Post by davidpenrod on Aug 27, 2011 17:41:53 GMT -5
I previously posted two questions about the Long Barracks. I have a question in the same vane about the free-standing wall connecting the Church to the Long Barracks. Please refer to my previous thread for a listing of my sources.
Is the modern day consensus view of this structure accurate?
As presented to us in the works of Messrs. Lemon, Zaboly, Nelson and others, this generally accepted view includes these features:
1. The free-standing connecting wall included a wide, arched gateway located between the new church and convento. Sometime before 1836, this gateway was filled up with rubble except for a small doorway, which allowed access to the convento courtyard.
2. Religious ornamentation, in the form of two carved stone moldings, one a qua-trefoil and the other a "picture" frame of some sort, decorated the upper level of the wall above and to either side of the partially in-filled gateway. These ornaments were part of the interior of the first church.
3. A significant crack split the free-standing wall in two. It rose from ground level at the foot of the in-filled gateway to the top of the wall, separating the religious moldings.
I am unable to verify any of this.
Theodore Gentilz is our only source for the existence of the religious decorations and structural crack in the free-standing connecting wall. Unfortunately, there is no corroborating evidence for his renderings of these features.
These features do not exist in any drawings, sketches, or renderings by other artists or in any photographs of the connecting wall during the Alamo's occupation by the US Army.
Gentilz is a one man "monkey wrench gang" for our understanding of how the Alamo actually looked in 1836.
Modern day historians, artists and buffs accept without challenge his depiction of the free-standing connecting wall but they do not likewise accept his depiction of the west side of the convento and granary - which is highly inaccurate. To complicate matters, Gentilz's depictions of the church and south side of the convento are accurate. They must have been based on personal observation and sketches before these structures were "rehabilitated" by the US Army.
I am just not convinced that they ever actually existed. Here's why:
The decorative moldings do match any moldings I have ever seen in Catholic churches throughout the world and Spanish Colonial missions and churches in the SW USA - and I've been in most of them on multiple occasions.
The qua-trefoil appears to be similar to others I've seen - but they are windows (such as the Rose Window in San Jose) and the qua-trefoil is not a window - and its too damned big to boot. Its not surrounding decoration for a niche either - there's no niche there. This also applies to the "picture frame" molding to the right.
As for the massive crack in the wall:
When you study the two renderings by Gentilz containing the "crack", doesnt actually appear to be a crack at all but rather a combination of shadow and mineral stains in the stone and stucco. In fact, you can actually see these features in photographs of the Alamo when it was under Army occupation:
1. There is a crack in the stucco (not the stone) that exposed the lower right side edge of the old gateway;
2. There is a recession in the wall where the in-fill is located because it is not flush with the edging of the gateway and wall around it;
3. There is an arching overhang above and to the side of the door carved out of the wall by the Army.
4. There is vertical section of wall directly above and to the right of the doorway that is highlighted by the sun in some photographs. Clearly, this portion of the connecting wall, extending westward from the church to the Army door, is actually thicker than the portion extending eastward from the convento cloister. The Army door was cut out of the wall at the point where the thick wall met the thin wall in order to make the door flush with the thin wall.
Combine these features together and you get a combination of shadow and stain that rises from the ground to the right of the short buttress, follows the side and arching upper edge of the old gateway, joins with an upward arcing beveled carve-out in the wall around the Army door, and finally rises to the top of the wall as a straight vertical protrusion where the thick wall meets the thin wall.
So, to conclude, my questions for the forum are:
If the features decorating the connecting wall are not window frames or niche surrounds, what are they? Is there any evidence, other than Gentilz, for their existence?
Was there really a crack in the wall or is its existence today in various models, dioramas, drawings and painting merely an interpretation of stains and shadows in Gentilz's paintings?
Is the modern day consensus view of this structure accurate?
As presented to us in the works of Messrs. Lemon, Zaboly, Nelson and others, this generally accepted view includes these features:
1. The free-standing connecting wall included a wide, arched gateway located between the new church and convento. Sometime before 1836, this gateway was filled up with rubble except for a small doorway, which allowed access to the convento courtyard.
2. Religious ornamentation, in the form of two carved stone moldings, one a qua-trefoil and the other a "picture" frame of some sort, decorated the upper level of the wall above and to either side of the partially in-filled gateway. These ornaments were part of the interior of the first church.
3. A significant crack split the free-standing wall in two. It rose from ground level at the foot of the in-filled gateway to the top of the wall, separating the religious moldings.
I am unable to verify any of this.
Theodore Gentilz is our only source for the existence of the religious decorations and structural crack in the free-standing connecting wall. Unfortunately, there is no corroborating evidence for his renderings of these features.
These features do not exist in any drawings, sketches, or renderings by other artists or in any photographs of the connecting wall during the Alamo's occupation by the US Army.
Gentilz is a one man "monkey wrench gang" for our understanding of how the Alamo actually looked in 1836.
Modern day historians, artists and buffs accept without challenge his depiction of the free-standing connecting wall but they do not likewise accept his depiction of the west side of the convento and granary - which is highly inaccurate. To complicate matters, Gentilz's depictions of the church and south side of the convento are accurate. They must have been based on personal observation and sketches before these structures were "rehabilitated" by the US Army.
I am just not convinced that they ever actually existed. Here's why:
The decorative moldings do match any moldings I have ever seen in Catholic churches throughout the world and Spanish Colonial missions and churches in the SW USA - and I've been in most of them on multiple occasions.
The qua-trefoil appears to be similar to others I've seen - but they are windows (such as the Rose Window in San Jose) and the qua-trefoil is not a window - and its too damned big to boot. Its not surrounding decoration for a niche either - there's no niche there. This also applies to the "picture frame" molding to the right.
As for the massive crack in the wall:
When you study the two renderings by Gentilz containing the "crack", doesnt actually appear to be a crack at all but rather a combination of shadow and mineral stains in the stone and stucco. In fact, you can actually see these features in photographs of the Alamo when it was under Army occupation:
1. There is a crack in the stucco (not the stone) that exposed the lower right side edge of the old gateway;
2. There is a recession in the wall where the in-fill is located because it is not flush with the edging of the gateway and wall around it;
3. There is an arching overhang above and to the side of the door carved out of the wall by the Army.
4. There is vertical section of wall directly above and to the right of the doorway that is highlighted by the sun in some photographs. Clearly, this portion of the connecting wall, extending westward from the church to the Army door, is actually thicker than the portion extending eastward from the convento cloister. The Army door was cut out of the wall at the point where the thick wall met the thin wall in order to make the door flush with the thin wall.
Combine these features together and you get a combination of shadow and stain that rises from the ground to the right of the short buttress, follows the side and arching upper edge of the old gateway, joins with an upward arcing beveled carve-out in the wall around the Army door, and finally rises to the top of the wall as a straight vertical protrusion where the thick wall meets the thin wall.
So, to conclude, my questions for the forum are:
If the features decorating the connecting wall are not window frames or niche surrounds, what are they? Is there any evidence, other than Gentilz, for their existence?
Was there really a crack in the wall or is its existence today in various models, dioramas, drawings and painting merely an interpretation of stains and shadows in Gentilz's paintings?
