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