Very interesting, thanks for the clarification. So maybe we should  
turn it back into a field hospital and Indian School? <g>

Ok, so I'll agree with the cross set out on Sundays and as required.  
But I still say Nichol could have done a better initial job of making  
his changes. Presented this history to the community, perhaps, to  
bolster his point? Usually people can be reasonable, if you let them be.

Nancy

-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.

--Daniel Boone



On Feb 26, 2007, at 2:58 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> 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

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html