|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 22, 2008 22:47:58 GMT -5
Question for Bruce, Jake, Craig or anyone who knows:
I am looking for some more information on a carved stone baptismal font supposedly found in the rubble of the Alamo by the Army in about 1878. This is according to a reference in the book: "History and Legends of the Alamo and Other Missions in and Around San Antonio " by Adina De Zavala. (Personally, I find it hard to believe that the Army hadn't cleared out all the rubble inside the church after almost 30 years) In her book, there are two drawings of this font, which is a carved stone, free-standing piece. It appears to be damaged and with a portion broken off and apparently lost. ANy idea of the truth of this claim, and if so, where is this font today?
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jan 25, 2008 11:59:02 GMT -5
Mark: Rats. I've read (well, flipped through because it was so hard to take in places) that Zavala book a dozen times and I missed that ref. Worse, I know nothing about the baptismal font. All I've got is the 1772 mention of "A carved stone holy water font." Nothing in 1793.
And yes, I disbelieve that 1878 date as well -- in the Everett article that you can get to through the links section here, he says the church was cleared out in the 1840s, even describes the process. 'Course, we don't know if the font was hauled out of the sacristy where it was and put into fill to build the gun platform inside the church, and then dug out with the other rubble in the 1840s, ignored, and dumped somewhere outside the building, only to be found in 1878, but that seems sort of long odds to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 25, 2008 14:52:36 GMT -5
Entirely possible; over here a fair bit of Roman sculpture - grave stellae and the like has been found built into later walls, placed face down as doorsteps and all sorts of other unlikely places
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 25, 2008 15:11:21 GMT -5
The couple of sources I have state that the Army didn't vacate the Alamo church until 1879, so I suppose it's possible they could have dug up something in '78. However, I've seen a lot of 19th-century manuscript 4s over the years that looked like 7s, so one scenario is that Adina misread a handwritten 1848 for 1878.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Aug 14, 2010 17:31:13 GMT -5
Wasn't there a niche in the SE corner of the baptistry on the east wall?
I thought I remember seeing one on the HABS drawing, but I can't get on their site to check it. I looked for it at the Alamo in March, but didn't see it. I read that some archaeologists believe that perhaps the font at Concepcion came from Valero based on the scultpural style. My memory could just be bad. Getting old you know!!
Thanks for any help.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Aug 14, 2010 18:45:54 GMT -5
Wasn't there a niche in the SE corner of the baptistry on the east wall? I thought I remember seeing one on the HABS drawing, but I can't get on their site to check it. I looked for it at the Alamo in March, but didn't see it. I read that some archaeologists believe that perhaps the font at Concepcion came from Valero based on the scultpural style. My memory could just be bad. Getting old you know!! Thanks for any help. Mike Well, I answered my own question. It was on the HABS drawing and in the location that I remembered. But I swear I did not see it back in March. Does anyone know if it was blocked in? If so, what would have been the reasoning? OR did I just miss it back in March, because I really don't see how I could have. I asked the docent about it, and unfortunately he didn't know what I was talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Aug 15, 2010 1:21:53 GMT -5
Really, an Alamo docent that didn't know what you were talking about? Incredulous!
All joking aside, Mike, on the subject of architecture, you are more knowledgeable than most of the Alamo's interpreters.
I'm picturing the baptistry in my mind right now, and it appears to be a fairly "intact" room, especially in relation to its kindred room to the north (the infamously misnamed confessional.)
I have a hard copy of the HABS drawings and yes, I see the same thing that you do, an area marked as a niche in the SE corner. I won't be downtown till the evening of the 17th, but I will take a closer look at that area and let you know what it looks like with the naked eye.
As for the question of why it was altered (filled in), its been well-established that the US Army had no reticence in terms of altering the former church. If they felt the need to change it, they did. Case in point, the recent window or niche uncovered in the MBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 15, 2010 9:19:40 GMT -5
As for the question of why it was altered (filled in), its been well-established that the US Army had no reticence in terms of altering the former church. If they felt the need to change it, they did. Case in point, the recent window or niche uncovered in the MBC. [/font][/quote] Hiram, Might not both (and maybe more) of these changes taken place around the time the U.S. Army took the place over? This points up the fact that, until the DRT took over custodianship, the Alamo was not viewed as an historic shrine or even a place of any particular note. It was kept in place and/or modified for utilitarian reasons, not because anyone saw a need to preserve it as an historic location or to honor the dead who had fallen there. I suppose, in a backhanded sort of way, we ought to be thankful to the Army and glad that they found a use for the place! Allen |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 15, 2010 10:52:08 GMT -5
As for the question of why it was altered (filled in), its been well-established that the US Army had no reticence in terms of altering the former church. If they felt the need to change it, they did. Case in point, the recent window or niche uncovered in the MBC. [/font][/quote] Hiram, Might not both (and maybe more) of these changes taken place around the time the U.S. Army took the place over? This points up the fact that, until the DRT took over custodianship, the Alamo was not viewed as an historic shrine or even a place of any particular note. It was kept in place and/or modified for utilitarian reasons, not because anyone saw a need to preserve it as an historic location or to honor the dead who had fallen there. I suppose, in a backhanded sort of way, we ought to be thankful to the Army and glad that they found a use for the place! Allen[/quote] Remember-at one point both the church and the Army were considering tearing down the Alamo buildings to build new structures and use stone for a proposed school. The USQM over ruled the idea on the army's end and the church gave up on the school idea(or at least reusing the stone). In many ways, General Jessup is the first savior of the Alamo (excluding the guys with the flaming swords). Good to see you posting Hiram! |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harris on Aug 15, 2010 12:57:12 GMT -5
Really, an Alamo docent that didn't know what you were talking about? Incredulous!
All joking aside, Mike, on the subject of architecture, you are more knowledgeable than most of the Alamo's interpreters.
I'm picturing the baptistry in my mind right now, and it appears to be a fairly "intact" room, especially in relation to its kindred room to the north (the infamously misnamed confessional.)
I have a hard copy of the HABS drawings and yes, I see the same thing that you do, an area marked as a niche in the SE corner. I won't be downtown till the evening of the 17th, but I will take a closer look at that area and let you know what it looks like with the naked eye.
As for the question of why it was altered (filled in), its been well-established that the US Army had no reticence in terms of altering the former church. If they felt the need to change it, they did. Case in point, the recent window or niche uncovered in the MBC. Thanks, Hiram. I was actually thinking that I saw it back in '05 and then gone by 2010. So I was thinking if it were altered or filled in, that it was a recent alteration. The HABS drawing is 1961, I believe. And of course, there's always the possibility that I never saw it and the HABS is wrong. I've already added it on my model, so no rush on the answer. Now I just want to find out if I'm crazy or not! |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Aug 16, 2010 13:29:47 GMT -5
Remember-at one point both the church and the Army were considering tearing down the Alamo buildings to build new structures and use stone for a proposed school. The USQM over ruled the idea on the army's end and the church gave up on the school idea(or at least reusing the stone). In many ways, General Jessup is the first savior of the Alamo (excluding the guys with the flaming swords). Good to see you posting Hiram!
Didn't know about the proposed school, thanks for added information quinceymorris. You always add to the discussions and your input is greatly appreciated.
Not to wander too far off-topic, but I recall reading the Diocese of San Antonio made an attempt to reclaim the former church for its burgeoning population of German Catholics, but was turned down by the Army and thus St.Joseph's (St. Joske's to some of us) was built. Not sure on the year, but it was prior to 1868, when the cornerstone was laid for St. Joseph's.
If not for the USQM's reluctance to vacate, the Alamo would most likely today be an active parish church like the other missions in the area. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Aug 16, 2010 14:31:47 GMT -5
As you know, the Army, the Church, and the City went round and round over ownership, with the final outcome that the city owned the plaza, the church owned the convento and church and grounds behind it (up to a point) and the Army renting. Babbitt did indeed recommend tearing everything down and building new buildings (we even had designs for some of them--and if it had happened, Alamo Plaza east would have looked a lot like the parade ground at Fort Scott, Kansas). QM General Jessup said no-believing that the frontier expanding might mean the QM depot might move from San Antonio and did not want to invest in permament buildings. The Bishop elected to go another route on the school (which would become St. Mary's). Yes, there was apparently some discussion about the Alamo become a new church for the German's.
Hiram-ran into a friend of yours when I was doing my Edward Everett talk at the Old State Capitol in Springfield in June-she is or was an intern at the DRT Library...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Aug 18, 2010 16:06:43 GMT -5
I was actually thinking that I saw it back in '05 and then gone by 2010. So I was thinking if it were altered or filled in, that it was a recent alteration. The HABS drawing is 1961, I believe. And of course, there's always the possibility that I never saw it and the HABS is wrong. I've already added it on my model, so no rush on the answer. Now I just want to find out if I'm crazy or not! |
|
