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