The original, odd, quaint, queer, Dutch, Mexican, Spanish fortress on Prairie Avenue

By the time the Glessners moved into their new house at 1800 South Prairie Avenue on December 1, 1887, the design had been both praised and vilified by neighbors and other passers-by. Frances Glessner carefully recorded all these comments in her journal as she became aware of them, and John Glessner felt they were so significant that he repeated them 45 years later while penning his The Story of a House.

From the time of its groundbreaking on June 1, 1886 until completion exactly eighteen months later, the house was also the subject of a number of articles in Chicago newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Inter-Ocean, the Chicago Herald, and the Chicago Evening Journal. Reviews here were also mixed, although not quite as mean-spirited. Journalists often seemed simply confused in attempting to explain what the architect and owner were trying to express in the unusual design, but admittedly these columnists presumably had no architectural training.

In celebration of the 135^th anniversary of the completion of the house this month, we share some of our favorite excerpts from these newspaper accounts. At least eight have been identified, dated between June 1886 and November 1887.  The three earliest articles were pasted into Frances Glessner’s journal; four later articles were added to a scrapbook maintained by the Glessners which included articles on many topics. One additional article, published just a few weeks before they moved in, may have been seen by the Glessners, but does not appear to have been saved by them.

COSTLY DWELLING-HOUSES.
An Apartment Building on One Corner of Eighteenth and Prairie and a House with No Front Windows on the First Floor on the Other.
Chicago Tribune, June 5, 1886

“On the southwest corner a very old style residence, but a new one in Chicago, is to be put up. It will be two stories high and have a frontage of 76 feet on Prairie avenue and 160 feet on Eighteenth street and cost $60,000. The owner is J. J. Glessner, who emigrated from the West side. It will be constructed after plans by the late H. H. Richardson. There will be no windows on the street fronts except in the second story, the first floor being lighted and ventilated from an interior court, the entrance to which is through a gated archway opening onto Prairie avenue. No one will be able to get in from the outside unless he forces the stout iron gate. The house will in appearance resemble dwellings to be seen in Spain and Mexico.

“It was jokingly said that this castle is to be built in anticipation of the day when the rich will have to keep out of the way of Anarchists and other bloodthirsty individuals who believe in a division of property, but the real object of the designer was not only to get greater privacy but also to have a novelty in the way of a house.”

NOTES: This article also described a proposed seven-story apartment house across the street from the Glessner House, designed by Burnham & Root. The $250,000 project never materialized, and a few years later, William Kimball acquired the site and built his French chateau, which still stands. There are, of course, many windows on the first floor, but it is unclear what information the journalist would have had from which to write his description. The “stout iron gate” refers to the porte cochere entrance for the carriages, a heavy oak paneled door with elaborate wrought iron trim. The reference to Spain is accurate; Richardson was influenced by Romanesque buildings seen in Spain during his 1882 trip to Europe. The oversized voussoirs in the arch over the front door being the most direct “appropriation.” The mention of “Anarchists” is very timely, as the article appeared just a month after the infamous Haymarket riot. 

A Dwelling-House of Novel Design on the Corner of Eighteenth and Prairie.
Chicago Tribune, June 6, 1886

“Ground has been broken at the southwest corner of Prairie avenue and Eighteenth street for the erection of a private residence which, when completed, will show a very decided departure from the conventional in American architecture. The design is by the late H. H. Richardson, and its peculiarity is owing more to the location of the lot and the desire of the owner to get a full southern exposure than to other considerations.

“The masonry work will consist of the Braggville, Mass. granite base and Georgia pink marble without trimmings, the latter being used in the construction of the first and second floors. The stonework and trimmings on the court elevation are to be of Lemont limestone, while the openings, all of which will have a southern exposure, will be numerous, as the building will be practically lighted from the court formed by the inverted ‘L” shape of the structure. When completed, which the contractors, Norcross Bros., are under contract to do by Aug. 1, 1887, the building will be the only one of its kind in the country, and, in addition to its unique design and handsome, substantial appearance, will possess all the features of quiet, and light, and convenience.”

NOTES: This article appeared in the Chicago Tribune just one day after the first article described, being contained within a longer series of short articles under the “Chicago Realty” section of the paper. Not included above is a detailed description of the exterior including an accurate accounting of the fenestration (the arrangement of doors and windows) confirming the presence of windows on the first floor. The most significant change the Glessners made to the design of the house after Richardson’s death was to abandon the use of Georgia pink marble and carry the Braggville granite from the base all the way up to the roof line.

(Title unknown)
Chicago Evening Journal, July 10, 1886 

“There seems to be a building boom just now.  Houses are going up on every available lot, despite the groans of the pessimist, who prophesies hard times and probable panics.  Richardson, the famous Boston architect, had before his death orders for several houses in Chicago, which in a few instances will revert to local architects willing to literally carry out his designs.  One of these is a home on Prairie avenue - that holy of holies where only the elect do dwell - for a wealthy West Sider.  This special elevation will be adapted from mediaeval architecture.  It will not have a moat and draw-bridge, because enough property could not be secured to admit of this protection, but upon the first floor no window will look toward the street, although the house will stand on a corner, it being the owner’s idea to have an inside court, made beautiful by all that art can devise.  Prairie avenue is a social street, and also a gossipy one, and it does not suit the neighbors that this newcomer should exclude all possibility of watching his windows and finding out what may be going on within-doors.  It has heretofore been the custom to call all householders together when a new house was projected, and consult with them before breaking ground; if the plans should not please the majority, suggestions were freely offered, and such alterations made as would render it most acceptable; and that this house is going up in spite of disapproval, has thrown the neighborhood into a state of stupefaction.”

NOTES: The pessimistic opening to the article again speaks to the ongoing turmoil following the incident at Haymarket Square two months earlier. The reference to the need of a moat and draw-bridge is comical but not unique. A few months later, a journalist writing in the Chicago Tribune noted, in describing Potter Palmer’s castle on Lake Shore Drive, that “there should be a deep moat around the castle, and access to the main door should be over a draw-bridge.” That reference is a bit more understandable, given that Palmer’s castle also elicited the description of the “castle plucked from a fishbowl.” The Chicago Evening Journal seems to be a bit more sensational than the more serious Chicago Tribune, devoting nearly half of the description to the negative response from neighbors. Did one of them perhaps provide a tip to the journalist of the unhappiness on the street? One can’t help but think of the “anonymous” editorial three years later criticizing the front addition to Wirt Dexter’s house just a few hundred feet to the north of the Glessners’ house, which echoed everything Pullman hated about Dexter (his next door neighbor) extending the house to the front lot line. Pullman’s dislike of the Glessners’ house is legendary, so maybe . . . ?

PALACE AVENUE.
Its More Plebian but Better Known Title of Prairie.
Chicago Inter-Ocean, January 2, 1887 

“Passing to the opposite corner, upon the south, and a most originally planned structure greets the eye. The architect was the late H. H. Richardson, of Boston. The same gentleman designed Mr. Franklin MacVeagh’s house upon the lake shore drive and the new Field store. This strange looking building elicits many comments from both residents and strangers. For solidity it is superior among the thousands of well built houses in the city. There is no dividing line between the outer walls of the house and stable. The windows upon the street and avenue are for the most part small and the roof is sloping. The house covers every foot of the frontage. The grounds within are not visible except from the house of the owner.

“The northern wall of the new house, adjoining upon the south is unbroken. The residence is said to be of the Spanish-Mexican type, and of convenient internal arrangement. Its late architecture had a National reputation. When finished the house will be occupied by the builder, Mr. John J. Glessner, Warder, Bushnell & Glessner, and will alone represent a large fortune.”

NOTES: The focus of this very lengthy article was to provide a detailed description of the many large homes and mansions on Prairie Avenue from Sixteenth to Twenty-Second streets. Richardson’s other Chicago projects – the MacVeagh house on Lake Shore Drive and the Marshall Field Wholesale Store – were both in the process of completion when Richardson died in April 1886. 

Title unknown
Newspaper and date unknown (probably April 1887) 

“A number of new houses will be tenanted in another month. Mr. Osborne Keith intends taking possession of his lovely home on Prairie avenue in May; the Glessner fortress is nearing completion . . . “ 

NOTES: Osborne Keith’s house (partially seen at far left, above) stood immediately to the south of the Glessner house. The more traditional verticality of that house emphasized the horizontality of the Glessner house. Fortress became the most common adjective to describe the Glessners’ house – combining in one word Richardson’s heavy massing, the rusticated granite, minimal window openings on the north side, and the incorrect assumption that the design represented the occupants concern regarding “Anarchists” and the current labor problem.

NEW THINGS IN TOWN
A Queer House Out on the Avenue
Reaper Man Glessner’s Dutch House in the Aristocratic Precincts of Prairie Avenue
Chicago Herald, undated (late 1887) 

“That is an odd house, surely, which the workmen are just now putting the inner and finishing touches upon at the corner of Eighteenth street and Prairie avenue, diagonally across the street from George M. Pullman’s mansion.  It is a unique house, in fact, it is the only one of the kind in America.  It is a typical Dutch house – a veritable ‘huis’ from Amsterdam – only it was designed by an American architect, built by American workmen of American materials, and stands in that hub of Chicago aristocracy and Americanism – Eighteenth and Prairie avenue.  The quaint house appears all the more quaint amid its surroundings, where all is modern and United States and almost monotonously stiff in architecture and style. 

“Light for the dining-room, and for many other rooms in both stories, is taken from the court, which is one of the distinguishing features of the house, and a novelty in this country.  The problem which the architect had to solve in this house was not an easy one.  Given, a long, narrow lot – 75 x 160.  Wanted – a large, well-lighted house, with stable and yard.  See how nicely the plan suits the situation . . . The court, 40 x 100, rivals in beauty the best examples to be found in the old world. 

“It is a quaint house, and most people riding by give it a cursory glance and exclaim “how ugly!”  But it’s a home-like house, full of the means of comfort and content, and for his $60,000 Mr. Glessner will acquire not only the quaintest, but one of the best homes in all Chicago.” 

NOTES: This is a most interesting description of the house, and although terms such as odd and queer are used, the writer clearly understands the significance of the design, and the problem Richardson faced in bringing the maximum amount of light into the house. The origin of the Dutch attribution is unknown and appears to be unique to this article (and the one that follows, also from the Chicago Herald.) 

 Chicago’s Nest of Millionaires.
Chicago Herald, undated (late 1887) 

“’If you want to see the richest half-dozen blocks in Chicago,’ said an entertaining gossiper, ‘drive out Prairie avenue from Sixteenth street to Twenty-second. Right there is a cluster of millionaires not be matched for numbers anywhere else in the country’ . . . John J. Glessner, the reaper man, will soon move into his queer Dutch house with an inner court . . . How much wealth does this whole cluster represent? Well, this is only guess work, but I think that if all the men in that little neighborhood were to get together and sign a joint note for sixty or seventy million dollars it would make a pretty good note.” 

NOTES: The focus of this article is to describe the wealth of the residents of Prairie Avenue. It is worth noting however, that John Glessner is the only one listed for which anything is said about his house; the reference clearly having been pulled from the article above.

THE CITY IN BRIEF.
Miscellaneous.
Chicago Inter-Ocean, November 5, 1887 

“The handsome Glessner mansion on Prairie avenue will soon be ready for occupancy. It was one of Richardson’s last works, the plans being completed not long before that eminent architect’s death. It will be a Chicago monument to his genius.”

NOTES: The last known article written before the Glessners moved into their home provides the most generous compliment so far recorded, specifically to Richardson. A Chicago monument indeed – the design was praised by architects – and Richardson’s work went on to have a profound effect on Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright and others. Decades later, when the house was fighting to survive, modernists like Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson were vocal in their respect for the house and the importance of its preservation. So, after all the negative comments were set aside, the true significance of the house was, in time, fully realized.

 

"Portrait of a Man with a Pink" by Quentin Massys

Portrait of a Man with a Pink is a charming early 16^th century painting by the Netherlandish artist Quentin Massys, which has recently gone on display at the Art Institute of Chicago for the first time in many years. The painting was a gift from John J. Glessner, a long-time trustee of the Institute and a close friend of its president, Charles L. Hutchinson. In this article, we will explore the somewhat complicated history of the artwork and how it found its way to Chicago.

Charles Hutchinson and the growth of the Art Institute

The Art Institute of Chicago emerged out of the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts, formed in 1879. The Academy had acquired the assets of the defunct Chicago Academy of Design, including its leased rooms, artwork, and furniture, and some of its teaching staff. Hutchinson, who was just 25 years old when the Academy of Fine Arts was founded, was deeply involved in both the educational and exhibition aspects of the organization from the beginning, and in 1881 was named vice president. He quickly advocated for a larger permanent location and a name change to the Art Institute of Chicago. The latter was adopted in 1882, the year Hutchinson was elected president.

At that time, there were only three major art museums in the United States, located in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. By the time Hutchinson died in 1924, having served continuously as president of the Art Institute for 42 years, it was an internationally recognized museum, thanks to Hutchinson’s boundless vision and determination. As Celia Hilliard noted of Hutchinson and his contemporaries in her excellent biography, The Prime Mover: Charles L. Hutchinson and the Making of the Art Institute of Chicago (Museum Studies 36 No. 1, Art Institute of Chicago, 2010):

“Thanks to their wealth, these men traveled widely in the United States, and, above all, Europe, where they were exposed to grand cultural institutions that their fathers could not have imagined; they returned to their hometowns eager to ‘civilize’ them. Coming of age at a critical juncture in the lives of their cities, they were able to help shape these places according to their ideals, founding libraries, museums, and symphonies – organizations intended to make the elevating forces of culture available to all. Thanks to their enthusiasm, generosity, and social connections, their success was unprecedented. Hutchinson, the son of a meat packer and speculator, stood at the helm of the Midwest’s preeminent museum for over forty years, and epitomizes these changes. Like his peers, he was a product of his time and place and, simultaneously, exactly what it needed.”

Growth of the collection

In November 1887, the Art Institute moved into its first permanent building at the southwest corner of Michigan Avenue and Van Buren Street, a Richardsonian Romanesque structure designed by Burnham & Root. Although attendance and membership were strong, the Institute was still relying largely on the exhibition of loaned artworks to draw people through its doors. As Hillard wrote:

“Many great museums are noted for the buildings they inhabit, but ultimately their quality rests on the excellence of their collections and the skill with which they are presented. Thus, during this same period when the grand new home of the Art Institute was in gestation, Hutchinson also turned his attention to issues of interior design and presentation, and considered what purchases and gifts might best augment the museum’s growing reputation.”

This led Hutchinson to make two significant trips to Europe in 1889 and 1890. During the 1889 trip, Hutchinson and his wife visited the Villa di Pratolino outside of Florence, to view an important collection of Dutch and Flemish Old Master paintings that had been assembled by the Russian industrialist Count Nikolay Nikitich Demidov and expanded by his son Anatoly, who had died in 1870. Many of the artworks had been sold off at that time, but a significant collection was bequeathed to Anatoly’s nephew Paul, who sold additional pieces in 1881, retaining thirty of the best works for himself. Paul died in 1885 and his widow sold a few more paintings (now at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston). By the time Hutchinson arrived in Europe, she had decided to sell the remaining works and engaged the house of Durand-Ruel to negotiate the sale.

Durand-Ruel was the most important French art dealer in the 19^th century. The business had started as an art shop in 1839 by Jean Marie Fortune Durand and Marie Ferdinande Ruel. Their son, Paul, took over the business in 1865 at the age of 24, expanding the operation with a larger gallery and advocating for painters of the Barbizon school. By the late 1880s, Paul’s three sons were actively engaged in the business, buying Old Masters and continuing their father’s significant interest in, and support of, the Impressionists. They also expanded to the United States, opening a gallery in New York, and coordinating exhibitions in Chicago as early as 1888.

Hutchinson returned to Europe in 1890 with the goal of coordinating a loan of the Demidov paintings for the Art Institute. He quickly discovered, however, that a few paintings had already been sold, and that the works were available for purchase, not loan. He cabled trustees and friends back in Chicago, including Marshall Field, Philip Armour, and Sidney Kent, asking if they would purchase the paintings and hold them until the Art Institute could purchase them, or donors could be found to donate them. They agreed, and Hutchinson went to Florence to finalize the purchase of thirteen paintings for $200,000, including works by van Dyck, Hals, Hobbema, Rembrandt, Rubens, and Steen. Back in Paris, Hutchinson ran into Art Institute trustee Edson Keith (a Prairie Avenue neighbor of the Glessners), who made the first gift, acquiring Willem Van Mieris’s canvas, The Happy Mother.

Portrait of a Man with a Pink comes to Chicago

While at the Durand-Ruel gallery, Hutchinson noted another painting, Portrait of a Man with a Pink, attributed to Hans Holbein the Younger. The German artist of the first half of the 16^th century was regarded as one of the greatest portraitists of his time, and Hutchinson was anxious to have his work represented in the museum. He acquired the painting, bringing it back to Chicago with the goal of finding a donor to finance its $4,000 purchase (about $130,000 today).

The portrait, painted between 1500 and 1510, is believed to have been part of the Colonna di Sciarra collection for many years. The House of Colonna, also known as Sciarrillo or Sciarra, was an Italian noble family powerful in medieval and Renaissance Rome. One family member, Oddone Colonna, became Pope Martin V in 1417. By the early 1880s, the painting was owned by Ernest May, a prominent French financier and art collector. This was the period in which May was shifting his interest to the Impressionists, including the work of Edgar Degas, who captured May (at center) in the painting shown below. On June 4, 1890, May sold the Holbein portrait through Durand-Ruel to Charles Hutchinson for the Art Institute.

Less than a month later, Hutchinson was back in the United States, anxious to share the news of his successful journey with the newspapers. On July 2, 1890, the Chicago Tribune reported:

“Charley Hutchinson is just in from Europe, fresh as a daisy, and enthusiastic over the art purchases that Mr. Ryerson and he have made to enrich the growing treasures of the Chicago Art Institute . . . He feels that what has been bought by Chicago’s committee so truly represents the Dutch masters that Chicago need not give place even to New York in the possession of examples of this school of art.”

Members of the press were invited to view the paintings on November 7, 1890, the day before the exhibition opened to members. Beautifully displayed in a gallery accented with palms, ferns, and live music, the paintings impressed the journalist for the Chicago Tribune, who reported, no doubt to Hutchinson’s satisfaction:

“They are unquestionably the most representative collection of pictures by the old Dutch masters ever brought to this country, embracing many works of the first importance, which the great European museums would be proud to possess and have indeed tried to secure. They give to Chicago the supremacy among American cities in this department, and open for our students of art a vast field of profitable study. Thus the thanks of the community are due to the gentlemen who so promptly and with such admirable public spirit availed themselves of a unique opportunity.”

The illustration of the Portrait of a Man with a Pink shown above, was included in the article with the following description:

“The last of the portraits to be noticed is also the smallest, the others being life-size half-length figures; and the oldest, belonging to the sixteenth century, while the others date from the seventeenth. This is the panel by the German master Holbein, which is a good example of the rigid, literal, sculpturesque style of Henry the Eighth’s court painter . . . the face is unmistakably, humanly true; one does not doubt this man’s existence for an instant or miss one note of his rather strenuous character.”

A question of attribution

The exhibition proved an enormous success with Chicagoans rightly proud of their “masterly coup.” However, almost immediately, the authenticity of a few of the works, including the Holbein, was called into question by an attendee of the opening night reception. He notified the Chicago Tribune of his opinion, which was summarily dismissed by the journalist who maintained that the collection consisted of “first-class examples of the respective painters.”

The Holbein attribution did receive closer scrutiny, and by the time John Glessner made his anonymous, retroactive gift of $4,000 in 1894, the painting was attributed simply to the “Flemish School.” The listing below, taken from the annual report of the Art Institute issued in 1895, shows the painting as item #1.

In December 1913, the painting received renewed attention when the well-respected art expert, Dr. Abraham Bredius, director of theMauritshuis art museum at The Hague in the Netherlands, toured the Old Masters galleries at the Art Institute. He identified the portrait as the work of Hans Memling (c. 1430-1494), regarded as one of the most important Netherlandish painters of the 15^th century. Memling’s art had been rediscovered in the 19^th century, so this attribution made the painting far more valuable than the work of an unidentified Flemish artist.

The attribution was short-lived but brought additional attention to the painting. Within a few years, it was conclusively identified as the work of Quentin Massys (also spelled Matsys), a founder of the Antwerp school of painting. Massys was born in Leuven in 1466 and is believed to have attained his master’s status there, before moving to Antwerp, which, by the early 16^th century, had become the artistic center of The Netherlands. Massys became one of the first notable artists in Antwerp and was elected a member of the Guild of Saint Luke.

His work is noted for its effects of light and shade, firmness of outline, clear modelling, and thorough finish of detail. His effective use of transparent pigments provided a glowing richness to his paintings that was reminiscent of the work of Memling. He was also known for his “strenuous effort” to express individual character, something clearly seen in the portrait. Massys died in Antwerp in 1530, after enjoying a reputation as a cult figure, and paving the path for a school of painting that culminated with the career of Peter Paul Rubens.

Conclusion

The painting remained popular, traveling to New York for a loan exhibition in 1929 and to Antwerp in 1930 for the Exposition d’art flamand ancien, showcasing the work of early Flemish painters. It was exhibited by the Art Institute during the Century of Progress in both 1933 and 1934 and returned to New York in the years following, as well as being exhibited in Columbus, Ohio (which, by coincidence, is just an hour from Zanesville, where John Glessner was born and raised).

Now back on the display in Gallery 207 (The Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester Gallery) for the first time in many years, the oil on panel painting, which measures just 11-1/2 by 17-1/4 inches, still captivates with its brilliant use of color, and stark realism. The tag adjacent to the painting reads:

“In this portrait from relatively early in his career, Quentin Massys followed stylistic conventions that appealed to Antwerp’s growing market of patrons while also exhibiting the bold innovations that ultimately made him one of the city’s most influential painters. The sitter appears frozen in a somewhat unnatural pose, as was the fashion for half-length portraits at the time, and the positioning of his left hand on the painting’s lower edge recalls the spatial illusionism found in portraits by Netherlandish artists of the previous generation. However, the subtle modeling of the face conveys a strong sense of the sitter’s individual character at a time when such works tended to idealize their subjects. The pink, or carnation, held by the sitter could symbolize marriage or Jesus Christ’s incarnation.”

The Glessner Family Arrives in America - Part II

In last week’s article, we retraced the steps of John Glessner’s immigrant ancestor, Henry Glessner, from Bingen am Rhein, Germany, to the wilderness of western Pennsylvania in 1763 and followed the events of his life over the next half century until his death in early 1814. In this installment, we will look back at visits to Pennsylvania made by various descendants through the years, anxious to learn more about their German roots in the United States.

1888 – John Glessner and Jacob Glessner

Jacob Glessner

In May 1888, John Glessner accompanied his father Jacob on a trip to Somerset, Pennsylvania where the elder Glessner had been born in 1809 but had not visited since his marriage and removal to Ohio in 1837. Immediately after his return to Chicago, John Glessner penned an eight-page report of their visit, excerpts of which follow:

“To increase my knowledge of family antecedents and confirm the statements heretofore made to me by others, I went to Somerset, Pa. with my father on May 14^th, reaching there about noon May 15^th, 1888.

“The country in the vicinity is broken but the farms are beautiful, well cleared up and cultivated and stocked with fine cattle and horses and sheep. Five large barns are the rule, but the dwellings are neither large nor fine, and are without architectural pretense. The village occupies the highest ground of any county seat in Pennsylvania, but is a sleepy old place, and the people are conservative in every sense of the word.

“In the two days we spent at the Somerset House, my father found and called upon and received calls from several schoolmates and friends of his boyhood . . . (Cousin) Anna Maria Baer, widow of Solomon Baer and now in her 90^th year is quite an erect though small body with good hearing and sight, a good memory, and altogether a bright and cheerful old lady. She was delighted to see us, and from her I gained much information about the family, or more correctly, confirmation of what I had already heard.

“On Wednesday, Father and I drove over to Berlin, a village 9 miles away, passing a gypsy camp by the roadside. My grandfather Glessner was born here and married here, and my great-grandfather and great-grandmother died here, and were buried in the old cemetery. Here we found another schoolmate of my father’s, Samuel Philsen, the banker and principal merchant of the eastern part of the county, and in company with him we visited the old cemetery and deciphered the inscriptions – some in German – upon the old headstones. The cemetery is not a beautiful spot – no trees and almost no shrubbery, but the turf was green and fine. He pointed out the house still standing where my great uncle Ludwick Baker had lived, and the spot where my grandmother had lived as the adopted daughter of her uncle, Rev. George Giesy, and where she was married; also the spot where my grandfather’s uncle Jacob Glessner was murdered by Rev. Spangenberg etc. etc.

“Returning to Somerset, my father showed me the lot where he was born and lived, but the old house has disappeared and another stands in its place. The old stable is still there, small and low, and three of the old apple trees. On the next lot, Chauncey Forward had lived, my grandfather’s warm friend, and there his daughter was married to Judge Jere. S. Black* the great lawyer, afterwards of President Buchanan’s cabinet, a playmate of my father’s, and here Black lived years after my father left Somerset. I also saw the old Academy site where grandfather’s boys went to school – the old brick building is gone but replaced by one of similar style – the place where my father learned to be a printer and where he afterwards published the Somerset Whig, a democratic paper, my grandfather’s furniture shop, the old “coffee spring” the place of 4^th of July celebrations and picnics of 50 years ago, etc.

“I am happy in knowing Father enjoyed his old friends, these old scenes, and the reminiscences and events they recalled, but even he was ready to leave, and on Thursday morning we said goodbye to the old place and the old friends, and started homewards.”

*Jeremiah S. Black served as Attorney General from 1857 to 1860 and as Secretary of State from 1860 until President James Buchanan left office in March 1861.

1955 – John J. Glessner II

John J. Glessner II with his wife Martha and

children John J. III and Ellen, 1934

In 1955, John and Frances Glessners’ grandson, John J. Glessner II, made a visit to Somerset and Berlin, Pennsylvania with his wife Martha to research the Glessner family. He relayed their findings to his sister, Frances Glessner Mathey, in a lengthy letter, which included the following excerpts:

“We arrived on Friday, April 15, and put up at the Roof Garden Motel (Somerset, by the way, is known locally as the roof garden of Pennsylvania).

“In registering, I printed GLESSNER in large letters and then asked the proprietor if he had ever seen that name before. For answer, he flipped open the phone book under the letter G and at the same time allowed as how, if we were looking for Glessners, we had come to the right place. I then went into my routine which consisted in telling the story of how my grandfather, when a boy, had visited Somerset with his father and had seen some old gravestones in a field, inscribed in a language that he could not read but that was said to be German, this visit having occurred shortly after the Civil War. Could he tell me where I might find these stones, etc.?

“His advice was of a general kind; to go out to certain outlying towns: Brotherton, Shanksville, and Berlin (Glessners in all of these towns) and to enquire further there. Later, I talked to the proprietor of Schweinberg’s Somerset Pine Grill, where we had dinner and was advised to call on Mr. Roger Glessner at the County Bank; that Roger would be able to give the information I was after.

“Roger proved to be the black sheep of the family and certainly not worthy to bear the name, He knew little, and cared less . . . After this brush-off, he proceeded to give us the run-around by referring us to his brother, Mr. Alvin T. Glessner, who, he said, was both keenly interested in the family history and also very knowledgeable about such matters.

“So, we went at once to Alvin’s house only to find the house locked up and Alvin clearly out of town. My strong suspicion is that Roger knew this all along, and that is what I mean by the run-around.”

John and Martha were then referred to an Earl Austin, maker of tombstones, whose wife referred them to Walter Johnson, a mortician and furniture dealer in Berlin. Johnson’s brother referred them to a J. Jacob Glessner who knew nothing of family history but directed them to Willard E. Glessner in Roxbury. The letter continues:

“Here we talked to Willard and to Willard’s wife, both of them, interested and intelligent. He gave us the location of the original Glessner homestead and also told us that there were old family gravestones and, in particular, the gravestone of Jacob, the (presumed) progenitor of our branch of the family, in the Reformed cemetery in Berlin.”

There then follows an inaccurate accounting of the Glessner brothers, Jacob and Henry, as having been Hessian soldiers who fought for the British during the Revolution, afterwards settling in Pennsylvania. Jacob and Martha Glessner ended up at the old cemetery in Berlin, but, guided by misinformation, identified the headstones of Jacob and Catherine Glessner as being those of his great-great-great grandparents.  In closing the letter, he notes:

“Mr. Johnson of the Berlin furniture store stated that a Miss Thelma Saylor, 702 Main Street, Berlin, had a lot of papers pertaining to the Glessner family which had been left her by her father who was something of an antiquary.”

It is interesting to note that in the archives of Glessner House are several letters regarding Glessner family history between John Glessner and Dr. E. C. Saylor of Berlin from the 1920s; this is no doubt the above-mentioned father of Thelma Saylor.

Whatever plans John J. Glessner II may have had for continuing his genealogical research are unknown, as he died the following year at the age of 54.

1971 – John Glessner Lee and Percy (Maxim) Lee

John Glessner Lee in the Reformed cemetery at Berlin, PA, 1971

John Glessner Lee was the oldest son of Frances Glessner Lee. In preparation for the 1971 publication of Family Reunion, a history of many of the branches of the Glessner, Lee, Maxim, and Hamilton families, John and his wife Percy visited Berlin in early 1971, noting the following in their book:

“In April of 1971 (we) visited the area and found the Reformed cemetery, which is two short blocks behind the Berlin post office. We found the same stones mentioned above, although the inscriptions on them are now becoming hard to read. This is almost certainly the cemetery visited by (my) grandfather and his father nearly 100 years ago. However, it is my guess that these stones mark the graves of relatives, not in the direct line, as they do not fit with John J. Glessner’s account, given earlier.”

2019 – William Tyre

Reformed cemetery gates, Berlin, PA, 2019

During my biennial trip to The Rocks in October 2019, I decided to stop in Berlin to see for myself the cemetery that so many Glessners had visited previously. The cemetery was easily located in the small town, and the headstones identified, photos of which were included in last week’s article. I was also interested in visiting the Reformed church, which I had previously determined survived as the Trinity United Church of Christ, located just a couple of blocks from the cemetery. The historian of the church was very helpful in locating a Bible that I had found reference to, which had been donated to the church by Henry Glessner sometime around 1800.

It was a large pulpit Bible with a tooled leather cover reinforced with metal fittings at the corners, the pages printed on a durable rag paper. The German language Bible was published in Nuremberg in 1788. Of greatest interest was the inscription, written on the first page:

“This Bible was presented to The Reformed Church at Berlin, Pa. by Henry Glessner during the pastorate of the Rev. H. Giesey.”

A penciled notation underneath noted Henry Glessner’s death in Somerset in 1814. Farther down on the page, one of Henry’s grandsons, Lewis Knepper, an elder in the church, attested the record in 1886.

Reverend Henry Giese (the spelling varies in early accounts) came to the church in 1795, after the previous minister, Cyriacus Spangenberg, was arrested and executed for the murder of Henry Glessner’s brother Jacob. Giese remained with the congregation until 1832 and, through marriage, is found in the Glessner family tree. John Glessner’s grandmother, Margaret Young, lost her father when she was ten; her mother, also named Margaret, later married Rev. Giese, after his first wife had died. Giese presided at the marriage of Margaret Young (the daughter) to Jacob Glessner I in 1802.

Old Testament illustrations from the Glessner Bible

Clockwise from top left: Adam and Eve,

Noah, Moses and Aaron, and Abraham

The Bible was an exciting find, as the library of Glessner House contains large Bibles presented to John Glessner, his father Jacob, and his grandfather Jacob, upon their marriages in 1870, 1837 and 1802, respectively. The discovery of the Henry Glessner Bible continued the line of preserved Glessner family Bibles back to the original immigrant ancestor.

A final note

The Glessner name can still be seen in the vicinity of Berlin today.  Less than ten miles to the northeast is the town of Shanksville, the location of a beautiful covered bridge constructed across the Stonycreek River in 1881 by Tobias Glessner. Tobias was a great-grandson of Henry Glessner’s brother Jacob, and therefore a third cousin of John Glessner. Utilizing king post truss construction, it is one of ten covered bridges in Somerset County listed on the National Register of Historic Places in December 1980. 

Glessner bridge (Wikimedia, Allen C., posted 2012)

On a sad note, the bridge is located immediately west of the Flight 93 National Memorial, which commemorates the site where that plane crashed during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Fire destroys two buildings at The Rocks

Tool Building (courtesy Littleton Fire Rescue)

The same view in June 2010

A devastating fire at The Rocks on the evening of Wednesday February 13, 2019, destroyed two century-old historic structures on the property, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984.  No one was injured in the fire, and the nearby home of long-time property manager Nigel Manley, escaped damage.  The Rocks, located in Bethlehem, New Hampshire, was the summer estate and working farm of the Glessner family for several generations and since 1978 has been owned and operated by The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF).

Electric Plant in foreground, Tool Building behind to the left
(courtesy Littleton Fire Rescue)

The same view in June 2010

The two structures destroyed were historically known as the Tool Building and the Electric Plant.  The Tool Building served as the North Country Conservation and Education Center for SPNHF, and housed staff offices and a large multi-purpose room used for programs and events.  The Electric Plant functioned as a gift shop.

TOOL BUILDING

Tool Building, front, circa 1904

Tool Building, rear, circa 1910

The Tool Building was built to house a variety of power-driven machines used in the production and repair of equipment for the estate.  The large, gable-roofed structure was two stories high on the west front, and three stories on the rear.  It was clad in wood shingles which were stained a dark red, like other buildings on the estate.   An L-shaped wing on the north side of the building functioned primarily as an ice house.  

Ice house, June 2010

On September 12, 1903, Frances Glessner noted in her journal, “we commenced work on the new tool building.”  Work proceeded rapidly, as she noted on October 3^rd, “we gave the annual dinner to the men on the place.  The table was set in the new tool building.”  Later that week the exterior was shingled. 

Tool Building, 1905 (Togo the mule in foreground)

The building was the site of numerous social events, one of which was recorded in some detail in a journal entry dated September 18, 1906:

“Friday evening, we gave a party to the working people in the Tool building.  We took everything out and made a little stage.  We hung branches of evergreen in among the iron strips and put two large vases of sun flowers and asparagus fern on each side of the stage.  We took lamps down and put one on each side of the stage and put hanging chimes around from the ceiling.  We asked our people and their wives – and many who have been connected with the place, and many of the neighbors.

“We hired omnibuses to bring them out from town.  There were one hundred and sixty-five here.  Mr. Tramonti (harpist with the Chicago Orchestra) was very nervous but pleased the audience very much.  John introduced him very nicely and the audience was very appreciative and attentive.  After the concert ice cream and cake was served.”

Tool Building in 1978, showing the bay added in 1907 at right

In June 1907, Frances Glessner noted “we commenced to build the addition to the tool building.”   That addition, consisting of one additional bay located at the south end of the building, was constructed to provide a blacksmith shop (used in recent years by a Glessner descendant).  

The upper floor contained a fully equipped woodworking shop with a variety of early equipment, originally belt-driven from a central power source.  A gas pump was installed outside to provide fuel for farm vehicles.

ELECTRIC PLANT

The Electric Building, circa 1910

The Electric Plant stood immediately to the east of the Tool Building and was constructed to house the original power plant for the estate.    Laid out on a T-plan, the plant was a low hip-roofed frame structure with a clerestory at the central roof ridge.  It was clad in the same dark red-stained wood shingles.  

The foundation for the building was set in place in July 1910 as work was underway to electrify the various buildings as noted in this journal entry dated July 16, 1910:

“Some progress has been made on the Cottage improvements, and the electric light work has been started.  The foundations are in for the power building.  Wynne the Chicago electrician began on Wednesday or Thursday and has a good deal of the tool building piped for wiring.”

By August 21^st, “the electric and power building is completed except the chimney and the “help” in our different houses have asked for a dance there next Thursday” (which did take place).  Electric was apparently fully functional by September 18^th when the first electric lamp was lighted at the Big House (the Glessners’ residence) as an experiment. 

Electric Plant, June 2010

LATER HISTORY

After John Glessner’s death in January 1936, the estate, which had grown to 1,500 acres, was divided equally between his daughter, Frances Glessner Lee, and his daughter-in-law, Alice Hamlin Glessner.  Following Alice’s death, Lee reassembled the estate and continued to operate it as a farm until her death in January 1962.  (Her tax returns each year listed her occupation as “farmer.”).  Lee’s children, John Glessner Lee and Martha Lee Batchelder continued operations of the farm until 1978 when the property was donated to the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, of which their grandfather, John J. Glessner, was an early member.  

A stipulation of the gift was that there always be a crop in the field.  The Forest Society noted, “for more than three decades, that crop has been Christmas trees, and people come to The Rocks from near and far each year to find their perfect tree.”  (Continuing a tradition begun by the Glessners in the 1880s, Glessner House acquires its Christmas tree each year from The Rocks).

The famous Budweiser Clydesdales in front of the Tool Building,
January 2010 (Courtesy of The Rocks Estate)

Glessner House docents in front of the Tool Building, August 2017