Tom--
This is terrific. Thank you for taking the time to put this
together--while others will no doubt chime in to contribute to
what you have done, this at least gives us a basis from which
to talk about the history of the Chapel.
I very much appreciate you sharing this with us.
All best,
Kevin
---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:58:25 EST
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: The History of the Wren Chapel
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Kevin - In response to your request on the VA-History
listserv for the
>history of the Chapel, I offer the following email. Please
note this by no means
>complete, but is something I had together as part of another
email discussion of
>the Wren Chapel Cross debate last week. Its context is I was
replying to a
>friend who offered the argument that removal of the cross was
revising history
>or revising the history of the building:
>
>The "Wren Building" is the 7th edifice to have been built on
this site in
>affiliation with the College.
>It is a "model" drawing heavily from the 2nd incarnation
(Colonial Period)
>and original version of the building. The current building
was the first major
>project undertaken by the Rockefellers in restoring
Williamsburg to its
>Colonial era ambiance. Everyone should keep in mind that
Colonial Williamsburg
>sadly DESTROYED or REMOVED tons of 19th and 20th century
history (houses,
>structures, graves, etc.) in converting Williamsburg into the
living museum of
>Colonial History that is heralded today.
>
>So, factually speaking, the current building is a 75-year old
composite
>replica. In addition, the actual long standing and Colonial
name of the building
>was "The College" or "the College Building". It was
re-christened when the
>current version was completed in the in the 1930s in honor of
an unsubstantiated
>claim Christopher Wren had designed the building....
>
>First Wren Building:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The second structure, completed in 1723, was a little shorter
in height, had
>a smaller cupola, raised basement, and was still "L" shaped.
The original
>Chapel was an add-on completed in 1732 - completing the "U"
imprint. It has a
>crypt beneath it as well. The Chapel was used for regular
church services and
>as part of the divinity school (no longer part of the
school). So the current
>restored version of the Wren building was a composite copy of
version 2.5.
>
>The Building burned in 1859 again and was built with two
Italianate Towers as
>seen in Civil War depictions. This building burned in 1863
(drunk Union
>Cavalry soldiers).
>
>
>In the late 1800s the College was re-opened and the building
again rebuilt.
>With the turn of the century the Wren building looked as seen
below (view from
>the rear - Chapel is the right wing): only 2 floors high
with the Chapel and
>Great Hall (left) and Chapel (right) both bricked and blocked
up.
>
>
>Below is a photo of the restoration version (view from the
rear).
>
>
>
>So boiling it down to absolute historical facts....its all
context. The
>first 2 versions of the Wren building(s) had no Chapel at all
and what you see
>today, with all the "history" it evokes, is basically an
amalgamated spruced up
>and improved replica built in the 1930s with a new, good PR,
less-historically
>relevant name.
>
>In all this, my perspective is things evolve and this
includes the uses of
>edifices and structures. The Wren Building, has served as a
dormitory, a
>college, a grammar school, an Indian School (should go that
tact as far as the Tribe
>feathers in the outgoing logo goes?), twice served as State
Capital, twice as
>a hospital in wars (Rev. and Civil Wars). It has built 7
times in differing
>forms; each epoch distinctly different. So in trying to tie
the argument of
>the removal of the cross to "revising" history, is a rather
weak position given
>the nature of the Wren Building's inherent name
change/rebuilding/multiple
>use. In my mind you end up with the connotation or
particular history folks
>apply to the building and emotions such connotations evoke.
>
>W&M historically speaking, became a state school in 1906,
allowed women to
>attend in just after WWI and finally allowed blacks to attend
in 1956. It is
>absurd to say go back to being historically correct with
regard to women and
>African-American attendance isn't it? The modern and current
use of the Chapel
>is no longer the jurisdiction of Christian service, Christian
faith, etc. W&M
>is no longer a private school, does not have a religious
affiliation or a
>divinity school. It has evolved from such epochs in its
history into its current
>roll of a modern equitable, secular, institution of higher
education. The
>Chapel serves to host weddings, services, fraternity rituals,
>
>I will say, the best thing about this whole controversy if
all of the thought
>it provokes and the elements infused into its discussion:
history, politics,
>religion, civics, freedoms, rights, etc. The sad part is the
heated and
>uncompromising attitudes some folks bring to the table and
the often horrendous
>lack of courtesy and politeness manifested in some that
enter the debate.
>
>Regards,
>Tom McMahon
>Class of 1994
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|