The Architects Town and Davis and the Second Indiana Statehouse 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 construc- tion 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 legis- lature 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 ar- chitects 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 de- signer 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 eleva- tions, 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 out- side 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 pseudo- peripteral 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 por- ticoes 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 win- dows. 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.