ST. MICHAELS,’ DETAIL OF WROUGHT IRON SUPPORT FOR CHANDELIER Courtesy of Samuel Chamberlain. OLD-TIME NEW ENGLAND

cff Quarterly &Magazine Devoted to the cffncient Buildings,‘ House/lo/d FurnzSzings, Domestic EArts, Nanners and Customs, and &Gnor Aztipities of the xew England Teople

BULLETIN OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF NEW ENGLAND ANTIQUITIES

Volume LIII, No. 2 October-December,I 962 Serial No. I 90

St. Michaels’ Church, Marblehead,

Massachusetts, I 7 I 4

By STUART PAUL FELD

PART II

N the initial article on St. Michael’s, Tower” (italics added), suggesting that Marblehead, which appeared in the the present western tower was only a I Spring issue of OLDTIME NEW part of the projected scheme, a lack of ENGLAND, the general character of the any further documentary evidence of its original building was suggested and some existence has prompted most writers to attempt made to relate it to the broader conclude that “the tower was never traditions of western ecclesiastical archi- built.“’ Recent investigation has, how- tecture. It is the province of this second ever, brought to light a most interesting and final article to record more specifical- sequence of documents. While visiting ly, on the basis of early documentary and Marblehead during his journey through internal evidence, the individual features New England in 1744, Dr. Alexander of the original building, as well as the Hamilton, a resident of Annapolis, Mary- multiplicity of changes and additions land, attended a service at St. Michael’s, which have marked its history through noting in his diary that “upon this Church nearly two and one half centuries. It is stands a steeple in which there is a public only in this way that historical fact can clock,“* which corroborates the evidence be separated from oftentimes erroneous of the I 7 14 document. But it was the dis- tradition. covery of an unpublished water-color Although the important letter from drawing dated 1763, showing St. the parish to Colonel Francis Nicholson Michael’s with a tall spire, which is the of November I 7 14, quoted earlier, very clinching proof that the original inten- clearly specifies, for example, that a spire tions of the building committee were ac- was projected “53. foot Above ye tually carried out. The only other surviv-

3’ Old-Time New England ing visual record of the building prior to very obviously been cut at some time since the extensive alterations of 1833 is a the initial construction of the building, in drawing traditionally dated I 8 I 8, which order to enlarge the original round- shows the building without a steeple, in- headed windows in both the horizontal dicating that this landmark had disap- and vertical dimensions and to allow for peared at some time between 1763 and the addition of the small side openings to I 8 I 8.” Although the church records re- create the Palladian motifs which pres- veal that a number of repairs were made ently ornament the tower.’ to the building within these years, how- Although the removal of the steeplein ever-particularly in the post-Revolu- 1793 and the enlargement and elabora- tionary period-in no case is there any tion of the windows in the tower some- specific reference to work on the steeple, time prior to I 8 18 significantly altered which seemsespecially strange in light of the original appearance of St. Michael’s, the minute records which were kept con- earlier changes had already radically cerning less significant alterations to the modified the I 7 14 design. Following a building. Again, however, it is one of the pattern which had by then become tradi- Bowen family daybooks which provides tional in New England, the growth of the missing link, for on July I, 1793, the congregation had necessitatedthe ad- Nathan Bowen casually recorded that the dition of a secondgallery as early as I 7 I 8. “Church Steple [was] taken Down be- And in the same year a Mr. Goodwin was ing Rotten.“’ Thus, with both verbal and paid two pounds for “making . . . 2 win- visual documentation of the existence of dows to ye Pulpit,“7 suggesting an ar- a steeple at St. Michael’s throughout rangement similar to that which one still nearly the entire eighteenth century, the finds at St. Paul’s, Wickford (formerly view which became current in the later Narragansett) .8 nineteenth century that the steeple was Apparently by 1728, however, the never completed need no longer be per- congregation had increased to the extent petuated. that a major addition to the building be- The Bowen drawing indicates only the came necessary, for on February fifth of general outlines of the design, which con- that year it was voted at a general meet- sistedof a simple tapering spire, probably ing of the vestry that “Capt. James Cal- four or six sided, surrounded by a balus- ley, John 0 u It on Esq & Capt. Nich trade and set upon the existing tower.5 Andrews, with the Church-Wardens, be Moreover, this sketch confirms the au- a Committee to agree with Mrs. Eliz- thor’s opinion that the present Palladian abeth Brown 81 Mrs. Hannah LeGallais, openings in the tower-which first ap- for 15 Feet Northward of the Church, pear in the I 8 I 8 drawing-are not a part in Order to enlarge it.” This was ac- of the original design, but rather repre- complished without any significant de- sent a later embellishment of the single lay, for the recent discovery of the origi- round-headed windows which are shown nal contract for the acquistion of this ad- in the Bowen drawing and which repre- ditional parcel of land indicates that the sent the standard of early eighteenth-cen- deal was consummated the next day.’ tury practice. An investigation of the in- The land thus acquired, the proprietors terior construction of the tower reinforces next sought to collect funds necessaryfor this theory, for the supporting braceshave the addition, and according to a vote St. Michael’s Church, Marblehead 33 taken at a subsequent meeting, on April another elongated hipped roof built par- 22, 1728, it was decided that “the New allel to the others. By thus simply adding addition be proceeded with forthwith another “bay,” the church was enlarged [and] that Capt. Nich. Andrews, Capt. by one third. Meanwhile, however, the Abraham Howard, & Mr. Latimer experience of time had made it obvious

WATER-COLOR VIEW OF MARBLEHEAD, 1763, SHOWING ST. MICHAELS’ CHURCH AND SPIRE AT LEFT From Ashley Bowen’s The Whole Art of Navigation, Ms. daybook. Courtesy of the Marblehead Historical Society.

Waters be impowered to solicit the Cap- that the original multigabled roofing tains of the Ships for Contributions to- scheme of St. Michael’s was most un- wards enlarging the church.““’ suitable to the New England climate: on Although when the original building March 30, I 7 I 9, for example, the church of King’s Chapel had been extended in wardens and vestry had been “im- two directions in I 7 I I, major destruction powered . . . to look after the gutters & of parts of the 1689 fabric had to be car- repair them at the charge of the Pro- ried out before the projected additions prietors,“” indicating that the old gabled could be commenced, seemingly the orig- roof had already proved to be a most un- inal plan of St. Michael’s had taken into satisfactory arrangement. Consequently, consideration the possibility-we should although the church was extended in the say probability-f future expansion; for most obvious direction, the entire old roof although the building in its original state was covered over at this very early date formed a complete unit in itself, with a with a massive hipped roof, preserving recognizable prototype, it might also have beneath it what seems to have been an been regarded as an incomplete system of architectural novelty in the British colo- bays which could be augmented in time nies in America. of future need. In 1728, when the antic- The alterations carried out in 172s ipated expansion became a reality, the changed quite considerably the original north wall simply had to be moved back design of St. Michael’s. Although, to be fifteen feet, the side walls extended, and sure, the ponderous new roof concealed 34 Old-Time New England one of the principal distinguishing char- ward the north in I 728 a fourth window acteristicsof the early Anglican building, was introduced to complete the four-part the installation of additional windows and elevation. Turning to the visual evidence, the introduction of a new directional axis however, we find a seriesof four round- were also accomplished at this time. Of headed windows and an additional the placement of the windows, both in the smaller window in the upper row, while building as it was initially conceived in below a central doorway is flanked by I 7 I 4 and as it was subsequently altered irregularly sized and shaped windows, in I 728, our knowledge is unfortunately which, contrary to what one would ex- very limited. The presenceof at least one pect, do not line up with the windows gallery at an early date suggeststhat the above, and suggest, at best, a rather hap- church had a double row of windows, and hazard arrangement. indeed, the I 8 18 drawing, already re- With regard to the fenestration of the ferred to, shows a double tier of windows north and east sidesof St. Michael’s, the in what was probably the scheme of problem is even more difficult. On the fenestration as it existed following the north elevation, one would conjecture alterations of 1728. Although the draw- that the original I 7 I 4 design included a ing quite clearly indicates that a row of double tier of windows in the end bays, round-headed windows was superim- which were augmented in I 7 I 8 with the posed upon a row of rectangular win- introduction of “2 Windows to ye Pul- dows, their original placement is some- pit,“” probably at a height between that what more difficult to establish. The of the adjacent windows; there is no rea- rather primitive manner in which the son to believe that this solution was not drawing was executed resulted in a num- retained when the building was length- ber of ambiguities which makes it impos- ened in 1728. On the eastern side, the sible to determine the precise size and lo- original three baysalso probably each con- cation of some of the windows. Of the tained a double row of windows, although two sides of the building shown in the the placement of the altarpiece in the drawing, the south elevation presents the center of the wall may have been reason fewer difficulties, for the three windows to eliminate the lower window of the cen- of the upper level reflect, as one would tral compartment. Again, in the I 728 expect, the three bays of the ground plan. alterations, the addition of another double The covered porch in the center of the tier of windows in the fourth bay would wall below indicates the location of the have given the desired uniformity to the main entrance, and a window at the left elevation. of it follows the symmetry of the window Thus, although our present limited above, but an apparent overlapping of the visual knowledge of the original fenestra- porch and what appears to be another tion of St. Michael’s makes it difficult to window may simply have resulted from establish with any firm conviction the the untrained artist’s inadequate knowl- precisearrangement of the windows prior edge of perspective. to the installation of the Gothic lancets in On the basisof the south elevation, one I 833, some recently recognized internal would suspectthat the original three bays evidence happily suggests that our sup- of the western side were similarly treated, positions are well founded. Examination and that when another bay was added to- of the original cornice reveals a series of PLANOFST.MICHAEI_'S,BEF~RE 1832-1833 (AFTER A PLAN DATED 18x3) Courtesy of the Diocesan Library, Boston. 36 Old-Time New England

keystone-shaped cuts in positions which eight large octagonal wooden pillars of the correspond exactly to those suggestedon Doric order. . . . The floor of the church is raised six or seven feet above the ground, and the basis of the general requirements of under it is a burying place. The pulpit and the plan and the limited visual evidence altar are neat enough the first being set out which is available.13 Beyond this, addi- with a cushion of red velvet, and the other tional evidence for the position, size, and painted and adorned with the King’s arms at shape of the original windows certainly top. There is one large gallery facing the pulpit, opposite to which at the south entry of must exist beneath the present clapboards, the church hangs a pretty large gilt candle- and at some future date when these are branch.15 renewed, one hopes that the pertinent The plan of St. Michael’s had, of data will be recorded. In addition to this, course, been extended before Dr. Hamil- the precise size of the original window ton’s visit, but nevertheless the arrange- panes presents something of a problem, ment which he describes probably very although a group of bills submitted by closely resembled the layout of the origi- one Robert Harris including charges for nal plan. A careful reading of the docu- “105 Sqars glass set 7 by 9 [at] St. ment reveals that there was “one large Michael’s Church” and “36 Sqars glass gallery facing the pulpit,” and, although 7 by 9 & sett’g” may be employed as this does not explicitly specify the exact evidence in this direction.14 location, the fact that the pulpit was also In the interior, two rough beamswhich “ opposite . . . the south entry” indicates had originally formed a part of the in- that it was located on the north wall and ternal construction of the north wall be- that the single gallery was along the south came free-standing supports as a result wall. Indeed, a “Plan of St M [ ichael’s] of the alterations of 1728 and were Church By SWP 1813” has recently sheathed in order to simulate the appear- come to light,l’ and although executed ance of the original four columns. Con- nearly a century after the building was comitantly, the vaguely centralized plan completed, it corroborates not only the of the original building, which had been evidence of the Hamilton document for achieved as a result of the four central the location of the pulpit following the al- piers and the intersecting vaults above, terations of 1728, but also clearly sug- gave way to a new north-south direction- geststhe site of the pulpit in a similar posi- al axis. tion on the north wall prior to the ex- Although the church records contain tension of the building.17 In addition, it scattered bits of evidence which contrib- indicates that the “south entry of the ute to a more preciseunderstanding of the church” referred to by Dr. Hamilton was original interior of St. Michael’s, it is, indeed the main entrance, which opened however, the description which the itin- onto a broad aisle leading directly to the erant diarist Dr. Alexander Hamilton re- pulpit, although another door is shown corded following his visit in July 1744 on the west side, oppositethe altar.l’ The which most clearly indicates the general box pews were arranged in typical fashion arrangement of the building as it existed around the walls and in blocks at the during the first half of the eighteenth center, although the I 7 2 8 addition century: created an unusual arrangement near the This church is a building of wood, about pulpit, since the side aisles of the original eighty feet square, supported in the inside with plan were not extended at that time.l’ St. Michaels’ Church, Marblehead 37

Following a practice which was typical floor plan of 1813 is important in being in both Anglican churches and noncon- the principal evidence for establishing the formist meetinghouses in New England, original position of the altar, enclosed the orientation of the pews was directed within a serpentine communion rail, on toward the pulpit, and although the seats the center of the eastern wall, a location

INTERIOR OF ST. MICHAEL'S (LOOKING NORTH), LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY Courtesy of Harold Hodgkinson. were arranged in order to enable the which apparently remained unchanged maximum number to face the preacher, when the building was subsequently ex- others were forced to sit with their backs tended.‘l to the pulpit; the high sides of the pews, Although the Hamilton document is together with the curtains which were important in establishing the basic layout often introduced for the sake of privacy of the building during the first half of the and added warmth, certainly prevented eighteenth century, it does, however, an unobstructed view of the altar on the present certain inconsistencies when east wall. The plan indicates, further- studied in connection with the other con- more, that access to the gallery pews was temporary documents. Hamilton’s ob- gained by means of a stairway in the viously incorrect estimate that the build- southwest corner.” Beyond this, the ing was “eighty feet square” may be re- 38 Old-Time New England garded as sheer miscalculation, but his of the internal arrangement of the build- statement that there was “one large gal- ing, our knowledge is very much more lery” (which was clearly along the south limited concerning the precise character wall) is less easily explainable. As we re- of the original interior finish. The four view the church records, we find that central piers and the vaults above date there is mention of a “New Gallery” in from the initial construction of the build- 1718, which almost presupposes the ing, and the remaining paneled gallery existence of an older gallery; in I 722 front presents some idea of the bold, yet the sale of “Two Front pews in the restrained richness of the original detail- West Gallery” is recorded. Interest- ing.23 Beyond this, however, we are left ingly, on February 17, 1724, reference in a world of conjecture, for the extent to was made to “I Corner Pew between the which the basic structural forms of the Gallerys,” which supportsthe theory that frame were exposed, for example, re- there were already two galleries at St. mains a secret hidden to modern eyes Michael’s within its first decade and that when the walls were “newly firred, the parish had already exhausted the pos- lathed, and plastered” in a nineteenth- sibilities of further expansion by the con- century restoration.24 Whereas in this struction of additional galleries. In I 729, connection the evidence is internal, how- following the extension of the building to ever, and existswithin the building itself, the north in the preceding year, a vote in the caseof the wall pulpit we can only was passedby the vestry “that a Rate be try to envision its appearance on the basis laid upon the Pews to support the minister of contemporary examples in surviving and Clerk,” and in this connection we New England meetinghouses.26 With learn that a tax of twenty-six shillings was regard to the element of color, our in- placed upon three pews “in the Gallery formation is again nearly nonexistent, al- Addition,” referring to an extension of though, in a negative way, the fact that the western gallery, which existed well the four central columns and the paneled into the nineteenth century, for not until gallery front have never been painted I 833 do the records state that “the West- suggeststhat the basic color scheme de- ern Gallery was taken down.” The rived from the familiar juxtaposition of south gallery still exists, and physical evi- wood and white plaster. dence suggeststhat it dates from the origi- As one reviews the detailed records of nal construction of the building in I 7 I 4.” the church throughout the eighteenth Thus, even though Dr. Hamilton specifi- century, it becomes evident that St. cally noted in 1744 that “there is one Michael’s was almost always in need of large gallery facing the pulpit,” this is at repair; alterations to the original plan variance with other contemporary evi- and finish were also frequent. A random dence which indicates quite clearly that sampling of entries of this kind shows, for there were two galleries in the church- example, that the proprietors voted at a on the south and west side-from I 7 I 8 meeting on April II, 1757, that “the until 1833. Church be repaired as the Committee Although the I 8 I 3 plan and the Ham- chosen for that purposeshall think neces- ilton account, taken in conjunction with sary.” Two years later, on May 28, surviving evidence in the building itself, 1759, the proprietors voted that “Capt” thus convey a fairly accurate conception Alex Watts Messrs John Webber, Henry St. Michael’s Church, Marblehead 39

Saunders & Joshua Coomb be a Corntee addition of the phrase “& lowering the to sell the unappropriated pews in the Pullpitt” stands as our only evidence that Gallery . . . and to Appropriate the the pulpit was altered at this time. In the Money in Repairing the Eastward end of following year, the acquisition of a new the Church.” And again in March I 76 I organ prompted the vestry to select a it was voted that “the Church be Re- “Committe of three men . . . to Purchase paired as the Committe Chosen for that TWO Pews in the Gallery . , . in order to Purpose shall think proper.“26 Just ex- enlarge the Organ Loft. . . for the Re- actly what was involved in these frequent ceiving of the New Organ at the Expense repairs is impossibleto determine, but that of the proprietors of the . . . Church.“28 they were of a minor nature seemsprob- The following years apparently wit- able, since more ambitious projects result- nessed a significant expansion of the St. ing in major changesto the building were Michael’s congregation, which is not sur- generally recorded in greater detail: for prising, considering that this was the very instance, at a meeting of the proprietors moment when Marblehead experienced of St. Michael’s on April 23, 1764, “up- its greatest mercantile prosperity. Accord- on reeding the petition of Peter Jayne & ing to Isaac Mansfield, a justice of the others for Liberty of building a Gallery peace in Marblehead, “the town before at the front of the organ (at their own the American revolution . . . swarmed expense) for a Singing Gallery-It was with inhabitants, was a pattern of indus- considered and voted that leave be given try, flourished in trade, and abounded for building said gallery at the expense with wealth; from hence, as from a foun- of said petitioners under the inspection of tain, streams of wealth flowed out, which the wardens and vestry.“27 Despite an ap- greatly enriched the vicinity, and pene- parent lack of approval on the part of the trated far into the country. congregation as a whole-music had, “About the year I 7 70, this town was after all, not yet become a widely ac- supposedto contain a greater number of cepted part of the Anglican service in inhabitants than any other town of the New England-the singing gallery was province, Boston excepted; its proportion to occupy an important position within in the province tax was next to Boston, the church. Constructed as a bay project- and was supposedat that time to have im- ing from the center of the south gallery ported more hard money than any other and supported in part by two of the four town in the province.“*’ This new pros- original central columns, the addition, perity could not, of course, fail to affect which still exists today, carried out the St. Michael’s: several proposals were basic design of the earlier paneled gallery forwarded during the years 1771-1773 front, although the awkward manner in for expanding the church, always, to be which it was joined to the older fabric is, sure, with the objective of an increased apart from the documentation, evidence seating capacity. A “Notification” posted enough to attest of its being a later edi- at the church on April 6, 177 I, for ex- tion. ample, informed the “Proprietors of the Two years later, on March 3 I, 1766, house Call’d St. Michael [ ‘s] ” of a meet- there is another seemingly routine vote, ing “to Consider whether they will build directing a committee “to see to the Re- a porch at the South door of sd house, & pairs of the Church,” but the interesting to take away the stairs in the W corner of Old-Time New England the house & to stop up the door of the W Michaels Church shall be enlarged as the side of the sd house, and build pews in the Proprietors shall think most convenient place of sd stairs & door.” Apparently the . . . that the Enlargement will be Carr’d projected alterations met with the gen- up as high as the Eves of the Church . . . eral approval of the parish, for at the next [in order] to make as many Pews as the meeting of the proprietors, on April 22, Enlargement will admit of . . . [and I 7 7 I, it was voted “that Thomas Lewis, finally] that the Committee have full John Weber, & Samuel White be a Com- power to treat with & purchase of the mittee to build a porch over the south heirs and executors of the Estate of the door of sd church of a proper width and late Wm Bowen Esq Deceased a piece of highth & build a pair of stairs therein for land adjoining to the sd. Church to the Accomodating the people going into further the Enlargement.“31 Although the Gallery. Also to remove the stairs that the exact nature of the projected addi- now lead onto the sd Gallery & also to tions were not specified beyond the fact Close the doors on the West side of sd that they were to reach “as high as the house & to build as many pews as they can eves,” the move to purchase land be- with convenience.” Further considera- longing to the estate of the late William tion of the projected changes, however, Bowen suggests that an extension to the apparently resulted in the conclusion that western side of the, church was contem- the relatively small number of new pews plated at this time. The church records would not justify the contemplated al- contain no further reference of these pro- terations, for on the following August I 9 jected additions, however, and since the it was voted that “a Note pass’d 22d church fabric as it exists today shows no April last Respecting the building a Porch evidence of any such changes at this time, at the South door of the Church SK. be the obvious conclusion must be that once . . . hereby revok’d and made Void,” al- again the proprietors rescinded their though the idea of a smaller covered porch former approval and resolved to leave the at the south door was not totally aban- building untouched. doned, the record of a further vote stat- The years of the American Revolution ing that “the Proprietors Committee . . . proved to be especially difficult at St. [be] Impower’d to build a Stand at the Michael’s, although a lack of any offi- South door of the Church, & shut up the cial church records for the period from door leading under sd Church, as soon as I 776 through I 780 makes it almost im- may be.” The move to increase the num- possible to sort out local and patriotic ber of pews was dropped for the mo- tradition from historical fact.32 Tradi- ment, for it was also voted that “at pres- tionally, “the wildest enthusiasm, and the ent we think it convenient to keep Open most extravagant manifestations of joy” [the] door leading into the Garden be- which accompanied the news of the Dec- longing to the Estate of the late Wm laration of Independence resulted in the Bowen Esq Deceased.“30 removal and destruction of the royal But the pressure of an expanding con- coat of arms from above the altar as well gregation apparently again brought new as a continuous ringing of the bell until demands for additional pews, and at a it had finally cracked.33 Although the meeting of the vestry on July 20, 1773, rector, the Reverend Mr. Joshua W. it was voted that “the house call’d St. Weeks “generally attended divine Serv- INTERIOR OF ST. MICHAELS’ (LOOKING SOUTH), c/z. I 888 Courtesy of the Essex Institute. 42 Old-Time New England ices in the Church, where he used the a significant decreasein the size of the St. liturgy complete . . . for nearly a I2 Michael’s congregation had necessitated month after the declaration of independ- “a Meeting of the . . . Proprietors, and ency, ” his loyalist sympathiesand his con- also of the Occupants of Pews . . , to con- sequent refusal to eliminate prayers for sider of the State of the said Church, and the royal family from his serviceseventu- whether the Public Worship under a ally forced him to abstain from preaching Settled, ordained Minister may be longer and finally to return to England.84 continued there-and of the measures to The church records for the years fol- be taken for that purpose if it should be lowing the Revolution reveal no major agreed to continue. . . .“38 It seems that changes to the building, although a com- enough enthusiasm was indeed fostered mittee of proprietors was selectedin I 780 at this time, for in that same year the to “make an Estimate of the Expence that Reverend Mr. William Harris was or- shall arise in making Fences, Gates, dained as minister, and served until I 802. [and] Clockwight Case Windows,” re- He was followed by several other minis- placements which may have been neces- ters, but finally in I 8 I 8, when the Rev- sitated by the destruction of the past erend Mr. Benjamin Bosworth assumed war.35 Routine repairs were recorded the rectorship, the parish had become so throughout the 1780’s, but in 1793 not reduced in size that he was forced to re- only was an advance collection of taxes sign in the succeeding year. For several on the pews made “to defray the expenses years services were suspended and the of building a Standard and other repairs church remained closed, and as a result last made at Said Church,“3e but, as has of the influential Charming movement in been noted, the appearance of the church the Congregational churches in New was significantly altered when the steeple England at the time, a move from with- was removed in that year. in the parish of the neighboring Second Unspecified, but seemingly minor re- Congregational Church attempted to re- pairs to the building were recorded in the charter the St. Michael’s parish as a Con- following years, but in March 1805 a gregational meeting. But another faction record concerning “Proposals for Repair- within the old St. Michael’s congregation ing the Church” suggests that a good was determined to maintain its tradition- deal was done at this time, although the al religious affiliations, and it was instru- nature of the work does not indicate that mental in fostering enough strength to any major structural changes were con- resume Anglican services with the as- templated: “Clapbarding The Whole, sistanceof a rector from nearby Salem. Repairing Window Fraims and new During the 1820s’ a succession of one’s Where wanted, Water Tables and ministers kept St. Michael’s open, but Corner boards. Repairing The Coving. again in the years I 827- I 83 I the church A New doorhead and Standred, New was forced to close. Opening once more Doors on the West side, New planks in 1831, the church was found to be in a Where wanted, Shingling all Except The deplorable state of neglect as a result of North Side new boards in The Roof the difficulties and lack of interest in the where wanted, which putt the outside In preceding years, and under the direction Complete Repair. . . .“3 ’ of the Reverend George V. C. Eastman Apparently as early as August I 79 I extensive repairs and alterations were car- St. Michaels’ Church, Marblehead 43 ried out. The church records inform us fresh nailed and z coats of paint laid on the that at a meeting of the wardens and ves- whole exterior of the church. The old floor and pews were taken away by the consent of I it try on December 31, 832, was voted the former Proprietors, new rafters and beams “to choosea committee of two personsto laid on The ceils and a new floor laid on this, inquire of a carpenter what the expenses were placed sixty six new slip pews. A new would be to lay a new Floor & Step Pulpit including a vestry room. The old [Slip? ] Pews in the Church and Gal- chancel stood formerly on the North East part lerys and also to procure a plan in which they are to be executed & to report it at the adjournment.” The proprietors at the meeting were requested to “agree to relinquish their rights in said Church . . . and agree to such alterations as . . . may be agreed on.” And it was further voted that “the Committee be requested to ob- tain a relinquishment in writing for [sic] the present proprietors of pews and to open a Subscription for the new slips as contemplated and to contract for putting in said Slips, the floor first being put in order to receive them.“3s Although these entries in the 1832 records would suggestthat a replacement of the old-fashioned pews was the most significant change introduced at this time, a subsequentdocument, dated Oc- ST. MICHAELS,’ DETAIL OF COLUMN tober 2, 1833, indicates that the new seating arrangement was actually a very AND CAPITAL SUPPORTING THE small part of extensive alterations which GALLERY transformed St. Michael’s at this time of the Church was now removed on the N. W. into a building of essentially Gothic Re- part and enclosed the Pulpit vestry &c. The vival appearance; despite the vicissitudes Alter Piece designed and executed in England of nearly one and a quarter centuries, it in the year I 7 I 7 was placed directly over the was not until this time that the eighteenth- Pulpit. No alteration was made to the design century character of St. Michael’s was except laving on two coats of varnish. The Wesiern Gafiery was taken down; the walls irrevocably altered: newlv firred. lathed and ulastered. The old 2 1 organ taken away and a new organ placed in St. Michael’s Church being in a State of Decay its stead presented by John Hooper Esqr. A it was thought necessary by the unanimous vote partition with two doors fronting the Aisles of the Parish to have it repaired as it was no was put up leaving a recess the width of the longer tenantable, accordingly in March I 8 3 3, Church and eleven feet deep including the stair- the Carpenters proceeded to the repairs. All the way to the Gallery and a room for the Sabbath boards on the flat of the roof which were not School library. On examining the frame of perfectly sound were replaced by new ones the church the ceils &c., it was found to be and the flat new shingled. Blinds were put up White Oak in an excellent state of preservation in the tower the old windows taken away and and supposed by the Carpenters to continue so new Gothic Windows substituted the clapboards for a century to come. . . .40 Old-Time New England

Although this lengthy report in the fancy of constantly changing Victorian church records following the extensive taste. The walls were frescoed, painted, renovations of I833 is of some value for and wallpapered a number of times, and its occasional reference to the original- the woodwork grained in imitation of or, at any rate, earlier-appearance of English oak. Finally, with the thought the building, its greatest significance re- that “restorations are . . . only tem- sults rather from its specific identification porary,“41 the church was “greatly im- of the changes which were introduced at proved and most handsomely adorned” this time. Although, for example, the during the early months of 1888. In- Palladian-type openings in the tower had deed, according to a contemporary ac- been introduced some time prior to I 8 I 8, count, St. Michael’s now gained the dis- the shuttered blinds which still exist to- tinction, and at least local reputation, of day were clearly a part of the extensive being not only “one of the oldest church renovations of I 833. Likewise, the design edifices in the United States, but also of the exterior was drastically altered at among the handsomest in its interior:” this time, when the earlier double tier of The walls and ceilings are frescoed in oil windows was replaced by the tall lancet colors, after four coats of the best oil paint had Gothic windows which remain today, and been put upon them. The designs of both ceil- which certainly more than any other ing and walls are churchly and appropriate, and executed in the most artistic and workman- change altered the basic character of the like manner possible. building. On the interior, the removal of . . . Centered around the old chandelier . . . the west gallery momentarily created a are the symbols of the four Evangelists in gold more spaciousfeeling, but this gain was mosaic on a celestial blue ground, which is also the ground color of the large concave Maltese more than compensatedfor with the con- cross which forms nearly the entire ceiling of comitant introduction of a partition re- the Church. In each end of the cross is an ec- moving eleven feet from the length of the clesiastical emblem also done in eold mosaic. church in order to create a vestibule under The side walls are of a rich terra-cotta half- the remaining south gallery. Whereas the way up from the dado, which is in anti&e bronze two-feet wide, and a light cream color orientation of the church had formerly up to the frieze. Over the reredos, which is very been divided between the altar on the East ancient, is a large gilt cross, with the sun’s wall and the pulpit on the north wall, the rays coming out from behind it on a back- placement of the altar and the pulpit in a ground of passion flowers and vines.42 single grouping at the north end opposite The setting was completed with “a the main entrance established a single handsome set of chancel furniture in the longitudinal axis. And, finally, the intro- latest fashion,” and a series of elaborate duction of slip pews and a new organ case stained glass windows. and pulpit in the latest medieval taste es- During the present centujr, no further tablished the essentially Victorian Gothic structural deviations from the original character which has remained the domi- building have been attempted, although a nant note of the building to the present new concept of “restoration” has been day. instrumental in removing the florid fresco During the remaining years of the decoration of the past century, apparently nineteenth century, the interior of the in an effort to capture something of the church was subjected to numerous “res- eighteenth-century character of the build- torations” according to the whim’ and ing. The slip pews, stained glasswindows, St. Michaels’ Church, Marblehead 45 and Victorian embellishments remain, Continent during the seventeenth cen- however, the predominant note of a tury as a manifestation of the reforming building which is today only regressively spirit of Protestantism, the original de- “colonial.” sign of St. Michael’s was tempered, Although within recent years St. however, by the, established architectural Michael’s has been dubbed a “rather traditions of New England and modified homely little church,“43 this represents accordingly in the direction of meeting- an unfair judgment based more upon its house architecture. Thus, although its vicissitudes than upon its early appear- unique plan with four central columns ance. Interestingly, in marked contrast and intersecting vaults above was a to this estimate, the original subscription marked innovation in the history of An- talks of “a handsome Church” in antici- glican architecture in New England, in pation, and the important letter of No- contrast to the more conservative plans vember 1714 from the parish to the So- at Boston, Newport, Narragansett, and ciety for the Propagation of the Gospel Newbury, it was nevertheless still stamped in Foreign Parts speaks of “a Handsome with the unmistakable character of Con- Church” in realization. But on what basis gregational architecture. did the early Anglicans in Marblehead Within the decade following the erec- pass aesthetic judgment? And was this tion of St. Michael’s, the construction of aesthetic judgment in the usual sense? Christ Church in Boston established, Certainly, the provincial reflection to finally, in New England an ecclesiastical which they gave form-pointed vaults architecture that was specifically Angeli- which were already many years out of can, or conformist, in spirit. St. Michael’s date and columns which lacked even the is, however, significant of the moment most modest degree of academic sophisti- when the emerging Anglican society of cation-was not to be so described. But New England sought to remove itself rather, it seems that the Anglican-a from the traditional setting of “estab- persecuted minority in the isolation of lished” Congregationalism. Congregational New England-were transferring their personal affection for NOTES the institution of the Church of England r George F. Marlowe, Churckes of Old New to the embodiment of it in material form. England (New York: Macmillan, 1947), p. What must have seemed to them a I 88. On the other hand, in t 875, Samuel Drake, “handsome” religion-in contrast to the N.ooks and Co-s of the New England Coast more austere character of unadulterated (New York: Harper Bros.), pp. 248-49, had recorded the former existence of a “shapely Puritanism--could only, of necessity, be spire” on the basis of information received incorporated in a building which was it- locally. self “handsome.” 2 Albert B. Hart (ed.), Itinerari~nz, by Dr. The Church of England at Marble- Alexander Hamilton (St. Louis: William head seemingly represents, in fact, the Bixby, 1907)~ P. 145. initial introduction of a specifically An- 3 In ‘939 this drawing was reproduced by Mr. Harold Hodgkinson in a uublication nrint- glican-conformist architecture in Con- ed on the 225th inniversary of the church, but gregational-nonconformist New Eng- its present location is unknown. land. Based upon an architectural type 4 W. Hammond Bowden (ed.), “Extracts which emerged in England and on the from Interleaved Almanacs of Nathan Bowen, 46 Old-Time New England

Marblehead, I 742-r 799,” Essex Institute His- I3 Breaks in the cornice resulting from the torical Collections, xc1 (I 955). extension of 1728 are still in evidence on the A gap in the church records for the period east and west sides, indicating that the cornice from May so, ,793, through April 21, ,794, dates from before I 728, and, in all likelihood, explains the fact that the existing records do from 1714. The exact relationship between not contain any reference to the disappearance these cuts and the original windows is impos- of the steeple, which occurred between these sible to determine at this time, although the dates. cuts undoubtedly represent places where the s An inspection of the early Price-Burgis cornice broke out over the keystones of the views of Boston suggests that the spire was of arched windows. For a similar treatment, see a type familiar in Boston at the time. The the cupola of Richard Munday’s Colony House, Brattle Street Meeting House of I 699 is shown Newport. [Antoinette F. Downing and Vin- with a six-sided spire and the New North cent J. Scully, Jr., The Architectural heritage Meeting House of I 7x4 with one that was of Newport Rhode Island, 164o-r915 (Cam- square in plan. bridge: Harvard University Press, r9r,s), Pl. s The width of the center section of the pres- 63.1 ent Palladian openings is four feet, ten inches. I4 Bills from Robert Harris to John Hum- Considering that at the present width the center phrey, Dec. I 3, r 8 I 5, and Dec. 24, r 8 19. These openings could not originally have been higher bills are but two of a large number of similar than five feet, the resultant rather stubby pro- documents preserved at St. Michael’s which portions suggest that a shortened version of the refer specifically to the replacement of broken present central sections does not represent the window panes. In the large majority of cases, exact form of the windows as they existed in the the size “7 by 9” is given, but in several in- early eighteenth century, but, rather, that the stances, such as a bill of Jan. 8, 1794, for “i windows were also substantially widened in doz. 8 by IO Glass . . .” a larger size is also the process of transformation. mentioned. The original proportions of the four round- Is Hart, op. cit., p. 145. headed windows in the tower were probably I6 Actually, two early plans of St. Michael’s more closely related to the single window on have recently been found. One, discovered in the western side of the tower, which is shown the manuscript collections of the Diocesan Li- in the 18 I 8 drawing, and which remains in brary, Boston, and reproduced here, is in- the building to this day. Measuring at its larg- scribed “Copy of a Plan of St. Michaels Church est slightly less than six feet high and a bit more Previous to the alterations in I 832.” The other, than three feet wide, the placement of the win- in the possessionof St. Michael’s, is by the same dow follows good eighteenth-century practice, hand and bears the date I 8 I 3. and although the delicate proportions of its sash I7 Although the later nineteenth century suggest that it is a later replacement, the origi- considered the present free-standing pulpit to nal sash, with its wide mullions, still survives be the “ancient pulpit” [Roads, op. cit., facing at the church. Examination of the successive p. 241, and more recent writers have noted that layers of paint indicates that the sash was origi- it is “a successorto an earlier one of wine glass nally painted white. The exterior woodwork pattern” [Hodgkinson, op. cit., p. 51, early framing this window appears to be of the documentary evidence clearly reveals that the eighteenth century in style and scale and may original pulpit was constructed against the represent the sole survival in the building of the north wall, and was not of the free-standing, so- original exterior window trim. called “wine glass” type. A bill from the year r Church Records, I, 47, 48. 1718 “for making of a Windows to ye Pul- s Antoinette F. Downing, Early Homes of pit” [Church Records, I, 471 indicates the Rhode Island (Richmond, Va.: Garrett and relationship of the pulpit and the wall, which Massie, x937), Pl. 32. is indeed confirmed by the evidence of the I 8 I 3 ’ Church Records, I, 3 8. Essex County Deeds, ground plan. Book 50, p. 7s. The present pulpit of Gothic Revival design lo Church Records, I, 39. is documented as an addition of 1833 [Ibid., II, 91. Although it has been written that “the I1 Ibid., I, 8. sounding board at King’s Chapel was copied I2 Church Records, I, 47. from that at St. Michael’s, and the original St. Michael’s Church, Marblehead 47

[at St. Michael’s] having disappeared the in but a single example, at St. James’s Church, present replica was copied back again from Goose Creek, South Carolina [Dorsey, op. cit., King’s Chapel,” [Davis, op. cit.], there is no p. as, Pl. 531. Traditionally, the altarpiece reason to believe that this is correct, since the is said to have been “brought from England present sounding board at St. Michael’s is for . . . entire in readiness to be placed in position” a free-standing pulpit and the original pulpit [Roads, op. cit., p. II], and the date of its was against a wall. arrival has been given variously as 17’4 and Is This western door is referred to in several 1717, but both are without early documenta- entries in the church records for the year ,771 tion. The altarpiece was indeed something [I, I 13 ff.]. The r8 13 drawing suggests that which the SPGFP was apparently wont to the western door was not directly opposite the supply, for on December I a, I 7 I o, the Rev. altar, but was rather slightly more to the south. Mr. James Honyman and several members of This may represent, however, an error in the vestry of Trinity, Newport, wrote to Col. draughtsmanship on this crudely executed plan. Francis Nicholson, expressing the hope that It seems unlikely that a cross aisle originally “to your other Kind Appearances for ye In- connected the western door and the altar. terest and Honour of our Church we Also Most Humbly Intreat that this may be added lo According to an entry in the church rec- Namely that you Would Interceed with ye ords for April 7, ,719 [I, 39-401, we learn Honb’e Society for an Altar Piece for it [is] that at this time there were sixty-one pews on ye Only Ornament thats Wanting to finish 2% the main floor, fourteen of which were “in Compleat its Beauty we have already sent ye the New Addition below,” and eighteen pews Dimensions to Mr. Chamberlain. . . .” [Isham, in the gallery, three of which were “in the op. cit., p. 20.1 Gallery Addition. ” “A List of the Numbers & The rather provincial interpretation of Value of the several pews in St Michaels Baroque design which the altarpiece represents, Church in Marblehead Estimated August 3, however, suggests that the possibility of fabri- 1767,)) also in the church records [I, 831, cation on this side of the Atlantic should not be shows that there were sixty-seven pews on the denied due consideration. Further comment on ground level and nineteen in the gallery at that the Marblehead altarpiece must await a care- time. The 18 13 plan shows sixty-seven pews on ful investigation of the internal evidence, as the main floor, indicating that since the altera- well as a precise comparison of it with a group tions of ,728 the number of pews had not been of similar contemporary altarpieces in Angli- substantially increased. can churches in Virginia and the Carolinas so The church records of 1729 indicate that and, of course, with the large number which there were at that time fifteen pews “in the old still remains in England from this period. Gallery,” three pews “in the Gallery Addition,” 22 Church Records, I, 48, 51, 30, 39-40, and one “Gallery Corner Pew” [I, 39-401. It and II, 92. The gallery is supported by five, seems likely that the galleries at St. Michael’s solid, octagonal columns, which carry out the were filled with slip pews. basic design of the four central piers. Although The earliest mention of the gallery stairway the placement of two of these was changed at in the church documents is in 177 I [I, 113-141, one time, apparently in 1833 when the present but there is no reason to believe that it does not slip pews replaced the earlier box pews, their date from the initial introduction of a south original positions can be readily distinguished gallery. The stairway in the southwest corner on the basis of cuts and markings along the base today appears to be of later date. of the paneled gallery front. These two sup- *l The church records and other contempo- ports are hollow and appear to be later replace- rary documents pertaining to St. Michael’s con- ments. An old tradition holds that the two tain no reference to the altarpiece, which re- original posts were used as supports for the mains in the church to this day. Dr. Alexander south porch, but existing evidence does not Hamilton, visiting the church in ,744, noted ratify this. [Hodgkinson, op. cit., p. 5.1 simply that the altar was “painted and adorned 23 In addition to the gallery front, the only with the King’s arms at top” [Hart, 09. cit., other eighteenth-century paneling which re- p. 1451, suggesting a popular treatment of the mains at St. Michael’s is arranged as a dado period, but one which has apparently survived along the east and south walls (behind the or- Old-Time New England gan) of the gallery. The paneling is not origi- Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 1791 the parish nal to this area, and may represent the sole “voted to write to the Rev. Joshua Wingate survival of the early box pews. Weeks of Halifax and request a return of the 24 Church Records, II, 92. books taken from the parsonage and give some information concerning the lost leaves cut from 25 For illustration, see Downing, op. cit., the record at the time of the war” [Copy of a Pl. 32. lost manuscript, in the possessionof the Dioce- *sChurch Records, I, 61, 65-67. san Library, Boston]. The lost pages appear *lIbid., pp. 71-72. never to have been returned. 2s Ibid., pp. 74-76. 33 Roads, op. cit., p. 2 I. 2s Isaac Mansfield, A Topographical and 34Copy of a letter from the Rev. Mr. Weeks Historical Account of Marblehead (Boston, to the SPGFP, in the possessionof the Diocesan 1802)) p. 57. A letter dated June 21, ,768, Library, Boston. from the Rev. Mr. Weeks to the SPGFP says 35 Church Records, I, 245-46. that there were 6500 people in Marblehead, 38 Ms. dated Dec. 20, ,793, in the posses- of which one fifth belonged to the Church of sion of St. Michael’s Church. England [Copy of letter in the Diocesan Li- 37 Ms. in the possession of St. Michael’s brary, Boston]. Church. 3oChurch Records, I, 113-14, I 17. The 38 Ms. in the possession of St. Michael’s exact date of the porch at the south door is un- Church. known, but it is certainly not prior to the nine- teenth century. The original exterior treat- 38 Church Records, II, 130-3 I. ment of this doorway cannot be established on 4OIbid., p. 92. the basis of surviving documentation. ‘I Roads, op. cit., p. 33. 31 Church Records, I, I 3 5. 42 Boston Gtobe, April ~7, 1888. 32 The rector at this time, the Rev. Mr. 43 Marlowe, op. cit., p. I 88. Joshua Wingate Weeks, ultimately settled in