21, Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

99. Samuel Reynolds Hole. A Little Tour in America (London and New York: E. Arnold, 1895),201-205 passim.

100. “Specification for introduction of water and additional plumbing in house for Mrs. R. B.Parsons #40 Bowne Ave., Flushing, L. I.” Office of R. E. Parsons Architect, 3 Union Square,New York City. BHHS archives.

101. Gale Harris and Donald G. Presa. Murray Hill Historic District Extensions, DesignationReport (New York: New York City Landmark Preservation Commission, 2004), 4-5, 17, 20.

102. “Specification for introduction of water and additional plumbing in house for Mrs. R. B.Parsons #40 Bowen Ave., Flushing, L. I.” Office of R. E. Parsons Architect, 3 Union Square,New York City. S. E. Gage Architect. [n.d] BHHS archives.

103. “Bowne House Roof June 5 01” BHHS archives.th

104. “Oldest House on Long Island is a Semi-Public Museum,” unidentified New York City orLong Island newspaper, annotated in pencil as “Spring of 1903.” Bowne Family Papers, New

2.64

York Public Library, New York, NY.

105. “Outline Specifications for Proposed Heating of #40 Bowne Ave., as Revised, Flushing, N.Y. C.” R. E. Parsons, Architect, #28 East 49 Street, N. Y. C. BHHS archives.th

106. “Specification for a First-Class Low Pressure Heating Apparatus to be Erected at 40 BowneAvenue, Flushing, L. I. For Estate of Mary E. Parsons. Robert E. Parsons, Architect, #28 East49 Street, N. Y. C. Rogers & Co., Heating Contractors, #131 Main Street, Flushing.” N.d.th

[1917] BHHS archives.

107. John F. Rogers to Robert E. Parsons, 1 October 1917. BHHS archives.

108. BHHS archives.

109. Invoice of Sylvester J. Kennedy to R. E. Parsons, 10 May 1918. BHHS archives.

110. Social Security Death Index, accessed via www.ancestry.com on 3 March 2006.

111. US Census 1920, Queens Assembly District 4, Queens, NY, Roll T625_1233, 12B,enumeration district 225, image 212. Accessed on www.ancestry.com on 3 March 2006.

112. An unidentified article in the Long Island Daily Star from an unspecified day in March1936, quoted on-line at http://www.astorialic.org/starjournal/1930s/1936march_p.php accessed19 October 2006.

113. “Specifications for General Masonry, Shoring and Carpentry work for Cellar andFoundation work at 37-01 Bowne St., Flushing, N. Y. owners the estate of Mary E. Parsons.” The Office of George L. Bousquet, Architects, 38-24 218 Street, Bayside, New York. 22 Augustth

1938. BHHS archives.

114. Henry Hicks to Bertha Parsons, 12 October 1942 (dictated 19 September). BHHS archives.

115. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 129. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library,New York, NY.

116. “John Bowne’s Account Book,” reproduced in History of Queens County, New York (NewYork: W. W. Munsell & Co., 1882), 80.

117. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. II: 40 L. Bowne Family Papers, New York PublicLibrary, New York, NY.

118. John Bowne. Account Book, fol. 53. Bowne Family Papers, New York Public Library,New York, NY.

2.65

119. Samuel Bowne. Account Book [entries in John Bowne’s account book], II: 61 L. BowneFamily Papers, New York Public Library, New York, NY.

120. “Robert E. Parsons Recalls History of Old Flushing,” North Shore Daily Journal, 14 July1934.

121. Paul Robert Huey. Archeology at the Schuyler Flatts, 1971-1974. Colonie, NY: The Townof Colonie, 1974.

2.66