Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series - RR0193
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library
Williamsburg, Virginia
1990
The Archaeological Drawings referred to in the prefatory paragraph accompanying my Archaeological Report are the following:
One set, made up of rather large sheets, shows the plans and elevations of the Fourth Building before any actual demolition was begun; also, the elevations of the walls of the various rooms are shown after the plaster had been removed from the brickwork. This set of drawings was made, I believe, by Waterman and added to by Zarahof.
Another set, made up of small sheets, shows the archaeological remains in connection with the Building that were uncovered by excavation. These drawings were made by Zarahof.
Prentice Duell
This volume is a duplicate of the material that Prentice Duell has in his possession except that his is arranged in tentative book form (section headings, chapter headings, etc.) and is cross indexed with notations of the literary references, photographs, etc., which we have in separated form in the Research Department and the Perry, Shaw, and Hepburn files.
Harold R. Shurtleff
Prentice Duell has gone through this text (August 1-6, 1932) and annotated it in such a way as to bring it up to date in respect to the bearing that any date received by the Research Department since he wrote this text has on it. He also included some suggestions as to changes in the text made by me. We also incorporated the "addenda" sent by him from Egypt after he had written and forwarded the main body of the text.
Harold R. Shurtleff
The Building Attributed to Sir Christopher Wren
[See ill., Vol. I, p 15]
The Building is said to have been designed by Sir Christopher Wren, but the only known mention of this name in connection with the building is that of the Reverend Hugh Jones, Chaplain of the General Assembly and Minister of Jamestown, who was a professor of mathematics in the College at the time of the Second Building. The mention is contained in his "Present State of Virginia" which was published in 1924, some nineteen years after the fire, as stated fully is as follows: "The building is beautiful and commodius, being first modelled by Sir Christopher Wren, adapted to the Nature of the Country by the Gentlemen there [i.e., Williamsburg]; and since it was burnt down, it has been rebuilt, and nicely contrived, altered and adorned by the ingenious Direction of Governor Spotswood; and is not altogether unlike Chelsea Hospital." [See ill., Vol. I, p. 15] The Reverend Hugh Jones was a professor under Dr. James Blair, who had been president of the College since its founding and to whom its inception was largely due. It seems that under such conditions he could not have been misinformed for it is likely that the information came from Blair himself. His work as a whole is trustworthy and there would seem to be no valid reason for rejecting his statement about Wren. Furthermore, Wren died in 1723, only shortly before the book was published, and it is logical to
2
suppose that it has actually been written when he was still alive. Jones would not have taken liberties with the name of a contemporary national hero and onefigure of Wren's eminence.
Facts About the First Building
Since Wren was architect to the Crown* he would have undoubtedly have been called upon to design the Royal College about to be erected in America, especially since their Majesties appear to have been greatly interested in the project. Designs for the building would have been prepared by the bureau of the royal architect as a matter of routine. Wren may have designed the building himself or delegated it to some subordinate in his office, but whatever was done in the matter, the fact that the building was afterwards "adapted to the Nature of the Country by the Gentlemen there" probably had serious consequence for the original design. The building was intended to be a square, or quadrangle, (cf. Lit. ref., Beverly, 1705) [see ill., Vol. I, p. 5] but owing to the lack of funds only two sides were built, consisting of the main portion of the building and the north wing (Great Hall). A third side, or south wing (Chapel), was added at a later time. The Reverend Blair charges Governor Nicholson not only with so excessively hurrying the work that the building was shamefully spoilt but also with making several unnecessary additions of his own invention. It is obvious that the original character of the design must have been lost to a considerable extent. Mungo Ingles refers to it as a "stately edifice" (Lit. ref., Sept. 20, 1707), but one would suspect that it was not beautiful. It was very different from the Second Building as "altered 3 and adorned" by Governor Spotswood, which Jones compared to Chelsea Hospital.
Beginning of Construction the First Building
The land for the College, amounting to 330 acres was bought from Capt. Thomas Ballard. On August 8, 1695, the foundation of the building was laid, the ceremony being attended, one would infer, by His Excellency the Governor and the Gentlemen of the COuncil; this likely refers to the laying of the cornerstone. The construction of the building was conducted under the supervision of a committee which consisted of the Rector (Re. James Blair) and five or six of the Board of Governors and Visitors of the College.
The men who worked on the Building
Thomas Hadley was the surveyor or architect on the site and had come from England for the purpose; it would be interesting to know if he was connected with the office of Sir Christopher Wren. Two bricklayers also came from England; they were likely George Cryer and Samuel Baker since they alone are mentioned in the building accounts. Robert Harrison appears to have been the head carpenter. Obviously, any local artisans that could be had were employed. Mention is made of bricklayers, brick-makers, carpenters, sawyers, and laborers. A quantity of paving stones was bought from Capt. Tregian.
The Brick for the Building Made in Kilns on the Site
Bricks were made "on the spot" by Col. Daniel Parke, member of the Council. This has been verified by the finding of the remains of the kilns in which the bricks were burned, in the southeast corner at the rear of the building, contained between the two wings. Only their west end remain, but the glaze on the inner sides and the layer 4 of ashes between them can be seen. Originally, they must have been some 25 or 30 feet in length, extending beyond the line of the rear wall. Other kilns were found to the southeast of the Chapel, and it is likely that the kilns occupied the whole area where the Chapel now stands. These kilns represent the first building of any kind on the site. The earth from the basement probably supplied the material for the bricks. The kilns were left in situ upon the completion of the Restoration they were re-covered with earth. [See layout sheet for illustration]
The Main Building and North being Completed
On December 27, 1697, the roof was on half the building so one would assume that the walls of the main portion of the north wing were completed; it would seem that the bricks for the Chapel were promised by the Governor but that nothing came of it. In describing the building in a letter at this time, the Reverend Blair says: "Wee have carried on the building of two sides of the Colledge (which was all wee judged wee had money to go through with) and have brought up the Walls of the Said building to the roof which hope in a Short time will be finished, Col. Ludwell having promised to shingle it upon Credit" (Blair, Dec. 27, 1697). In the building accounts transmitted with the letter appear passages for the two brick-layers, so one would assume that their work was finished and that they were returning to England.
During the years 1697 and 1698 the work on the building was stopped for want of money, and the Rev. James Blair went to England to procure what assistance he could towards the finished of the building.
5The Building Tried by the Governor and Council
Early in 1700 the building seems to have been more or less ready for occupation, for on April 24 the Trustees and Governors of the College offered the Governor and the Council whatever rooms in the College might be wanted in which to hold their meetings until the Capitol should be built. Records were removed from Jamestown and stored in the building and at this time a call was made for Indian students. On October 17 of the same year, the first meeting of the Council was held at the College. As late as 1704, however, some of the rooms remained unplastered, and it seems that the building was never really finished throughout.
The Building Partially Destroyed by Fire
On the night of October 29, 1705, shortly after eleven o'clock, the building was burned. One is led to believe that the fire destroyed the interior of the building and the roof rather thoroughly; the masonry walls of the exterior and interior remained standing. The testimonials regarding the fire are concerned for the most part with placing the blame for it. That the fire was caused by a bad chimney construction there is little doubt. The evidence falls into two groups, one placing its origin at the north end and the other at the south end.
Comment on the First Building
Judging from the known details of the First Building and its portions that remain today, the design that was sent from England represented a large, quadrangular building of monumental character, suitable for England or for one of its nearer dependencies. To erect the structure in Virginia, however, was quite another matter; it was not only well beyond the ability of the Colonists but beyond their funds as well. That the design was "adapted to 6 the Nature of the Country" really signifies that it was modified to meet the limitations of the country and that the difficult conditions under which it was to be accomplished. In spite of the supervising architect from England and the two imported bricklayers, the structure proved to be a huge undertaking with local unskilled labor. The work dragged on for practically five years, when Governor Nicholson took a hand and rushed the building to completion; but it was never finished in the strict sense of the word, especially as to the interior.
The First Building A Remarkable Achievement
Despite certain specimens of excellent masonry, the building as a whole had been poorly constructed from the very beginning, a matter which gave subsequent occupants throughout its history considerable trouble (Lit. ref., July 3, 1854). Nevertheless, the erection of the building was a remarkable accomplishment at the time, and one can understand both the consternation of the Colonists when it was burned and their exaggerated accounts of its destruction. The building has been in use for only five years, the amount of time they had spent in its erection.
The Erection of the Second Building
Efforts were made at once to rebuild the structure. On March 13, 1713, the building was still unfinished, but by 1716, it was nearing completion (Lit. ref. Spotswood, June, 1716). This Second Building, however, although in use, does not seem to have been entirely finished until as late as 1723, owing to the want of funds and by the scarcity of workmen (History of the College of William and Mary, pub. by Randolph and English, 1874). A number of alterations and improvements were made by Governor Spotswood, and, in fact, he may be regarded as responsible for the design of the Second Building. The portrait of Doctor James 7 Blair, painted about 1716-20, shows the front and south sides of the building as completed. In March, 1728, a notice was posted in the Capitol requesting bids from the contractors for the building of the Chapel, so this wing must have been begun shortly afterwards. The Chapel, so this wing must have been begun shortly afterwards. The Chapel was opened on June 28, 1732.
[See Ills. Vol. I, pp. 11, 13]
The Second Fire and The Construction of the Third Building
A number of improvements were made in the interior of the building in 1856, especially on the second and third stories. On February 8, 1859, the building was again destroyed by fire, having stood in its second form for over one hundred and forty years. The fire destroyed practically all of the building except the brick walls. (Lit. ref., July 3, 1854; 1903). Arrangements for the rebuilding of the structure were made at once. A Richmond architect named H. Exall was selected, but for some reason unknown the commission was given soon after to another architect named Eben Faxon. The floor plans of the first and second stories by Exall, along with an unsigned plan of the first story probably drawn by someone else, are in existence today. [See ills., Vol. I, p. 46a] Unfortunately, Faxon's plans are lost. The contractors were Green and Allen of Richmond. The firm is listed in the Richmond Directory of 1859, among the architects and contractors and continues to appear until 1875, when the partnership seems to have dissolved. The name of Charles W. Allen appears as builder and contractor until 1896, when the Richmond Dispatch of August 13 has a notice of his death on August 11 in Boston, his name city, to which he had gone the preceding June; he is spoken of as a noted architect. Andrew Green advertises in the Directories as a carpenter and builder until 8 1899, but there is no notice of his death in that year nor does his name again appear.
Was the Second Building Erected on the Site of the First?
It was seriously considered at the time to erect an entirely new building, and Exall was instructed to furnish both a new plan for the college and a second plan retaining the old walls (Faculty Minutes, March 5, 1859); later, Eben Faxon also was instructed, it would seem to prepare a new Plan (Faculty Minutes, March 11, 1859; March 22, 23, 1859). However, following a thorough inspection, it was decided to retain the old walls and incorporate them in the new building (Faculty Minutes, March 1, 1859; Southern Argus, April 16, 1859). Aside from the practical issue, however, a feeling then more or less prevalent that the walls of the Second Building were not those of the original building might have made some persons indifferent towards retaining the walls. In fact, President John Tyler, in the month of July following the fire, made an address at the Commencement exercises and after reviewing the history of the College said that after the fire of 1705 "the foundations of the new building were at length laid," continuing as follows: "Under the supervision of Spotswood and much in accord with his own plans, the College buildings were erected. The new buildings were raised on grounds due east of the former site, the traces of which are still visible."* (The Southern Argus, Norfolk, Va., July 9, 1859). The impression that the Second Building was an entirely new one may have arisen from the statements regarding the 9 extent of damage suffered by the original building in the fire which were made both at the time and for some years afterwards. As a whole, they are misleading and at best may be regarded as only figurative. Beverly (History of Virginia, Campbell edition, 1855) states that it was "burnt down to the ground"; Ingles (September 20, 1707), that it "lay burned [buried?] under its own ashes"; others state that it was "destroyed" by fire and that it was "raised out of its ashes". (Lit. refs., Feb. 27, 1729; March 13, 1713.)
The Completion of the Third Building and its Destruction by Fire
It is logical enough that during the century and a half following the fire a legend should have arisen to the effect that the original building had been entirely destroyed; its remains, indeed, were pointed out behind the Second Building. Professor Morrison, however, was foremost in declaring that the walls standing were those of the original building, and his thesis was proved to the satisfaction of everybody when, in the course of the construction, traces of the fire of 1705 were found under the plaster and, in fact, throughout the building. (Morrison, Dec. 16, 1859; Jan. 31, 1860.) The Third Building was occupied in October of the same year, but with Faxon's design all the character of the original building was lost. On October 9, 1862, three years later, it was burned by some Federal soldiers acting without orders from their officers.
The Fourth Building and the Final Restoration
After the Civil War the Fourth Building was built. Alfred L. Rives of Richmond was the architect. His drawing of
10
the front elevation exists today, but it does not correspond exactly to the front of the building as it was built; the drawing shows five windows on each side of the loggia, whereas the building hadthere were six windows. This building was completed in 1869 and stood until the time of the present Restored Building, when the fabric of the Third and Fourth Buildings was removed and the whole structure restored to the form of the Second Building as it stood after 1732.
The Fourth Building, essentially the Third Building, may be regarded as renewed; the Second and Third Buildings, on the other hand were rebuilt.
This report is based on the archaeological remains of the First Building; it records the alterations which were made in connection with the Second, Third and Fourth Buildings, and with the Restoration. A full understanding of these forms of the building can only be had, however, by a careful study of logical drawings and photographs which may be regarded as accompanying parts of this report; these items are in the hands of the Research Department in Williamsburg. Although this report is not brief, it does not mention every archaeological detail in connection with the various forms of the building; a thorough archaeological discussion would make a fairly large book.
Present Exterior Walls and Window Openings Mostly Old
The Archt. Drawing of the First Building
The combined archaeological, literary and pictorial evidence is sufficient to give one a very fair idea of the external appearance of the First Building. For the most part, the exterior walls standing today are original along with certain interior walls that remain in the basement and on the first floor. Furthermore, the window openings contained in the walls are, with few exceptions, the original ones. Excavation has brought to light certain portions of the First Building which exist only as foundations. (These were not a part of the Second Building and hence are not represented in the Restoration.) A number of literary references are also available which are important historically and useful in verifying and in explaining both the archaeological and pictorial evidence. Certain pictorial documents depicting the Second Building are most helpful towards an understanding of the original building since the two were in many 2 [12] ways more alike. Above all, there is a contemporary sketch of the First Building drawn by Francis Louis Michel in 1702, [See ill., Vol. I, p. 8] but its value as a document is weakened somewhat by lack of skill on the part of its author. The documentary material and the evidence of the walls themselves supplement and frequently verify each other, and along with the remains uncovered by excavation lead to a comparatively full realization of the original building.
Still-Existent Walls of First Building
Masonry of Third & Fourth Buildings Remained
The First Building consisted of the main portion and the north wing; the Chapel was built in connection with the Second Building. The original walls form the greater part of the present building, representing the basement, first and second floors of the main portion, and the basement and practically full height of the north wing. The original rear wall of the main portion, however, is almost entirely lacking except for its end portions adjacent to the inner walls of the north and south (Chapel) wings; the front lacks the portion of the original wall now occupied by the pavilion, which was built in connection with the second building. The north wing lacks the whole of the west wall along with the adjacent ends of its side walls. There are also instances where portions of the original wall are lacking through numerous alterations in connection with the Second, Third and Fourth Buildings. (All masonry relating to the Third and Fourth Buildings was removed during the Restoration and new brick, harmonious with that of the original walls, was put in its place; in order to visualize the original walls, was put in its place; in order to visualize the original portions of the building that remain today, one should refer to the "Archaeological Drawings.")
3 [13]Water-Table and String Course
A water-table, on line with the first floor, extends around both the main portion of the building and the north wing and a string course extends around the main portion at the height of the second story, abutting the side walls of the north wing; the original course on the rear wall is lacking except for its end portions. Both the water-table and the string course lose themselves behind the side walls of the Chapel and on the front of the building both were cut to receive the pavilion.
Brickband and Gauged Brickwork
The walls of both the main portion of the building and the north wing (except for its west wall) are laid-up in English bond from their foundations, with an irregular and rather sparing use of glazed headers throughout. Across the front of the main portion and directly above the water-table, however, there are five courses of Flemish bond on the south side of the pavilion and eight courses on the north side. (In both instances, the courses are frequently broken by brickwork of the Restoration, replacing patches of masonry dating from alterations made in connection with the Third and Fourth Buildings.) All corners of the building are laid-up in gauged (rubbed or ground brick and one course of gauged bricks forms the lower line of the water-table; three courses of gauged brick form the string course. The jambs and heads of all windows of the first and second stories are laid-up in gauged brick while the arches of the basement windows are laid-up with one stretcher alternating with two headers, the upper one glazed. The masonry of the walls of the building varies considerably in accordance with the skill of workmen employed; some 4 [14] were expert, other of mediocre ability, but on the whole the work was admirably done considering the difficulties under which it was accomplished.
The Position of the Windows and their Heads, Jambs and Sills
Basement Windows
While the doors have been changed in several instances, the original window openings retain their dimensions and positions in plan. In connection with the Third Building, windows on the first floor of the front and sides of the main portion of the building were lowered as to their heads and sills, all heads being removed except four; on the second floor, the windows were raised along with the wall itself and the heads removed, while their sills were lowered; with the north wing, the windows in the two sides were lowered, along with the walls. (Lit. ref., March 11, 1859.) However, since in all cases the gauged bricks of the jambs or sides of the windows remain in situ, there is no doubt as to their original positions. The heads of all the windows on the first floor of the front and sides of the building had flat arches similar to the four still remaining in situ on the front, and likewise the windows on the second story had flat arches, as may be clearly seen upon examining the brickwork at the tops of the jambs, where the ends of the original heads had been; in many instances, the gauged brick jambs continue up to the bottom of the string course and indicate the splay of the flat arched heads of the windows. In fact, the daguerreotype of the front of the Second Building [See ill., Vol I, p. 11] shows the original windows in situ, and clearly reveals the brick courses in relation to the window heads and sills and corresponds exactly with the 5 [15] existing jamb bricks of the building today. In the north wing, the windows in the two sides had arched heads; remains of end portions of several of the arches are still in situ. The basement windows on the front of the building and on the sides of the north wing are original; they have segmental arches and were never altered. The present basement window in the north end of the main portion of the building dates from the Second Building; in the First Building this opening was probably a door leading down to the kitchen in the basement.
Windows of the North and South [Sides] of Main Building
Windows at East and West Fronts
Of the five windows on the first and second floors in the north and south sides of the building, only the three middle ones, along with the doorway, are original. At the time when the Restoration was begun, the end windows had been filled with brick. The two west windows in each case had gauged brick jambs not unlike those of the original windows, while the two east windows were without brick jambs; in all cases, the heads and sills were lacking. That these end windows were cut in the walls at a subsequent time was obvious from an examination of the brickwork at their sides. The bricks in the courses between these windows and the original ones have not the same spacing as those between the original windows. In the courses between the original windows, the bricks were laid so that the gauged bricks of the jambs would alternate as headers and stretchers and correspond in each of the three windows; it will be noted that the headers and stretchers of the jambs on the west windows do not correspond with those of the jambs of the original windows. The east windows were not cut 6 [16] in the walls at the same time as the west ones and, moreover, the brick fillings of the two pairs of windows were not contemporary.
Brick Filling of east windows of Ends, Main Building
At the time of the Restoration, the brick filling of the pair of east windows on the north and south ends of the main portion of the building appeared to be almost as old as the walls themselves. One is led to believe that these windows, lacking gauged brick jambs, were cut in the walls in connection with the erection of the Second Building, to give additional light to the corners of the end rooms. The Copper Engraving (1732-47) [See ill., Vol. I, p. 36] shows four windows at the sides while the Jefferson Plan (1732-47) [See ill., Vol. I, p. 17] shows only three, representing probably the original windows. Sometime between these dates the windows were filled and their heads and sills removed; bricks undoubtedly, coming from the original building, as debris after the fire, were used. Gauged brick jambs were added to these windows in connection with the Restoration.
West Windows of these Ends
The Doorways at the Ends of the Main Building
With the pair of the west windows on each sidethe north and south ends of the main portion of the building the case is different. All had gauged brick jambs and at the time of the Restoration their brick fillings appeared to be considerably later than those of the east windows. These windows were likely added, probably after 1772-73, in order to give more light to the corridor. One would judge that they were closed and their heads and sills removed in connection with the Third Building. The side doorways are not shown either in the Copper Engraving or in Jefferson's Plan, but that they remained down to the time of the Third Building is known from literary evidence. (Lit Ref. March 9, 1830) and, also, from certain dates which students cut in the walls along with their initials especially at
7 [17]
the right side of the south doorway while they were standing on the upper platform and on the steps leading to the ground. (In the Third Building, the doorways were closed and the staircases were removed; a new south entrance was made in connection with the center window. The Fourth Building had no side entrances. The two pairs of end windows at each side of the building remained closed throughout the periods of the Third and Fourth Buildings. At the time of the Restoration, their brick fillings were removed and the windows were restored. Likewise, the doorways in connection with the original west windows were restored along with the staircases leading to the ground. That these features were all part of the Second Building there is no doubt.)
The Window Divisions
The fenestration of the original windows as to the muntins was probably not unlike that of the Second Building. For the main portion of the building, at least, the daguerreotype is the only reference. The windows shown on the second floor are known to be later but those on the first floor could be the original ones, unless they were all destroyed in the fire, which is not likely. This arrangement as to muntins was followed in the Restoration. For the windows of the north wing there is no documentary evidence except in contemporary monuments but the present arrangement of muntins cannot be very unlike the original one.
The First Building Probably Three-storied
Rear Wall of Second Building Three-Storied, while other walls were two stories high
Possible Reasons for this Discrepancy in Height
Three-story Height of old west wall tends to confirm accuracy of Michel's sketch
Statement in Beverley About Height of First Building Questionable
It is likely that the First Building had still another story (now lost), in accord with Michel's sketch which shows three full stories above the basement exclusive of the dormer story contained in the roof; (the walls of the north wing were probably the height they are today.) Though careless as to the number of
8 [18]
windows and their spacing across the building, it is not likely that Michel would have made a mistake with regard to the number of stories; as to vertical elements his drawing is logical and seems to be essentially correct. Furthermore, both the Copper Engraving and the "Little Girl's" [Miss Mary F. Southall] sketch [See ill., Vol. I, p. 30] depict the rear wall of the Second Building as three full stories while the front and sides are only two, the third story windows being on line with the dormers in the roof at the front and sides. Also, many literary references indicate that the rear wall of the Second Building was three stories high. This may be an interesting commentary on the destruction of the original building by fire. The upper portions of the walls would have been severely burned, since they would have served in a way as the top of a chimney which contained a raging fire within. The rear wall of this "chimney," however, would not have been the rear or west wall of the building, but the inner one which separates the rooms of the building from the piazzascorridors, extending the length of the building. In fact, the rear wall of the building was probably scarcely damaged. It is known from the literary references that this inner wall kept the fire out of the corridors corridors(piazzas). Like the front and side walls of the building, it was two stories in height in the Second Building, while the rear or west wall of the building was three. It seems to be logical to suppose that after the fire the third stories of the front and side walls along with that of the inner wall were too badly burned for further use and were removed, while the rear wall of the building, probably only slightly damaged, was retained for
9 [19]
its full height; the third story of this inner wall, however, might have been left standing to support the roof at the rear. which was more or less [illegible] at this over the [illegible]The whole rear wall was torn down in connection with the Third Building and rebuilt to two stories in accord with the walls of the front and sides; this would indicate that the rear wall was an old one and probably unsafe at that time. There would seem to be no question but that the third story at the rear was as much a part of the original building as the two lower stories and that it corresponded to the third story shown by Michel. Furthermore, Michel's sketch of the front of the building shows the third story and its windows as somewhat lower in height than those in the first and second stories and in this the Copper Engraving, which shows a portion of the rear of the building, would seem to agree. (One of the literary references indicates indirectly that the First as well as the Second Building was two stories in height. In Beverly's History of Virginia, Campbell's edition was published by Randolph in 1855, it is stated that the First Building was "burned to the ground" and that "in this condition it lay till the arrival of Colonel Spotswood, their present Governor, in whose time it was raised again the same bigness as before." Since the statement occurs in connection with the name of GOvernor Spotswood, it could only be an interpolation in Beverly's original text of 1705 by Campbell who in 1722 reprinted the second edition. The First Building had then been burnt for some years and the above comparison of its size with that of the Second Building is at best only a loose one.)
The Elevations of the Four Forms Compared
The roof is depicted by Michel as hipped, with a large dormer window in the center, which has a balustrade about it on
10 [20]
the front and sides, and four smaller dormer windows at either side; he shows a lantern of two stories (cf. also Lit. ref. Michel, 1702) as crowning the building at the center of the ridge. There seems to be no reason for doubting that these features existed in the original building; all appear in the Second Building with the exception of the center dormer window and its balustrade, their place being taken by the pediment of the pavilion. Instead of four dormers at the sides, however, there were probably six, directly over the windows below, as they appeared in the Second Building; the number of chimneys would seem to be correct. (The roof of the Second Building, as shown in the daguerreotype, was a shingled, hipped roof, and fairly steep; the roofs of the north and south wings were also hipped and of the same height. In the Third Building, however, gables were added to the end walls of the main portion of the building and to the end walls of the wings; these additions remained in the Fourth Building. With the Third and Fourth Buildings there was less pitch to the roof and the roofs of both wings abutted the rear wall of the building, owing to the fact that the walls of the wings had been considerably lowered in connection with the Third Building. The slope of the pediment over the east or front pavilion was lowered in the Third Building and was removed, along with the second story of the pavilion itself, in the Fourth Building. With the Third Building there waswere no dormer windows and no lantern. The Fourth Building, also without dormer windows, had a lantern; the roof was of slate.)
Makeup sheet for (old) p. 11
[no illustration]
THE EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION OF THE RESTORED WREN BUILDING*
THE EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
The front wall… etc.
Details of Wall; Archaeology Agrees With Wicket's Sketch
Details of Wall; Archaeology Agrees with Michel's Sketch
Wall The front wall of the First Building is for the greater part the one standing today, the original masonry, with few exceptions, extending from the foundations up to a height approximately on line with the tops of the heads of the second story windows. The facade of the original building, according to these remains, was symmetrical, with a central entrance and six windows at either side in the basement and in the first and second stories. The present pavilion and entrance were built in connection with the Second Building. This middle area of the facade of the First Building, though entirely lacking, can with fair certainty be reconstructed from Michel's sketch and from the archaeological evidence of the walls themselves, both in agreement to a remarkable degree considering the child-like character of the sketch. The sketch shows the wall as extending directly across the building with no offset of any kind. Excavation has proved that this was true. The foundations of the original wall that extended across this middle area are still in situ, passing behind the pavilion, and portions of it were in fact identified as remaining today in the basement, one at either side of the present doorway.
The Entrance3 As shown by Michel
Entrance Michel's sketch, furthermore, shows an arched entrance slightly above grade, its threshold being approximately on line with the sills of the basement windows; in front of the entrance is shown a low porch with balustrades at the sides, approached by a few steps, while the first floor windows extend directly 12 [23] across the building and above the entrance. Such an arrangement, as may be seen today, would not have been impossible and archaeological evidence of the walls would seem to indicate that it was true.
The Entrance Pavilion and Its Foundations
Excavation has revealed that the original grade at the front of the building was approximately three feet lower than the present grade or that of the Second Building. Although the pavilion is carefully keyed into the wall of the building above grade, its foundations below grade are not bonded into the wall in any manner. They consist of brick piers with rather deep footings which were added at the ends of a low foundation wall which supported the front porch before the entrance to the building as shown in Michel's sketch. This foundation wall rested practically on the original grade; its middle portion was removed to allow for the basement door.
The Original Entrance and the Steps Leading to it and the First Floor
The two portions of original front wall in the basement at either side of the doorway are approximately at the height of the foundation wall and the [illegible], so it would seem that the original wall was reduced to threshold level when the pavilion was built upon itadded. Assuming the threshold of the entrance to have been on line with the sills of the basement windows, five or six steps led up to it from the original grade while a flight of steps, contained within the building itself, led up to the first floor. The front part of the entrance hall, being on [illegible] withthe level of the basement windows, would have been supported on joists which likely rested on the offsets at the lower portions of the
13 [24]
side walls in the basement; the stairway to the first floor would account for the fact that the doors in the side walls, both in the basement and on the first floor, were placed as far to the rear as possible.
The Windows and Balcony Over the front Entrance in the First Building
Windows Judging from the spacing of the six original windows at either side, the area directly over the entrance could have contained two similar windows, in which case a brick pier would have been at the center. It is more likely, however, that there was a single large window, which would have been divided into several parts by mullions. On the second story, Michel shows a doorway opening onto a balcony; the doorway has two doors and a pediment above, while the balcony has balusters at the front and sides. There is no reason for doubting the sketch and, furthermore, this arrangement was true of the Second Building. This middle area of the original facade, lacking today on account of the pavilion, may thus be accounted for.
The Windows of the Front (East) facade in the present building and the vicissitudes through which these have passed
The Towers of the third Building
The six windows at either side of the present pavilion in the basement and in the first and second stories are in their original positions. Those next to the pavilion in the first and second stories were, however, rebuilt at the time of the Restoration as well as the surrounding wall area in connection with those in the second story. (These windows in the first floor were given arched heads in the Third Building and those in the second floor, along with their surrounding wall area and including the second floor of the pavilion, were entirely removed in the Fourth Building when a large room in the middle of the second story was brought forward and supported on a loggia [See ills., Vol. I, p. 60]. The
14 [25]
loggia and its second story were removed in connection with the Restoration and only the foundations remain. With the Third Building, a window was cut at each end of the facade in both the first and second stories, increasing the number of windows on either side of the pavilion to seven;* these added windows were filled in connection with the Restoration.) The remaining windows in the first and second stories are original as to their jambs but only four have their original flat arches; these are the second and third windows on either side of the pavilion, in the first story; none of the windows, however, has its original sill. The heads of all windows, therefore, on the first and second floors, aside from the four mentioned above, along with their sills, date from the Restoration, including the two at either side of the pavilion which were rebuilt. (When the windows on the first floor were lowered in the Third Building as to heads and sills, all heads were removed excepting those of the four windows mentioned above, which were hidden behind two towers, one at either side of the entrance, which were built at this time; in the Fourth Building, when the towers were removed, these four windows were also lowered but the original arches were thoughtfully not disturbed. These foundations of the south tower remain today practically intact, while those of the north tower were removed some years ago in order to utilize the bricks. A lithograph of the Third Building shows that the towers were three stories in height with a porch of two stories between them which gave access to the building. The pavilion and its pediment,
15 [26]
along with the first window at either side in the first and second story, were retained; the pediment, like the roof itself, was given less pitch.) In the third story of the facade of the First Building, the arrangement of the windows was probably not unlike that in the first story, though Michel shows no window at the center.
The Ground Level About the Second building Raised by Spotswood to improve the drainage
Original Grade The grade of the building was raised on all sides and especially at the front by Governor Spotswood who appears to have taken charge of the rebuilding of the structure after the fire of 1705. The reason for raising the grade was unquestionably owing to the fact that water collected in front of the building and made the low entrance at times practically inaccessible; it is possible also that water actually flowed into the building. The poor drainage of this area gave all subsequent occupants of the College Building, Brafferton Hall and the President's House, considerable annoyance. Spotswood raised the grade at the front of the building approximately three feet and in doing so was forced to raise the entrance of the building itself. He removed the whole central portion and built the pavilion with an entrance at the first floor level; a porch and steps were added outside of the building. A basement door was placed beneath the porch and within the basement a sewer was constructed which passed through the foundations of the rear pavilion, the erection of which was a part of the same operation. Any water that collected in front of the building or in its basement would thus have been carried away.
16 [27]Raising the Grade caused the Formation of ponds before the Brafferton and the President's House
However, the raising of the grade around the Wren Building caused the water to form two large ponds in front of Brafferton Hall and the President's House. The Botetourt statue apparently was above the water; probably the walk to the building had been raised by Spotswood. Various attempts were made to drain these ponds through the subsequent history of the building, and only in recent years Dr. Chandler raised the grade of these areas about two feet.
The Change in Level necessitated Re-design of Main Entrance
Spotswood, in raising the grade of the building to such an extent was confronted with the problem of redesigning the main entrance of the building, although his primary purpose in changing the building was a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic one. As a matter of fact, he took the design into serious account, and unquestionably improved the appearance of the building; in doing so, however, he completely changed the originalits architectural character of the building.
Make-up of (old) p. 17
[no illustration]
THE SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATION OF THE RESTORED WREN BUILDING
THE SOUTH (SIDE) ELEVATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
As with the…
Fenestration etc.
Fenestration of South Wall of First and Restored Buildings Composed
Wall As with the front, the original wall of the side or south elevation extends from the foundations up to a height approximately on line with the tops of the heads of the second story windows. There are three windows symmetrically placed in the first and second stories [of the First Building] and, since the building probably had a third story, the same number of windows appeared above as well as three dormer windows in the roof. (in the Restored Building there are five windows in the first and second stories, the end ones dating from the Second Building.) A doorway with outside steps is combined with the original west window. There was a large basement window at the west side of the stairs, directly under the present end window.
Changes in Position of South Doorway the Four Forms of the Building
South EntranceThe present entrance seems beyond any doubt to be the "South door" which played so conspicuous a part in the fire as an exit for some of those who were in the building at the time. Archaeological evidence leads one to believe that the doorway is original and that the jambs were laid-up with the walls themselves; furthermore, on the exterior, the original gauged brick jambs remain in situ down to the water table. (With the Third Building, an entrance was made in connection with the middle window, and the lower portion of the original doorway was filled and the opening was made into a window; this filling remained until the Restoration, at which time it was removed and the doorway restored. Aside 18 [30] from other evidence, the fact that the doorway and the steps were in use during the Second Building is proved by a number of initials and certain dates, which students cut in the walls of the building to the right of the doorway while standing on the steps. The cuttings are old and almost obliterated, but one is apparently O.V.B. 1820; another is :W:H:Y: '56. The sloping line of these initials indicates, in general, the rise of the steps at that time. No initials appear on the west side of the doorway, and in fact it is likely that with the Second Building there were no steps on this side or the platform. With the corresponding entrance in the north side of the building, and undoubtedly the two entrances and their steps were identical, such steps would have been impossible on account of the basement door. The First Building, however, unquestionably had double stairs. (Cf. Lit. ref., Hill, 1705 - "I… ran out the South door, what part of the stairs I went down I cannot remember… ") No dated initials seem to exist from the First Building, probably because the building was near and students would hesitate to mar it; as a matter of fact, the students were then almost non-existent, and the building was in use for only a very few years before it was burned.
The Original Windows
Windows Of the five windows seen today in the first and second stories, the three middle ones are original; their jambs are intact, but, like almost all the windows on the front of the building, their heads and sills date from the Restoration.
Basement Openings of Ends Main Building
Basement Openings There was a basement window to the west of the stairs, directly below the present crest window. The original sill, badly charred by fire. was found just below the grade line of the Fourth Building 19 [31] and one of the segmental arches of the head was found embedded in the thickness of the wall. Above this opening and on the inner side of the wall, a rowlock segmental arch, intended to relieve the weight over the opening, is embedded in the masonry. A similar arch appears over the present basement entrance directly opposite in the north side of the building; here, also, evidence leads one to believe that the opening was originally a basement window. (The west window was closed in connection with the Third Building and during the Restoration the filling was removed and replaced with new brick more in harmony with the original walls.)
Basement Doorway of Fourth Building
(In the Fourth Building, a basement doorway was cut in the wall at the base of the pier between the middle window and the one to the east, probably to gain ready access to a heater that was put in the southeast basement room in an attempt to heat the library above. The "horseshoe" shaped foundation of the heater was in situ when the Restoration was begun. Curiously, when the doorway was cut, the brick above, on the interior of the wall, crumbled away in the form of a segmental arch, which would first lead one to believe that a relieving arch such as that over the window had existed here. However, archaeological evidence indicates that there was no opening 20 [32] here before the Fourth Building and, furthermore, the three original basement openings all occur under windows.)
Make-up for (old) p. 21
[no illustration]
The North (Side) Elevation of the Restored Wren Building
THE NORTH (SIDE) ELEVATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
The north elevation appears...
Openings in North Wall of Main Building
Wall The north elevation appears to have been in every way identical with that of the south, with a corresponding number of doors and windows similarly placed. Likewise, the original wall today extends from the foundations up to a height approximately on line with the tops of the heads of the second story windows. There were three windows symmetrically placed in the first and second stories and, since the building undoubtedly had a third story, the same number of windows appeared above as well as three dormer windows in the roof. (In the Restored Building, there are five windows in the first and second stories, the end ones dating from the Second Building.) A doorway with outside steps is combined with the original west window, similar to the one on the south side. In place of the present basement entrance, which dates from the Second Building, there was a large window; the present window below the original east window seems to date from the Second Building, replacing the original entrance to the basement.
North Entrance in the Several Forms of the Building
North Entrance The present entrance is unquestionably the "North door" which, like the "South door" was mentioned in connection with fire. (cf. Lit. ref., Ingles, Sept. 20, 1707.) As in the case of the south entrance, archaeological evidence indicates that the doorway is original and that the jambs were laid-up with the walls themselves; furthermore, on the exterior, the original gauged jambs remain in situ down to the water-table. (The lower 22 [35] portion of this doorway also was filled in action with the Third Building and the opening made into a window; the filling was removed in the course of then Restoration and the doorway restored. Here also, students cut their initials in the wall to the left of the doorway, which, aside from other evidence indicates that the entrance and the steps were in use during the Second Building. The initials are badly worn and no dates are apparent. There appear to be no initials to the right of the doorway and, in fact, steps on this side of the platform would have been impossible with the Second Building on account of the steps which led into the basement.) With the First Building, however, there could have been a pair of steps, which unquestionably was true of the south entrance.
Three Middle Windows Old
Windows As on the south side, the three middle windows of the five seen today in the first and second stories are original; their jambs are intact but their heads and sills date from the Restoration.
Basement Doorway
Basement Openings The present basement door bears every indication of not being a part of the original building. The later portions of the door jamb, and the lower steps between the jambs appear to have been cut in the thickness of the walls, which would indicate that in the First Building the opening had been a window. (The jambs appear to have been repaired at various times and in connection with the Restoration this entrance was largely rebuilt.) Obviously, the entrance is an old one, but it would appear to date from the Second Building. It is likely that in the First Building there was a large basement window here, corresponding to the one directly opposite in the south wall. In fact, since there was probably a pair of stops in connection with the north entrance to the First Building, a basement door here would have been impossible. Over the opening is a rowlock, segmental relieving arch embedded in the masonry 23 [36] on the inside of the wall and rising slightly above the first floor, corresponding to the arch over the opposite original opening in the south wall.
Basement Window; Changes in Position of Doorway and Window
The present window also appears to date from the Second Building. On the inside of the wall a patch of old brick work extends from the floor to the ceiling, so it would appear that this window replaced a basement door that led into the kitchen of the first Building. Over the opening is a rowlock, relieving arch similar to that over the present basement entrance in this wall. (In connection with the Third Building, the window was filled but in the Fourth Building it was re-opened; the present form of the window dates from the Restoration and is in accord with its appearance in the Second Building.) The changing of the original basement doorway into a window end the original basement window into a doorway say have been in connection with some re-arrangement of the kitchen.
Make-up for (old) page 24
[no illustration]
THE WEST (REAR) ELEVATION OF THE RESTORED WREN BUILDING
THE WEST (REAR ELEVATION)
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
The original portions of the rear wall…
Rear Wall of Main Building; old and restored portions
Wall The original portions of the rear wall, as contained between the wings, consist of the foundations up to the line of the first floor along with the portions at the ends which include the end arches in the first story and portions of the outer jambs of the windows in the second story. Aside from these remains, the wall for its full three stories was built at the time of the Restoration and represents the wall of the First Building except for the pavilion (corresponding to the one on the front), which represents an addition to the Second Building; the original foundations of the pavilion, not bonded into the wall, are still in situ.
Rear WAll in Second Building
The original rear wall of the building is depicted, in part, in the Copper Engraving [See ill, Vol. I, p. 36] and in full elevation in the Southall sketch [See ill., Vol. I, p. 30], both showing the wall as it appeared in connection with the Second Building after the Chapel had been added. It is safe to say, however, that aside from the addition of the pavilion, it remained essentially the same throughout the history of the Second Building. On the first story there were five arches, opening from the corridor, and in both the second and third stories there were nine windows. The roof would have been the same as at the front except possible for the dormer windows, some of which would have conflicted with the chimneys rising from the inner masonry wall, which separated the corridor from the main portion of the building.
25 [39]"Flat" Roof Installed Sometime After Making of Bodleian Plate
Rear Wall Remained Three Stories High During Life of Second Building
Rear Wall Demolished and Third Story Remained in Third Building
Four Arches of Main Building Filled In and Walls of Wings Lowered in Third Building
At the north end, the roof joined that of the north wing (Lit. ref., Hill, 1705). The roof treatment in the two drawings of the Second Building mentioned above is different; the Engraving shows the arrangement devised when the Chapel was added and the sketch shows a modification made at a still later time. (For references to the flat roof,* cf. Lit. refs., July 14, 1817; July 6, 1823; June 22, 1825; also, July 1827, "the flat roof of the college has for many years leaked." The flat roof was built, therefore, "many years" before 1827; in July, 1817, "the roof yet leaks". Cf. the earlier form of the roof shown in the Copper Engraving, 1732-47.) That the rear wall remained a full three stories throughout the history of the Second Building is proved by literary references (Cf. 1781 - "the college, a large building, three stories high", referring to the rear of the building, and June 19, 1835 - "in the third story of the College a door… has been broken down… that in another place… a secret passage opened into the belfry") and by the Southall sketch, which was made in July, 1856; at this time, extensive alterations were being made on the interior in all three stories, especially the second and third (Cf. Lit. refs., Faculty Minutes, April 8, 1856; The Southern Argus, May 30, 1856; the Williamsburg Weekly Gazette, Aug. 28, 1856; July 8, 1857). Furthermore, after the Second Building was burned (Feb. 8, 1859) it was described as "four stories high" (Cf. Lit. ref., Richmond Daily Dispatch, Feb. 10, 1859); it would seem here that the basement was included. In connection with the erection of the Third Building, 26 [40] the third story of the rear wall was removed and it seems logical to suppose that the whole wall, save for its end portions, was demolished at this time. The roofing of this rear third story had been a difficult problem throughout the history of the Second Building and its leakage a source of annoyance. There is no direct proof, however,that the first and second stories of the rear wall were demolished at this time, but it seems unlikely that these stories were removed in connection with the Fourth Building. Exall was instructed to alter his original plan by leaving out the third story (Faculty Minutes, March 11, 1859), for at this time a house had been purchased to serve as a dormitory for the students (Faculty Minutes, March 11, 1859; The Weekly Gazette, April 6, 1859) and both Exall's plan and the one which is unsigned show a new wall at the rear, while the other walls of the building remain intact; neither plan shows the arches of the first story. Faxon's plans and elevations are lost so there is no saying what he did about the rear wall and, unfortunately, there is no picture showing the rear of the Third Building. Despite the fact that the walls of the building as a whole were judged to be sound, it might have been felt that the arches of the rear wall, which had been supporting two stories for something over one hundred and sixty years, should be rebuilt. In consequence, not only the third story was removed but the whole wall was demolished and a new one of two stories built in its 27 [41] place. The walls of the wings were lowered at this time and since the original portions of the rear wall exist today to the same height as the original walls of the wings, it would seem further proof that the rear wall was demolished in connection with the Third Building. In the new wall, the forms of the five arches were maintained in the first story as blind arches, the center one containing an arched doorway and the ones at the sides containing square headed windows; in the second story were five windows, corresponding to the openings below. This wall stood until the time of the Restoration when it was demolished and a new one of three stories was built representing the rear wall of the Second Building after the addition of the Chapel.
Entrance The original grade at the rear of the building was somewhat higher than at the front. A flight of steps on the outside of the building, in connection with the central arch, led directly into the corridor on the first floor.
The Rear Pavilion
Windows Portions of the outer gauged brick jambs of the two end windows in the second floor remain along with the evidence regarding the height of their sills. It seems reasonable to believe that the nine windows in the second and in the third story in the Southall sketch represent the original ones. The pavilion, however, (not indicated in the sketch) had been added in connection with the Second Building and although it is possible that the middle openings were to some extent altered, they must have 28 [42] remained essentially the same. It is curious that the pavilion is not shown in the sketch. Possibly its pediment had been removed when the dormer roof shown in the Engraving was changed to a flat roof. This must have been between the years 1747 and 1817. The pavilion undoubtedly stood until 1859, when the whole wall was demolished. The "west front" of the building (cf. Lit. ref., Aug. 11, 1732) would seem to indicate the pavilion and the pediment, as shown in Engraving (1732-47).*
Make-up for (old) sheet 29
[no illustration]
[Caps-] Foundations of original [illeg] of North wing looking northward. The wing was probably shortened to its present length after the fire of 1705. The building in the background is the old science hall which no longer stands.
NORTH WING-GREAT HALL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
Only portions of the two side walls…
Walls and Openings; Original and Restored Portions
Only portions of the two side walls of the north wing, or Great Hall, are original, extending in each case on the exterior from the foundations up to the spring of the arches of the windows; the gauged brick jambs of the five windows along with certain end bricks of their arches are in situ while on the interior their arches remain intact. The five basement windows in each side wall are original. The upper portions of the side walls along with the west or end wall and adjacent ends of the side walls were built in connection with the Restoration, replacing masonry of various periods. The wing was originally longer, serving as one side of the intending quadrangle in which form the building was designed; the court would have been practically square. It would seem that the walls of the wing did not rise to the full height of the main portion of the building, although the upper portion of their respective roofs joined (Cf. Lit. ref., Hill, 1705).
The Great Hall and Others
Features of the Interior
The north wing contained the Great Hall with one floor above it, probably the dormer story (Cf. Lit. ref., Ingles, Sept. 20, 1707), and a basement below which probably served as the kitchen students' dining room. Across the east end of the Hall was a balcony with a stairway leading up to it. Another stairway, in fact, led down to the balcony from above, but whether from the floor directly over the Hall or from the second or third stories
30 [45]
of the main portion of the building is a question. There was a stairway to the kitchen basement which must have led either from the Hall or from the corridor (cf. "kitchen stairs").
The West Addition to the North Wing and Its still Existant Foundations
It was probably after the fire of 1705 and in connection with the Second Building that the wing was shortened; the idea of a quadrangle was apparently given up. The foundations of the end portion, which was abandoned, remain in situ to the west of the present end wall. It would seem that there was a vestibule of one or possibly two stories at the end, judging from the foundations which are of much less width than those of the original west wall of the Hall itself. The vestibule was entered by a doorway at the center and a flight of steps on the inside led up to the Great Hall. On the north side of the entrance a small doorway admitted to a short flight of brick steps which led down to the kitchen basement under the Hall; the steps are in excellent preservation and there is evidence that they originally had wood nosings. Evidence on the south side unfortunately is lacking, but an anteroom may be suggested; a staircase could have been contained here, leading up to a balcony at the west end of the Hall, though there is no evidence either for the staircase or for a balcony at this end. The foundation of the original west wall of the Great Hall itself is lacking except for its ends and lowest courses of masonry. It appears that the entrance vestibule was an addition since its foundations are not bonded
31 [46]
into those of the Hall itself and the doorway which admitted to the kitchen was out in its end wall; however, the addition must have been made sometime before 1705.
West Wall of North Wing; Its History and Features
(The foundations of the new rear wall, which marked the shortening of the wing when the Second Building was begun, were laid without footings. When the south wing, or Chapel, was built, the wall was faced above grade with masonry laid in Flemish bond with glazed headers similar to the walls of the Chapel. In fact, the wall was made in every way a duplicate of the rear wall of the Chapel; a corresponding arched entrance was cut in the wall (probably replacing another one) along with three circular windows and to the entrance was added a masonry frame, consisting of two piers and an arch. The frame was not bonded into the wall and on June 21, 1834 it was blown down by a storm along with the large folding doors of the entrance (Lit. ref., June 25, 1834 [See Vol. I, p. 31] and July 1835). The new rear wall itself had been poorly bonded into the side walls when the wing was shortened and in 1860 the frame was re-erected about the doorway to secure the wall against falling (Lit. ref., July 16, 1860). At the time of the Restoration, the wall was on the point of falling away entirely and had to be rebuiltrebuilt in part. At the extreme west end of the north wall of the wing and within the masonry of the new rear wall appear the following initials: M. R. 1747, and A. O. More.
Interiors of North Wing; Its Changing Uses
In the early history of the Second Building the Great Hall had come to beis known to have been used as a dining room for the students (cf. Lit. refs., 1754 and 1769) andbut later it was used as the classical school (cf. Lit. refs., July 7, 1827 and July 1833).
32 [47]
In 1836, the Hall was turned into a chemical laboratory and philosophical lecture room and a second floor was built above it (Lit. ref., Dec. 2, 1836). The library was moved to the second story of the wing sometime before 1855 and was entered through an ante-room at the north end of the corridor on the second floor (Cf. Lit. ref., May 8, 1855; Southall sketch, 1856; Lit. ref., Feb. 8, 1859). In 1856 the entrance thorough the ante-room was closed and a new entrance was made admitting to the library from the outside of the building; a doorway was cut in the first story of the south wall of the wing and a staircase was built leading up to the second floor (Lit. ref., May 30, 1856). The dormer story continued in use as the dormitory until the end of the period of the Second Building (Lit. ref., Feb. 10, 1859). In the Restoration, four dormer windows appear on the sides of the wing, whereas five are shown in the Copper Engraving.
Alterations to North Wing, [illegible]ds during period of third building
(In connection with the Third Building, the walls of the wing were lowered to the spring of the arches of the windows and a gable was added to the end wall; the roof abutted the rear wall of the main portion of the building. The windows were given square heads and lowered along with the second floor. It is likely that the windows, along with the basement windows at the sides, were filled in with masonry at this time; these fillings were removed in connection with the Restoration. The first and second stories were given over to class rooms and the library was moved to the first floor of the main portion of the building where it occupied the room at the south end; an outside entrance to it was made in connection with the middle window.
Make-up for (old) p. 33
[no illustration]
Old Cut of the Third Wren Building viewed from the southwest, showing the Chapel. The two square constructions which seem to be centered on the Roof Ridge of the Main Building are doubtless the artist's (inaccurate) representation of the tops of the two east towers.
SOUTH WING-CHAPEL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
The south wing, in Chapel…
The Building of the Chapel
The south wing, or Chapel, was added in connection with the Second Building. It was probably begun shortly after March 26, 1728 (Cf. Lit. ref.) and the Chapel was dedicated on June 28, 1732. A brick in the south pier of the rear entrance bears the initials R. K. 1729; the inscription, carefully carved, is upside-down in the masonry so one would judge that it was cut before the brick was put into the wall. The Chapel at this time was in the course of erection and this brick probably dates the laying-up of the entrance.
The Chapel Walls and Their Openings
The walls of the south wing, like those of the north wing, probably did not rise to the full height of the main portion of the building but the upper portions of their respective roofs joined; the length of the wing was determined by that of the north wing after it had been shortened. The side walls are racked into the rear wall of the main portion of the building above grade while the foundations below grade are not joined to the wall in any way. The foundations of the wing have no footings (unlike the foundations of the original walls of the building) and above grade the walls are laid-up in Flemish bond with glazed headers throughout. Within the masonry of the south wall are two blind arched doorways which would seem to have been intended as side entrances but never to have been finished. Like the north wing, the Chapel has five arched windows in each side wall while its end or west wall has an entrance framed by 34 [50] two piers and an arch, and three circular windows; this rear wall, along with its masonry in Flemish bond, was copied in the end wall of the north wing. There are no basement windows. The ceiling of the Chapel was vaulted and above the Chapel was a dormer story, similar to the one in the north wing, which served as a student "Society" room (Lit. ref., Oct. 19, 1852); below the Chapel in a series of burial vaults was built in the course of time. In the Restoration, for dormer windows appear on the sides of the wing, whereas five are shown in the Copper Engraving.
Changes Made In the Period of the Third Building
In connection with the third Building, the walls of the Chapel were lowered to the spring of the arches of the windows on the exterior; on the interior, however, the original arched heads remain in situ. The windows themselves were lowered and given new arches and a doorway was cut in the north side wall. The entrance doorway and three circular windows in the rear wall, corresponding to those in the rear wall of the north wing, were probably filled in with masonry at this time. A gable was added to the end wall, and the roof, like that of the north wing, abutted the rear wall of the main portion of the building. At the time of the Restoration, the walls of the wing were again raised to their original height along with the windows and the doorway was filled-in with masonry; the brick fillings of the entrance and circular windows in the rear wall were removed.