The Architects Town and Davis and the Second Indiana Statehouse

Home , Alexander Jackson Davis, Indiana Statehouse, Ithiel Town, Jacob Piatt Dunn

James A. Glass”

Before the Civil War the second Indiana statehouse was one of the principal architectural monuments of Indianapolis and the state of Indiana. The architectural firm that designed and built it, Town and Davis of New York, was a leader in the architectural profession of the period and gave the state its first fully elaborated Greek Revival building. An inquiry into the design and construction of the statehouse provides insights into a rarely investigated topic-the early architectural history of Indiana. Indianapolis, the state capital, had been in existence for only ten years in 1831. The new “City of Indiana,” though laid out in the approximate geographical center of the state, was situated far north of the settled areas, in the midst of a vast virgin forest. With only Indian “traces,” or trails, to serve as links with the outside world, Indianapolis was isolated during its early years. In 1830 the capital could boast a permanent population of about fifteen hundred, swelled somewhat when the state legislators ar- rived every winter for their annual session. The only building of any size in 1831 was the original Marion County courthouse, a modest, two-and-one-half-story brick building, where the legislature met after moving to Indianapolis in 1824-1825. The state capital was a struggling frontier vi1lage.l In 1830 the Indiana General Assembly decided that sufficient funds could be raised to erect a statehouse by selling lots and out-

* James A. Glass, formerly historian on the staff of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission, is presently a doctoral student at Cornell University. 1 B. R. Sulgrove, History oflndianapolis and Marion County, Indiana (Phil- adelphia, 1884), 16, 19; Jacob Piatt Dunn, Greater Indianapolis: The History, the Industries, the Institutions, and the People of a City of Homes (2 vols., Chicago, 1910), I, 62-63.

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY, LXXX (December, 1984). 01984, Trustees of Indiana University. 330 Indiana Magazine of History lots in the capital’s “donation” lands. James Blake was appointed a commissioner to advertise for architectural plans and to obtain stone for the foundation.2 In May, 1831, Blake placed advertise- ments in at least seven newspapers of local, regional, and national circulation, providing specifications for the building and offering a premium of $150 for the best plans. The deadline for entries was November 10,1831.The legislature would select the winning plans.3 The competition attracted the attention of architects across the nation. On December 15 Blake presented twenty-one plans from sixteen architects for the Indiana General Assembly’s con- sideration. Among the competitors were five of the leading architects of the day: Town and Davis of New York; Thomas U. Walter of Philadelphia; Robert Mills of Washington; and William Strickland of Philadel~hia.~All five were practitioners in the pop- ular Greek Revival mode of architectural design; thus, perhaps it was foreordained that the winning plan would be cast in that style. The plan of Town and Davis, calling for a Greek Doric temple surmounted by a Renaissance dome, emerged as the choice of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Public Buildings at the end of De~ember.~The full General Assembly awarded the premium to Town on January 26, 1832.‘j It is difficult to ascertain why the assembly selected the Town and Davis design. A comparison of the winning entry with its competitors is impossible, since only Town and Davis’s design has survived. One explanation for the choice involves Town’s fame as the architect of the Connecticut statehouse at New Haven, just completed in 1831 (see Figure Ah7 The Connecticut design was a Doric temple much like the Town and Davis design for the Indiana project; hence Town could present himself as an experienced designer and builder of a statehouse in the Greek mode. Credit also belongs to the persuasive powers of Ithiel Town. His presence in the midst of the legislators must have given him a decided ad-

* The US.Government gave the “donation”lands to the state of Indiana for the site of the new capital. See Dunn, Greater Indianapolis, I, 104, and Sulgrove, History of Indianapolis, 15-16. 3 Indianapolis Indiana Democrat, May 21, 1831. Indiana, Senate Journal (1831-1832), 87-89. Indianapolis Indiana Democrat, January 3, 1832. Dunn, Greater Indianapolis, I, 104. Roger Hale Newton, Town and Davis, Architects: Pioneers in American Re- vivalist Architecture, 1812-1870, Including a Glimpse of Their Times and Their Contemporaries (New York, 1942), 155-57. The Second Indiana Statehouse 331

FIGUREA: FORMERCONNECTICUT STATEHOUSE, COMPLETED IN 1831

Courtesy Metropolitan Museum of‘ Art, New York, New York.

vantage over absent competitors.8 Furthermore, the high quality of the plans drawn by the firm’sjunior partner, Alexander Jackson Davis, probably influenced the decision. Although not yet thirty, Davis had already become widely known in the East as a talented draftsman and delineat~r.~Davis’s diary for October, 1831, shows that he had prepared a plan for two floors and a perspective view of the Indiana statehouse, which was “Taken out [to Indiana] by Mr. Town himself.” On December 7 Davis noted work on elevations, a section drawing, and other items for the capitol.’” On February 2,1832, the General Assembly appointed three “Commissioners to Superintend the Erection of the State House.” The commissioners promptly contracted with Town to construct

* Town was also nationally known for inventing the Town lattice truss for bridge construction, a patented technique that he indefatigably promoted in many parts of the country. While in Indianapolis in 1831-1832, Town sold a set of his bridge plans to the local county commissioners for construction of a bridge over Fall Creek for the Lafayette Road, later Indiana Avenue. See ibid., 21,42-46, and Dunn, Greater Indianapolis, I, 104-105. 9 Talbot Hamlin, Greek Revival Architecture in America: Being an Account of Important Trends in American Architecture and American Life Prior to the War between the States (New York, 19441, 138-39. Alexander Jackson Davis, Diary, 1827-1853, Alexander Jackson Davis Pa- pers (Manuscripts Division, New York Public Library), 123, 125, 492. FIGUREB: PERSPECTIVE VIEW BY ALEXANDERJACKSON DAVIS OF THE SECOND INDIANA STATEHOUSE

Labeled by Cathryn L Lombard]. courtesy Indiana State Library. Indianapolis FIGUREc: “CAPITOL, INDIANA, PLAN OF PRINCIPAL FLOOR,” 1834, DRAWINGBY A. J. DAVIS Labeled by Cathryn L Lomhardi; caurtesy Indiana Hietoncal Society Llbrary. Indianapolls 334 Indiana Magazine of History

. FIGURED: THE SECONDINDIANA STATEHOUSE AS COMPLETED

Courtesy Indiana State Library, Indianapolis

the building. The capitol’s design was to conform to six drawings to be received and approved by the General Assembly, including a perspective view, section, plans, and e1evations.l’ The contract for construction specified that “All the ornaments about the outside walls are . . . to correspond in character with the Doric Order of the Parthenon at Athens.”12 Despite the contract’s stipulation, Town and Davis designed a free adaptation of the Greek Doric temple, which differed from both the Parthenon and the Connecticut capitol. The Indiana building (see Figure B) was a Doric temple form with a pseudoperipteral treatment (i.e., antae, or pilasters, appeared along the

Dorothy Riker and Gayle Thornbrough,eds., Messages and Papers Relating to the Administration of Noah Noble, Governor of Indiana, 1831-1837 (Indiana Historical Collections, Vol. XXXVIII; Indianapolis, 1958), 89-90. l2 Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 98. The Second Indiana Statehouse 335 flank sides instead of true colonnades), in contrast to the Par- thenon, which was peripteral (a colonnade surrounded the whole temple). In addition, in each of the two porticoes of the statehouse, only the end columns of the second rank were present, contrary to the full, double ranks of the Parthenon (see Figures E and F). Of the sculptural adornments of the Parthenon’s exterior, only the triglyphs appeared in the Indiana version. Missing were the sculptured figures in the tympanums, the carvings in the metopes, and the shields along the architrave. Moreover, some of the em- bellishments depicted in Davis’s perspective drawing (see Figure B), such as the antefixes along the cornice, ridge of the roof, and at the base of the dome, as well as the palmettes and anthemia shown at the apexes and ends of the pediments, do not appear in later photographs and may never have been executed (compare Figures B and D).13 On the other hand, the statehouse did feature octostyle porticoes and seventeen piers in the form of either columns or antae along each of its flanks, thus reproducing the number of portico and flank columns in the Parthenon (see Figures E and F). The pseudoperipteral combination of portico columns and antae sim- ulated the rhythm of the Athenian temple. Practical considera- tions, such as the need for sufficient light in the interior chambers, possibly precluded a true peripteral c01onnade.l~ The remaining exterior features of the Indiana capitol de- parted completely from the Parthenon. The ribbed dome rose from a large drum with alternating projecting antae and recessed windows. Town and Davis derived the dome and drum from a source in the Italian Renaissance, possibly Bramante’s Tempietto at Rome (1502) (see Figure G).16 Crowning the dome was a lantern based on the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates in Athens, representing a return to Classical Greek architecture (see Figure H). When executed, the elaborate culminating element of the Choragic Mon- ument was omitted, leaving the lantern looking unfinished.16

13 To compare the design of the Indiana statehouse to that of the Parthenon, see the text and illustrations regarding the latter in James Stuart and Nicholas Fkvett, The Antiquities of Athens and Other Monuments of Greece (3d ed., New York, 1892), 47-56. 14 Ibid., 54-56. 15 Town and Davis may have gained the inspiration for the dome from illustrations in the books and treatises on Renaissance architecture in Town’s extensive library. See, for instance, Palladio’s depiction of the Tempietto in the Isaac Ware edition of the Four Books of Architecture (New York, 1963, The Fourth Book, plates XLIV and XLV. 16 Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, 35-41. 336 Indiana Magazine of History

Town and Davis based the exterior details in large part on the numerous scholarly books published during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries about the antique architecture of Greece and Rome. Beginning in the early 1820s’ Town had col- lected a large personal library of books, manuscripts, plates, art objects, etc. on a multitude of artistic and cultural topics. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett’s book The Antiquities of Athens and Other Monuments of Greece probably exerted the most influence on the early Greek Revival commissions of Town and Davis.17 Exquisitely detailed measured drawings of the then-known Greek monuments were presented, including the Parthenon and the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates.ls The Renaissance elements in the firm’s designs may have been drawn from such treatises and books as William Wilken’s The Civil Architecture of Vitruvius (1812) and Isaac Ware’s edition of Palladio’s Four Books ofdrchi-

FIGUREE: ELEVATIONOF THE PARTHENON

Reproduced from James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, The Anti- quities of Athens and Other Monuments of Greece (London, 19051, Plate XXIV.

17 Newton, Town and Davis, 48, 57. Davis noted in his diary that on March 1,1828, he made his first study of “Stuart’sAthens, from which I date Professional Practice.” Davis Diary, 13. la Stuart and Revett, Antiquities ofdthens, 35-41, 47-56. FIGUREF: SIDE VIEW OF THE PARTHENON

Reproduced from Stuart and Revett. A/itryur/n~,~rJAfh

19 Both Wilken’s Vitruvius and several editions of Palladio’s Four Books of Architecture are listed in the Catalogue of Scarce, Valuable, and Rare Books, Ancient and Modern, Being the Remainder of the Extensive Library of the Late Zthiel Town... (New York, 1848), a copy of which is in the Avery Library of Columbia University, New York City. Davis, in an unfinished, unpublished man- uscript entitled “Classical Architecture Derived From the Antiquities of Greece and Her Colonies. Being an Introduction to the Study of Architectural Criticism,” I1 Davis Collection (Avery Library, Columbia University, New York City) refers repeatedly to Wilken’s Vitruvius as a source for his discussion. 20 Newton, Town and Davis, 64-67. 21 Henry-Russell Hitchcock and William Seale, Temples of Democracy: The State Capitols of the U.S.A.(New York, 19761, 84-85. 22 “Capitol of Indiana,” Family Magazine, V (1837-1838), 3. 23 See report to the Indiana General Assembly of the “Commissioners to Su- perintend the Erection of the State House,” December 6, 1834, in Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 347-48. 24 Zbid., 392; “Capitol of Indiana,” 3. 25 None of the contemporary sources examined mention a governor’s office in the capitol. The Second Indiana Statehouse 339 approved the greater basement height but failed to enlarge the site.26 Town supervised little of the construction. Instead, he hired Edwin J. Peck, a young man from New Haven, Connecticut, as superintendent of masonry charged with erecting the foundations and brickwork of the building.27Later, probably in 1833, one of Town’s veteran draftsmen, John Stirewalt, came from New York to Indianapolis to act as “chief architect,” supervising the project as a whole on Town’s behalf. Stirewalt, who had just worked in New York City on the firm’s similar temple and dome design for the French Protestant Church (18321, was instrumental in en- suring that the sophisticated Classical design principles were faithfully followed in a frontier environment.28 The exterior walls, columns, antae, and rotunda wall of the statehouse were brick. The foundation was made of “blue, Bluff limestone” and brick. Laths covered the entire exterior (walls, antae, columns, entablature, etc.), which was given two coats of stucco, the second of which contained a mixture of lime and sand. The stuccoed facade was then scored to represent the joints of ashlar masonry. Stained with mineral colors, the surface resem- bled stone even further.29 The interior structure of the capitol, except for the rotunda walls, was wood frame. Plank ribs formed the dome, and the lantern, or “cupola,” was of “wood entirely.” A zinc covering was specified for the roof of the building and for the dome.3n In December, 1834, the statehouse commissioners announced to the legislature that the building would be completed one year ahead of schedule.31Town marked the occasion by sending both houses of the General Assembly a new perspective view and principal floor plan by Davis showing the statehouse completed (see Figures B and C).32In New York Davis had the firm of Stoddart and Currier make an engraving of the two drawings. The engraving was sold nationally, publicizing the firm’s newest state-

26 Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 136-37. 27 The fact that Town hired the twenty-five-year-old Peck to supervise the masonry work indicates the younger man had previous experience as a mason, perhaps working on the New Haven statehouse. See Sulgrove, History of Indi- anapolis, 156. 28 Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 392; Newton, Town and Davis, 58, 96, 203; Hamlin, Greek Revival Architecture, 144; Sulgrove, History of Indianapolis, 156. 29 See construction contract in Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 90-96, 98-99. Town had previously used the stucco veneer at the Connecticut statehouse, which provided the distinguished appearance of stone within the re- stricted budgets appropriated by the state legislatures. See Hitchcock and Seale, Temples of Democracy, 84. 30 Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 96-97. 3l Ibid., 347, 392. 32 Indiana, House Journal (1834-18351,88. FIGUREG: BRAMANTE'STEMPIETTO AT ROME

Reproduced from the Isaac Ware edition of Andrea Palladia's Fou Books of Architecture (New Yurk, 19651, The Fourth Book, Plate XLV. FIGUREH: ELEVATIONOF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENTOF LYSICRATES

Reproduced from James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, The Anti yuilres ofAthens (3 vols , London. reprint 19681, Chapter 4, Plate 111 342 Indiana Magazine of History

EDWINJ. PECK

Reproduced from B. R. Sulgrove. Histoy of Indianapolis and Marton County, Zndiaria (Philadelphia, 1884). opposite page 156 house design.33Stirewalt and the subcontractors completed construction on the statehouse in December, 1835, four years after the submission of plans to the legislature. The final cost was about sixty thousand dollars (see Figure DL3*

33 According to his diary (p. 163), Davis prepared a perspective view of the Indiana capitol for a private client in June, 1834. The engraving was a logical next step. The 1834 view and plan are the only surviving drawings by Town and Davis related to the Indiana capitol. What is believed to be the watercolor version presented to the legislators still exists at the Indiana Division, Indiana State Library. See also Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 327; and Indi- anapolis Star, December 6, 1936. 34 Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 351. The Second Indiana Statehouse 343

ITHIELTOWN (1784-1844)

Reproduced from The Archilecl. XI (February, 19291, 521

Debate over the architectural propriety of Town and Davis’s design for the Indiana statehouse began even before it was completed. In April, 1835, the editor of the New York-based American Monthly Magazine savagely attacked the combined temple and dome designs of Town and Davis, calling the proposed dome for the Federal Customs House in New York (designed by the firm the previous year) “an excrescence, which, however elegant it itself, is utterly monstrous and barbarous when added to a model of the present Grecian architecture, such as the Parthenon or the 344 Indiana Magazine of History

Theseion.” The editor referred to the firm’s use of a dome in the design for the Indiana capitol as “~andalism.”~~ Several years later, the Family Magazine, also published in New York, took the opposite view, acclaiming the design of the Indiana statehouse. The magazine commented that it “may be considered the nearest approach to the classical spirit of the antique yet instanced in the Western hemi~phere.”~~The writer of the article, who may have belonged to the cultural circle of Town and Davis, defended the introduction of antae along the flanks of the temple form. He pointed out that the projecting forms partially concealed the many windows from view, saving the building from “the character of a factory” and providing the illusion of support for the full entablature along the sides. Regarding the combination of dome with temple, the writer conceded that as a matter of taste the propriety of adding a dome was questionable. Nevertheless, he argued that the dome of the Indiana capitol denoted the special character of its edifice. To the distant observer, “the dome and lantern, rising proudly above surrounding objects enhances the richness of the scene.”37 The local press in Indianapolis was at first also congratula- tory. Upon the statehouse’s completion at the end of 1835, the Indiana Democrat thanked all the construction supervisors and the workers for their efforts, enthusiastically referring to the outward appearance of the new statehouse as “truly splendid.”38 Nevertheless, by the end of the Civil War, the design of the statehouse had passed from favor in Indianapolis. W. R. Holloway, who published the first comprehensive history of the city in 1870, condemned the building for both its temple form and for the addition of the dome. He observed that a Greek temple was intended for mountainous countries, where it could cap natural elevations and harmonize with the scenery. On the other hand, “the Grecian style is not fitted for a level country. Its heavy architrave, low roof, square form, and lack of elevation, make it look squatty in a plain.” Like the editor ofAmerican Monthly Magazine, Holloway viewed the combination of a dome and a Greek temple as a dis- tasteful and unnatural marriage. Even if one set aside the prob- lem of situating the temple form on a plain, “the incongruous, contemptible dome should have condemned it utterly. It don’t [sic] belong to the Grecian style, it is Roman. The Greeks knew nothing of domes or arches.”39

35 Quoted in Hamlin, Greek Revival Architecture, 324. 36 Italicized in original; see “Capitol of Indiana,” 3. 37 Ibid. 38 Quoted in Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 392. 39 W. R. Holloway, Indianapolis: A Historical and Statistical Sketch of the Railroad City. . . (Indianapolis, 1870), 42-43. The Second Indiana Statehouse 345

If just the style and design of the statehouse had been objec- tionable, the Indiana citizenry might have retained it. What really “condemned” it was the impermanence of its construction. Hol- loway reported that the limestone used in the foundation was far from durable. The stone began to scale only a few years after construction, and by 1870 had “decayed so greatly as to disfigure, if not endanger, portions of the walls.”4o The walls themselves, as well as the columns, antae, and entablature, were covered with Town’s stucco. This material fared poorly in the freeze-and-thaw cycle of Indianapolis winters. By the 1860~~chunks of the ersatz masonry were breaking off, ex- posing the brick structure beneath. Holloway pronounced the statehouse’s appearance “disgusting,”while Jacob P. Dunn, a later historian, referred to its appearance during its last years as that of “a genuine Grecian ruin.’141 Apparently the plaster work in the interior was also of un- certain quality. In 1867 the coved ceiling in the “Representative hall” collapsed and made a “magnificent wreck.” Although no one was present when the collapse occurred, this episode apparently alarmed the legislators enough to support proposals for a new In 1877, only slightly over forty years after its completion, the second Indiana statehouse was demolished (see Figure

11.43 The architectural competition for the second Indiana statehouse and the subsequent construction activities represented the first appearance in Indianapolis of “high-style” architecture. For the first time, a professional firm of architects designed and built a major edifice in the frontier capital.44The impact of the statehouse as a model for subsequent buildings in Indianapolis and central Indiana was substantial.

4 Ibid., 42. 41 Ibid., 42-43. See also Dunn, Greater Indianapolis, I, 104-105. 42 Dunn, Greater Indianapolis, I, 105; Holloway, Indianapolis, 43. 43It is interesting to note that the square, which Town had suggested be annexed to the statehouse site in 1832, became the northern half of the site for the present capitol, built between 1878 and 1888. 44 The firm was at least partially responsible for the design of at least one other Indiana building. In the spring of 1835 an agent for the newly established Wabash College, at Crawfordsville, purchased plans for the first college building (later South Hall) from Ithiel Town’s New York office. Although the college and contractor modified the design, the building was an early introduction in the state of row house design. It also featured a crude version of the “Davisean window” invented by A. J. Davis. See J. D. Forbes, “South Hall at Wabash College,” Wabash Bulletin, XLIX (June, 19531, 15-19. FIGUREI: THERAZING OF THE SECONDINDIANA STATEHOUSE,1877

Courtesy Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. The Second Indiana Statehouse 347

The design of the capitol implanted the Greek Revival mode of architecture in Indianap~lis.~~A host of institutional and ec- clesiastical buildings with modified temple forms and cupolas followed in the late 1830~~1840s, and early 1850~.~~Design and construction of the statehouse also established a fledgling architectural profession in Indianapolis, including (for a time) John Stirewalt, Town and Davis’s veteran designer; Edwin J. Peck, who graduated from masonry supervision to architectural design and contracting; and John Elder, a newcomer from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, who first became interested in Indianapolis while corresponding with James Blake regarding the 183 1 architectural competiti~n.~~ The Indiana statehouse was the first major public building erected in Indianapolis. Its construction demonstrated the confi- dence of the state’s leaders in the future of the state capital and its potential to become a bona fide city. Comments in the Indiana Democrat indicate that those townspeople who witnessed the capitol’s completion were quite impressed by it: “we feel thankful in having been permitted to live to witness this brilliant commence- ment of what Indianapolis will be, when we who have witnessed the noble forest waving luxuriantly over the ground it [the statehouse] occupies shall have been called to our last At the same time, the General Assembly did not realize the full potential for growth of the state and its capital. The legislature provided sufficient funds to erect a suitable, even dazzling, civic monument for a state capital of modest dimensions. Within two decades, however, Indianapolis had embarked on a period of rapid expansion as the railroad center of the state, and the cheaply built capitol began to disintegrate, making inevitable its replace- ment by the present, well-constructed and truly monumental statehouse.

6 The Greek Revival in European architecture began with the discovery during the late eighteenth century of the ruins of Ancient Greece and the subsequent publication of measured drawings of major monuments by such British architects as Stuart and Revett. By the early nineteenth century, architects on the continent were designing most public buildings with features from Greek edifices. In the United States William Stricklands Second Bank of the United States in Phila- delphia (1819) represented the first major American public building conceived totally in the Greek mode. American architects and their clients perceived an analogy between the United States and the democrats of Classical Greece and swiftly embraced the new style for all types of building. Greek Revival designs appeared throughout the United States between 1820 and 1860. 46 For examples, see Lee Burns, Early Architects and Builders of Indiana (Indiana Historical Society Publications, Vol. XI, No. 3; Indianapolis, 19351, 193- 98. 47 Indianapolis Star, December 6,1936; Sulgrove, History ofIndianapolis, 156. 48 Quoted in Riker and Thornbrough, Messages and Papers, 392.