Exploring Furness’s 1878 alterations to St. Stephen’s over the last weeks (click here) has brought intriguing finds from new perspectives. And yes, more questions . . . 

I returned to the church archives for what I remembered as a treasure, and it was: faded photocopies of 19th-c. handwritten fire insurance surveys of the church that, I just confirmed, reside at our neighboring Historical Society of Pennsylvania (Franklin Fire Insurance Survey, no. 1140). Thanks to the librarians there for jumping in so enthusiastically and fruitfully. 

On the back of the first survey, from 1835, is another dated December 14, 1878, for “alterations and additions made to the church.” Bingo! 

What follows is a selective review of the survey’s findings, combined with details from The Churchman articles presented before, with my comments and speculations about the original addition’s appearance. 

The 1878 survey reveals what was re-used from the 1823 church and what was new: a new galleried transept with Strickland’s original gallery railings and gallery pews (extant) but new, similar ground-floor pews;  the new vestibule with stairs given square stained-glass windows (extant) and folding doors (gone); and  a new “vestry room [sacristy]” (demolished).* The transept was given a “double pitch [gable]” roof, visible today, but does not identify its surface material; the date of the current copper version is unknown. 

HOWEVER! The survey confirms the presence of “a rose window in the peak” in the new transept. There’s nothing about such a prominent feature in the Vestry Minutes’ accounting of the project or recorded as a donation. I smell a story here.

The survey provides more precise dimensions: the transept at 27 x 37’9 x [h.] 44 ft. at the peak; the connective “stairway [vestibule]” at 12 x 13 x 19 ft; and, to the west, the vestry room at 20 x 22 x 14 ft. 

The vestry room reportedly featured one square paned window on each side, including to the west, the “front.” Since The Churchman articles extolled the room’s light and airy quality, I imagine those windows were large and had clear glass.The only doors mentioned were interior folding doors to the vestibule. The described room itself seems simple yet comfortable: yellow pine floors, 5-ft high wainscoting also in yellow pine (vs walnut in the vestibule), unspecified molding and coping, a corner fireplace, water closet, washroom, and wardrobes. Liturgical objects apparently enjoyed a well-appointed dedicated space—as did the rector, Dr. William Rudder, who probably specified its amenities, when preparing for worship. 

Though the survey doesn’t mention exterior surfaces, I wonder if those for the vestry room continued those for the transept: rough cast like the church’s side walls, as The Churchman reported. If so, the addition suggests an offshoot of Strickland’s north wall—even to the floating window/door ornamentation--with informative differences. Furness signaled the addition’s changing functions on the street with his windows. The large stained-glass examples (the rose window flanked by lancet windows) broadcast his consecrated space (the transept); the square stained-glass versions marked the transitional stairway/vestibule; and square windows with clear glass indicated the unconsecrated vestry room—further emphasized by the chimney.

The survey reports a “pitch roof” for the vestry room that I imagine continued the downward and westward slant toward 10th St. begun with the double-pitch roof over the transept, vestibule, and Burd “chapel.” Those descending lines were countered, or perhaps accented, by the vertical corner chimney. 

Furness’s addition was oriented sideways, with outside access only through the small alley to the north then called Boyer Place (now De Gray St). 

We can see much of this today, thanks to Google Earth, in the above image. 

It shows that Furness’s transept is lower than Strickland’s church. Even with an air space, Furness’s roof emerges along the hip of Strickland’s double pitch roof over a lofty attic spanning the church. Below the rose window, in the Google Earth image, is the double door to the transept (now sealed). To the right of the west lancet window are steps leading to a smaller sealed door that, though not mentioned, might be the clergy’s entrance to the vestry room through Furness’s vestibule.

Finally, we learn even more from the 1885 Atlas of Philadelphia, published during the years of the addition’s intact state (1878-1887), made available to us digitally by the Athenaeum of Philadelphia through philageohistory.org. Its Plate K shows the footprint of the lost vestry room.

Though its proportions are only approximate, the plot plan reveals that the vestry room stopped well short of 10th St., leaving the front churchyard accessible from the street, beside the church’s “face.” Though the room covered some burial vaults, its street-hugging footprint also provided clearance between it and the church, perhaps for light and air or to avoid blocking the church’s west lancet windows. Yet that space also respected the remaining churchyard; the design may even have spared a vault. 

Furness’s vestry room and Strickland’s churchyard stood as such for almost ten years before disappearing within Mason’s 1888 Parish House.

There’s more to explore. From what we know now, however, Furness’s overall design encouraged Strickland’s church and remaining churchyard to command the street. That exterior also gave little clue to the richness of Furness's remodeled church interior.  

— Suzanne Glover Lindsay, St. Stephen’s historian and curator 

*The Churchman review of July 20, 1878, uses this term for the room used by the clergy, thus it’s my missing “sacristy.”