Month: September 2024

Copyright © 2024 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

My previous post explored the history of Normansfield, it’s theatre, and extant scenery collection.

The Normansfield Amusement Hall was completed in 1879, but theatrical entertainments had been produced at the facility for some time. Already in 1874, scenery and stage machinery were credited to theatre professionals.

On Jan. 2, 1875, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times published a detailed article about Normansfield productions entitled, “Hampton Wick. Entertainment at Normansfield” (p. 5). The article reported, “Perhaps few private theatres for [asylum residents] are better conducted than the one known as Normansfield at Hampton Wick, of which Dr. and Mrs. Langdon Down have sole charge. Indeed the gratifying results which have hitherto taken place at this asylum have been solely due to the kind treatment which the inmates have received at the hands of the prinicpals. At the end of the old year or the beginning of the new there is usually provided a theatrical entertainment, first of all for the amusement of the [residents], and repeated for the benefit of the friends invited by Dr. and Mrs. Downs and the performers, who are servants at the establishment… The performances took place this week, when there were three one act farces  played – “Master Jones’ Birthday,” “John Smith,” and “Boots at the Swan.” The actors and actresses were “old hands,” and of course could not be otherwise that well up in their respective parts. The performers included Mr. Walter Lee, Mr. Perceval Langdon Down, Mr. King, Mr. Reginald Langdon Down, Mr. Healy, Miss Graham, Miss Martin, Mr. Smith, Mr. F. Brockley, Miss M. Baxter, and Miss Reed. Between each act there was, as usual, vocal and instrumental music. The acting manager was Mrs. Langdon-Down; the stage director, Dr. Langdon-Down; the pianists, Mesdames Innes and Chapman; cornet, Mr. James; and prompter, Mr. Barry. The stage machinery was again under the control of Mr. Bradley, the scenery painted once more by Mr. Bull, and the costumes supplied, as in former years, by Mr. Fitch.”

The individual credited with scenic contributions was scenic artist, John Thomas Bull (1828-1890). By 1875, Bull had worked in the painting profession for at least 25 yrs. His son, J. T. Bull Jr. not only followed in his father’s footsteps, but also delivered scenery to the Normansfield Theatre.

Makers marks (studio stencils) on Normansfield Theatre scenery denote three periods of scenic artistry produced by the Bull family. The earliest dates from 1874 to 1879, and was produced when J. T. Bull was in a partnership with his brother, George Bull. The two established a partnership as decorators by 1866, adding scenic painting to their services over the years.

Their partnership continued until 1879 when it was dissolved, with J. T. Bull establishing his own firm at 134 New Kent Street – “J. T. BULL, SCENE PAINTER &c., 134 New Kent Road, London, S. E.”  1880 directories listed the new address, noting “Late of 54, Great Queen-street.)

Scenery credited to this firm includes two backdrops (beach and river), the false proscenium border (Grand border and tormentors), side wings (woodland and paneled-room and flats) and props (boat and mirror).  Although manufactured by Bull, some of the side-wings were overpainted by Richard Douglass at a later date.

The final stamp indicates the work by Bull’s son, a scenic concern that still listed the business address on Kent Street. Both of John’s sons, named John and Francis, followed in their father’s footsteps, listing that same address early on.

“J.T. Bull & Son, Scene Painter &c. 134 New Kent Road, London S.E.’ also appears on woodland scene flats (repainted and labeled by Richard Douglass at a later date) and a cut drop (labeled a walk-through cloth in conservation reports) that was deemed too fragile to photograph during documentation. Sadly, I have no reference for painting technique during this iteration of the Bull scenic art firm.

I am going to explore the history of the Bull family and their entry into the painting profession by the 1840s. John T. Bull (1828-1890) and George Bull (1830-1895) were brothers, coming of age and working in the various boroughs of following in their father’s trade as a tailor. By 1866, the two partnered to work as decorative artists. Between 1866 and 1879, their services included manufacturing and scenic art.

After the dissolution of J. T. & G. Bull in 1879, George Bull remained at 54 Great Queen St., working as a photographic scene painter until his passing in 1895. There is another familial aspect that adds to the confusion surrounding the name John Bull – BOTH John T. Bull and George Bull named their sons John Bull, and both worked as artists by the 1880s. John Bull was a family name, dating back generations from scenic artist John T. Bull. That being said, I am only going as far back as his father.

To clarify the Bull family lineage:

John Bull (Father, Tailor, 1804-1867)

John Thomas Bull (Son, Scenic Artist, 1828-1890) and his sons John T. Bull Jr. (Grandson, Scenic Artist, 1864-) and Francis Henry Bull (Grandson, Scenic Artist, 1871-1955)

George Bull (Son, Tailor and Photographic Scene Painter, 1830-1895) and his son John F. Bull (Grandson, Photographic Scene Painter, 1862-)

This family was not an easy one to research. There were an abundance of John Bulls in the 19th century. In addition to actual people with the name John Bull, there were fictional characters with the same name, including a satirical character that later personified the United Kingdom:

There was even the play John Bull: or, The Englishman’s Fireside.  

This five-act comedy was still playing at London’s Theatre Royal, Lyceum for the summer season in 1847. Here is the advertisement in The Times on Aug. 13, 1847:

And yes…there was even a newspaper that went by John Bull, c. 1820-1892.

Returning to the scenic artists, brothers John T. Bull and George Bull….

You will note that John T. Bull and his son (John T. Bull) continue to be listed as scenic artists or scene painters throughout the nineteenth century. George Bull and his son (John Bull) became photographic scene painters. The only difference is scale, as both used distemper paint (dry pigment paste combined with diluted hide glue).

A photographic scene painter is an artist who produces backdrops for photographers to use in their studios. For example, New York scenic artists Lafayette W. Seavey was well-known for photographic studio backings, as well as stage scenery, delivering his paintings throughout North America.

On Nov. 1, 1881, The Leadville Daily Herald reported, “One of the requirements of an excellent picture is to have backgrounds that will add to the beauty of the work, and as Mr. Brisbois entertains a full appreciation of this fact he has only the work of celebrated New York artist, L. W. Seavey, in his gallery, although they are procured at a price nearly five times as great as some of the less noted painters.” Here is an example of options for photographic backings included in an L. W. Seavey catalogue:

L. W. Seavey ran a large studio in New York City that accommodated the production of not only photographic backings, but also large-scale settings for live theatre.

If an artist, such as George Bull, were solely creating photographic backings, his studio space could be much smaller than a theatrical scene painting studio.  This may be one of the reasons why George Bull remained at 54 Great Queen St. and John T. Bull moved to a larger facility at 134 New Kent Road. 54 Great Queen St. Again the Great Queen St. space was a structure that could house up to five separate families (c. 1841), or one family and a small scenic studio (c. 1881).

To put this in context, I am going to share some Bull family genealogy. Here is a map to provide geographical context when I discuss various addresses. I added “walking distance” from Marylebone to Southwark to help with an overall understanding of the distances.

John Bull Sr. (1804-1867) and Maria Heaton Bull (1806-1878), married on Sept. 4, 1827, in St. Marylebone, Middlesex. The couple celebrated the birth of several children: John Thomas Bull (b. 1828), George Bull (b. 1830), James Bull (1832), Mary Ann Bull (b. 1835), Maria Louisa Bull (b. 1840), Margaret Bull (b. 1840), Ann Sophia Bull (b. 1844), and Reuben Bull (b. 1845).

John Bull (Sr.) and his father-in-law, Joseph Heaton, were tailors. George Bull initially followed in both his father’s and maternal grandfather’s footsteps, whereas his brother, John T. Bull, became an artist.

Here is the tale of John Thomas Bull…

John T. Bull was born on June 28, 1828, in Marylebone. When he was baptized a month later, the Bull address was listed as Castle St. East. His father was employed as a tailor.

The 1841 Census listed the Bull family living at All Souls and Trinity, St. Marylebone, Middlesex. The household included John Bull (36 yrs.), Mary (34 yrs.), John Jr. (12 yrs.).

Over the years, J. T. Bull would repeatedly state that his business was established in 1849. This would have been the year when he established his own firm. Bull was 21 yrs. old at the time; an average age to have completed an apprenticeship and other necessary training.

The 1851 Census listed J. T. Bull as an artist, living with his father John Bull (48 yrs., tailor), mother Maria Bull (47 yrs.) and four siblings – George (20 yrs. old, tailor), James (7 yrs.), Mary Ann (5 yrs.) and Margaret (1 yr.) The Bull family lived at 54 Great Queen St (St. Giles in the Fields). They were living in a large building that later housed five families (c. 1861). However, in 1851 there were only two families listed as living at 54 Great Queen Street; the Bull Family and the Joseph Dennis family (a coach maker).

On Sept. 6, 1856, John T. Bull married Margaret Esther Bull (b. 1827) at the Parish Church of St. Luke, Chelsea, Middlesex.  In their marriage records, John Thomas Bull listed his profession as a decorative artist, living at 28 Elizabeth Terrace. Margaret listed her address as 22 Sloane Street. They may have been related, as they shared the same surname; Margaret’s father was listed as James Bull, a tailor. However, this may have been a mistake, as records indicate that her parents were Joseph Bull (1790-1857) and Esther Bott (1801-1857). I have yet to find a definitive connection between their families.

By 1856, John and his brother George were listed as decorative artists, living at No. 54 Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn. Their names were associated with the address when attempting to help a widow in need. On Nov. 21, 1856, The Times announced, “An urgent and stressing case – a poor aged widow, born 1779, is in very trying arrears of rent for a small room she occupies and greatly fears being turned into the streets and losing her few goods. She earnestly entreats ASSISTANCE from the benevolent, for she is in a most forlorn and destitute condition. For reference and subscriptions direct to Messrs. Bull, decorative artists, 54, Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn-fields.” (p. 3).

There was a “Mr. Bull,” listed at the same address three years later. On Jan. 5, 1859, The Times advertised, “Mr. Bull selling a newfoundland dog and doghouse, “and over the distemper”-both being sold as the owner was leaving town, listing No. 54 Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn.” This is about the same time that the J. T. Bull’s parents, John Bull Sr. and Maria Bull, moved to Chelsea South, leaving the expanding families of John Bull Jr. and George Bull to live at 54 Great Queen St. Both John Jr. and George were listed as decorative artists, living in was a multi-unit building that housed five families in 1861. George’s household included Henrietta (wife, 33 yrs.), George W. (son, 3 yrs., and Henrietta M. (1 yr.). John’s household included his wife Margaret and 11 yrs. old niece, A. L. Palmer. Their niece was likely helping out, as John and Maria Bull celebrated the birth of their first child that spring. On May 3, 1861Margaret Esther Maria Bull (1861-1930) was born in St. George, Bloomsbury, Middlesex. A son followed three years later in 1864; John Bull (1864-1943) was born in St. Giles, London.

In 1866, John T. Bull and his brother George Bull advertised as scene painters in The Era, listing their address as 54 Great Queen-Street, Lincoln’s-Inn, W. C., London.

The 1871 Census Report listed the John T. Bull and George Bull families living at the same address -54 Great Queen St. At the time both men were listed as scene painters. John ‘s household erroneously listed him by his middle name, Thomas Bull (head, 42 yrs. old), and only included Margaret Bull (wife, 42 yrs.) and Harriet Clark (servant, 26 yrs.). His three children (10 yrs. old Margaret and 7 yrs. old John; Francis was born in 1871) were not included at this household. George Bull’s household Henrietta Bull (wife, 44 yrs.), George William Bull (son, 13 yrs.), and Edwin Thomas Bull (son 7 yrs.), and Emily Kirby Bull (daughter, 2 yrs.). His other two children (11 yrs. old Henrietta Maria Bull and 9 yrs. old John Frederick Bull) were not included in the household. It may have been the case where the children were temporarily split up, or visiting relatives. Such was the case with George Bull’s eldest child in 1861. That year, 3-yrs.-old George Bull Jr. was counted twice in the census; once at the household of his parents, and once at the household of his paternal grandfather in Chelsea. Census reports are somewhat unreliable this way; timing is everything, as well as the capabilities of the census reporter.

J. T. & G. Bull’s partnership lasted for almost a decade. On April 25, 1875, The Morning Post announced that the partnership – J. T. Bull and G. Bull, Great Queen-street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, scene painters – was dissolved (p. 7). George continued to paint at the address, while John moved into a larger studio on New Kent St. That same year, a “Mr. Bull” was credited with painting scenery for the entertainments at Normansfield. (Jan. 2, 1875, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times, p. 5) The article reported, “The stage machinery was again under the control of Mr. Bradley, the scenery painted once more by Mr. Bull, and the costumes supplied, as in former years, by Mr. Fitch.”

It is important to note that both Bradley and Bull had worked on previous theatrical entertainments at Normansfield. This was not their first year at the facility.

When the Amusement Hall at Normansfield was completed, J. T. Bull advertised the sale of a used scenery collection. On Jan. 26 and Feb. 9, 1879, following advertisement was published in The Era:

“Handsome Fit-Up For Sale, nearly New, Painted by J. T. Bull. Front Proscenium, height, 19 ft.; Proscenium Sides, width, 4 ft.; Act-Drop, Beautifully Painted, height, 15 ft., width, 13 ft 6 in; Two front Proscenium Wings, with return pieces and doors, 6 in by 8 ft. 6 in; Two Chamber Wings, 10 ft. by 4 ft.; Two Drapery Borders, 14 ft. by 5 ft. May be seen at the Theatre of Varieties, Southend, Essex. Useful Stock scenery required, about 17 ft. by 15 ft.”

Bull placed another advertisement the next summer. On August 13 and Sept. 7, 1879, Bull advertised a portable stage with scenery in The Era:

“Handsome Portable Fit-Up For Sale, In consequence the premises being sold. Well adapted for a Hall or for Amateur Clubs &c. It is well Painted, and nearly new, by J. T Bull. Not a Daub. Height of Proscenium, 19 ft.; Width, 24 ft.; Opening, 16 ft., by 12 ft. 6 in. Act-Drop, Proscenium, Wings, with Return Pieces and Doors, Front Chambers with Folding-doors, Two Chamber Wings, Two Boarders, well-made Portable Stage, Foot and Top Lights. Address, Managers, Varieties, Southend, Essex, where the above may be seen.”

The use of portable stages in both halls and ballrooms was commonplace throughout the nineteenth century. Many theatre managers wanted the versatility of a space that could serve as both a performance space and ballroom. Such is the case at the Adelina Patti Theatre where the floor of the hall can be raised level to the stage floor.

The sale of used scenery in the nineteenth century was very common. In act, I have traced numerous second-hand collections that were refurbished and installed in new venues. In some cases, used scenery was taken in as credit on the purchase of new scenery. Second-hand scenery maintained its value. Even scenery that remained on site was touched up or completely repainted.

Some scenery painted by Bull for the Normansfield Theatre was repainted by Richard Douglass. His stencil covers an underlying one. I have repeatedly encountered this in many historic scenery collections at North American Theatres. Also, some theatre owners did not realize that they were purchasing previously used scenery.

Interestingly, in 1879, Richard Douglass was also selling used scenery, listing his address as Painting-room at the National Standard Theatre, Bishopsgate.  His advertisements were place near Bulls in the newspaper.  

On May 7, 1880, advertisements place by John T. Bull in The Era note:   “J. T. Bull, Scenic Artist, Scenery Painted and Lent on Hire Address, 134, New Kent-road, S. E.. Late of 54, Great Queen-street.”

The 1881 Census listed John T. Bull’s family living at 134 New Kent Road, Newington, in the Borough of Lambeth, London. This address was in the London Borough of Southwark. In 1881 the Bull household included: John T. (52, Theatrical Scene Painter), Margaret E. (wife, 52), Margaret E. M. Bull (daughter, 19), John (son, 17, Theatrical Scene Painter), Francis H. (10), and Joseph W. Smith (19, servant). Both of his sons, John and Francis, followed him in the scene painting profession.

On Nov. 25, 1882, The Era  published another Bull advertisement, listing the establishment year as 1849.

On November 10, 1890, scenic artist J. T. Bull (Sr.) passed away. After John T. Bull Sr.’s passing, the scenic studio of J. T. Bull & Son was established.

There are a few aspects of the name change that I find particularly interesting, as J. T. Bull and son was not in place before the father’s passing. I would love to explore this more in a future post, but for now, I want to mention that the widow of J. T. Bull was also listed as a scenic artist in two census reports. The 1891 Census reports listed Margaret Bull (widow of John T. Bull) as head of the household in Newington. London. She was living with the two sons, John (27 yrs.) and Francis H. (19 yrs.); all three listed their occupation as “scene painter.” This was not a typographical error, as Margaret was again listed as a scene painter ten years later in the 1901 census, with the additional designation of “employer.” I wonder if Margaret continued her husband’s business, keeping the name and adding her son – for J. T. Bull.

There is one other thing to keep in mind. In 1891, Margaret’s brother-in-law George Bull (60 yrs.) and her nephew, John F. Bull (29 yrs.), are working as a photographic scene painters at 54 Great Queen St.

The firm of J. T. Bull & Son continued to thrive, repeatedly making news throughout the 1890s.  On August 5, 1892, The Times published an article about the newly-renovated Egyptian Hall reporting, “new scenery by J. T. Bull and Son.”

On May 11, 1895, The Era described the work at the newly-constructed Canning Town’s Public Hall, reporting: “The fit-up was a model of compactness, and this, and the admirably painted scenery reflected great credit on Messrs. J. T. Bull and Sons, by whom they were supplied” (p. 7).

On Jan. 18, 1896, The Era: “Amusements in Nottingham…Grand Theatre, A Midsummer Night’s Dream…Some charming scenery has been painted by Messrs. J. T. Bull and H. J. Pedgeon…” (p. 18). Bull Jr. was working with Henry James Pedgeon (1869-1928), a scenic artist associated with theaters in Oldham (Colosseum) and Plymouth (Royal Theatre and Grand Theatre).

On June 10, 1896, Francis Henry Bull Bull married Harriet Agnes McGowan (1872-1963). On July 22, 1896, his older brother, John Bull, married Effie Grace Purkiss (1871-1938) at Saint Matthew, Ashford, Surrey.

John and Effie celebrated the birth of their first child, Edgar Frederic John Bull in 1898, with Vera Mary Bull arriving four years later. Both children were born in West Norwood, Surrey.

Francis and Harriet Bull celebrating the birth of their first child, Reginald Francis Bull the in 1899. Francis continued to work as both a scenic artist and sculptor. By 1901, settled with his family in Dulwich, Camberwell, London.

Throughout 1897, “J. T. Bull & Son, Theatrical Scene Painters” placed full-page ads London’s  The Theatre (a magazine published in London between 1877-1897): “J. T. Bull & Son, Theatrical Scene Painters. Every Description of Theatrical Scenery on Hire, Suitable for Halls, Drawing Rooms,  Bazaars,  &cc. Tableaus Vivants a Specialty. Platforms, Gas-Fittings, and Limelight supplied. Estimates Free. Head Office: 134, New Kent Road, London, S.E. Painting  Room:  New Kent Road.  Manufactory: Munton Road.“

Advertisements stated that the firm had been established in 1854. As with most scenic studios, establishment years are somewhat fluid and change over time.  In this case, J. T. Bull had not been working with his son since that year but had been active in the theatrical scene painting business since that time.

1897 advertisements also noted that the firm has been “Specially engaged by Mr. Wilson Barrett to paint scenery for English and American Touring Companies of The Sign of the Cross.  Bull also included testimonials from past clients that included: Mr. J. N. Maskelyne of The Egyptian Hall, London; Ben Greet of the Town Hall, Dover; Sire George Pigot of Pembroke Lodge; L. C. Venables of the Surrey Masonic Lodge; and Thomas Whitford of Montrose College for an amateur production of The Mikado.

On Dec.11, 1897, The Era announced that the Hampstead Dramatic Society’s, St. George’s Hall, performance of Walker, London, “The new scene, a pretty bit of up-river landscape was specially painted by J. T. Bull & Son, of New-Kent road.”

Life began to change for John Bull by the late 1890s. In 1899, John T. Bull  became a Freemason. Grand Lodge of England records list John Bull, was initiated at the age of 35 yrs. old on April 6, 1899, listing profession, scenic artist, Crystal Palace Lodge No. 742.

During this time, the scenic artistry of Francis H. Bull (J. T. Bull Jr.’s little brother, 1871-1955) also began to make news. On Jan. 21, 1899, The Era described a woodland scene for The Coriscan Brothers: “…the scenic artist, to whose artistic skill was due to the pretty piece of woodland labelled the Forest of Fontainbleu…was the brushwork of Mr. Francis H. Bull, and we hereby give him credit for his artistic and most effective picture” (p. 21). That year, Francis H. Bull was credited with scenery for the Theatre Royal in Chatham, a new playhouse erected by Charles and Lionel Barnard in High Street, Chatham. On August 5, 1899, The Era reported, “Most of the scenery, including the handsome act-drop, is from the studio of Mr. Francis H. Bull. Mr. Bull has worked into the drop two doors, and entrance and exit for the use of the players taking a call” (p. 7) From 1905-1930, Francis Henry Bull listed his studio at 4 Lower Bland St. SE1.

On Nov. 29, 1899, The Daily Telegraph reported that a “Donation for Our Soldiers’ Widows and Orphans Fund included scenery by “J. T. Bull and Son, 134, New Kent-road, Scenic Artists, and Employes” (p. 6). That spring, The Daily Telegraph announced,“Messrs. J. T. Bull and Son, 134, New Kent-road, are still willing to supply scenery free for performances in aid of the War Fund”( 21 Mar 1900. p. 4).

Work continued to plug along for John T. Bull that year. On June 2, 1900, The Era noted another scenic installation at the Theatre Royal in Ryde after the venue changed hands: “A new act drop has been executed by Mr. J. T. Bull, the principle feature being a view of Osborne House.” Later in the year, Bull delivered new scenery for a production of Riding Hood at the Public Hall in Hastings. On Dec. 29, The Era reported, “The scenery is effective and is the work of Mr. J. T. Bull of London, who has also designed the properties and mechanical effects.”

The 1901 Census listed the John T. Bull household as including John Bull (head, 37 yrs., Scenic Artist Manager), Effie Bull (wife, 30 yrs.), Edgar Bull, son, 3 yrs.), Margaret E. Bull (mother, 73 yrs. Scene Painter, employer), and Elimily Moore (17 yrs. old general servant).

Newspaper notices describing the scenic work by J. T. Bull & Son began to somewhat dwindle after 1904, but picked up again by 1911.  On March 9, 1904, The Times listed the auction of Bull’s scenery for St. George’s Chapel, Abermarle Street, Piccadilly. The announcement reported, “Other lots consisted of a complete set of stage scenery for The Bells by Leopold Lewis, painted by Messrs. J. T. Bull and Sons, comprising seven drop scenes, one gauze ditto, and 14 wings, together with staging on tressels, foot and top lights, snow-box, &c. – L15.

On Jan. 3, 1905, The Daily Mirror announced that The Coming Race at St. George’s Hall was painted y Mr. J. T. Bull and Mr. McCleery” (p. 6). J. T. Bull & Sons had not closed, but was slowly changing. Bull would continue to work with McCleery on other projects over the years, including

In 1905, an auction took place at the Bull studio, 134 New Kent Road. On June 1, 1905, The Daily Telegraph announced the sale of a stock of theatrical scenery by Bingham & Boughton (p. 4).

There is much more to tell about the scenic art careers of both J. T. Bull Jr. and Francis H. Bull, but that is a tale for another time. My next post will be about scenic artist Richard Douglass.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2024 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Mike Hume and I drove to the Langdon Down Centre in Teddington, London, on August 9, 2024. We had scheduled an appointment with Facilities Manager, Jo Hardie, to visit the 1879 Normansfield Theatre. We were fortunate that Adam Harrison, Mark Fox, and Jane Harrison could join us for the day!

This is a rare, Victorian Grade II* listed theatre with a remarkable scenery collection that consists of 80 flats, 18 borders, and 5 backdrops. I have recently discovered that some of the pieces pre-date the actual theatre! Painted replicas have replaced all the extant scenery, but many pieces remain accessible to the public.

This facility, once known as Normansfield, was established by Dr. John Langdon Haydon Down and his wife Mary Crellin Down in 1868. The building was constructed to care for people with learning disabilities, a condition now known as Down’s Syndrome.

Today’s post will focus on the Normansfield Theatre –both past and present. The scenic artists who delivered stage settings to Normansfield Theatre will be the topic of my next few posts.

Dr. John Langdon Haydon Down (1828-1896) and his wife, Mary Crellin Down, opened Normansfield in 1868. As the Langdon Down Centre website explains “Normansfield was a family home and a place where people with learning disabilities could be cared for and educated at a time when most of them would have been condemned to life in an asylum.”

Normansfield was a dramatic departure from 19^th century asylums that housed individuals suffering from a variety of mental conditions. Dr. Down believed that those with congenital conditions should not be housed with those who had lost their sense of reason. This was an extremely progressive stance to take at the time!

Dr. and Mrs. Down were dedicated to improving and elevating the lives of those at Normansfield, with activities included theatricals, dancing, croquet, basketry, needlework, loom rug and many more activities.

An entertainment hall was added to Normansfield as part of the care and education of Normansfield residents.

On June 28, 1879, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times published a lengthy article on the formal opening of the new pavilion, wing, and halls (p. 3). In an inaugural address, Dr. Down explained the history and goals at Normansfield.

I am including the following excerpt from his speech, as it really sums up the progress made by Dr. Down prior to opening the amusement hall, now known as Normansfield Theatre:  

“A previously uninhabited and partially completed home was secured, on what was then a potato field. The house was finished, and the field was converted into a garden. Normansfield seemed a suitable name for the field, and it was then, for I was urged on and encouraged in my plan by my ever-to-be remembered friend, the later Mr. Norman Wilkinson, well known as the first patron of David Cox of Brockey, and the devoted friend of man an earnest man. In 1869 it was felt that more room would be needed, and with the professional advice of Mr. Rowland Plumbe [the architect], the son of the lady who first called public attention to the subject, the present building was foreshadowed. It was determined to add by degrees, but also that nothing should be done which would interfere with the realization of the complete idea. Accordingly, in 1869, the south wing was partially built. This gradually filled, and in 1872 it was determined to finish the south wing and subsequently build a block called the north block to correspond with the original structure, or what is now called the south block. Gradually pupils were attracted from all parts of the world – from India, the West Indies, Siam, Persia, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France and every part of the British Isles. Additional land was sought for and procured to meet the requirements of what was felt to be an increasing institution. Two years ago, it was decided to commence the hall in which we are now assembled, and the Kindersaal [children’s hall] below, and to communicate with the main building by means of a glass covered way. Before, however, the hall was half finished – the existing accommodation being gradually absorbed – it was determined to build the north wing, which now unites the hall and Kindersaal [children’s hall] to the north block, in lieu of the temporary glass-covered way. Before this was done, it was felt for architectural effect, but still more for complete organization of the establishment, the central pavilion should no longer be delayed. Simultaneously with these additions, four villas were purchased in order to provide in one sanatorium for the isolation of those who might be suspected of having infectious diseases, and in the others provision for patients whose special wants might be better met by life in a small family, while having the advantages of the discipline, training, and amusements of the establishment. The field of four acres by accretions has expanded into 40 acres. The last eleven year, however, has not been merely a period of growth, it has also been one of development – a staff nearly 100 in number, whose devotion to their duty has never been surpassed, has grown up in this nucleus, and I should but ill perform my part did not their publicly recognize an enthusiastic love for their work, which has helped to make the name Normansfield known beyond the immediate neighborhood of its location, and enabled me to carry out one of the great aims of my life, viz., to provide the highest possible culture, the best physical, moral, and intellectual training, and to open out fresh realms of happiness for a class who have the strongest claims on our sympathy and for who, till lately so little has been done.”

It is important to understand that theatrical entertainments, complete with scenery and stage machinery, occurred well before the construction of Normansfield’ years earlier’s amusement hall.

On Jan. 2, 1875, The Surrey Advertiser and County Times published an article entitled, “Entertainment at Normansfield” (p. 5) The article reported, “Indeed the gratifying results which have hitherto taken place at this asylum have been solely due to the kind treatment which the inmates have received at the hands of the principals. At the end of the old year or the beginning of the new there is usually provided a theatrical entertainment, first of all for the amusement of the [residents], and repeated for the benefit of the friends invited by Dr. and Mrs. Downs and the performers, who are servants at the establishment…between each act there was, as usual, vocal and instrumental music. The acting manager was Mrs. Langdon-Down; the stage director, Dr. Langdon-Down; the pianists, Mesdames Innes and Chapman; cornet, Mr. James; and prompter, Mr. Barry. The stage machinery was again under the control of Mr. Bradley, the scenery painted once more by Mr. Bull, and the costumes supplied, as in former years, by Mr. Fitch.”

The life and career of J. T. Bull will be the subject of my next post.

It was the success of these early theatrical entertainments that fueled Dr. Down’s desire to build a proper theatre for the children in 1877.

Over the years, Normansfield’s Theatre expanding their scenic offerings, eventually amassing a collection that eventually boasted over 100 pieces. A photographic display for the Heritage Lottery funded project, Normansfield – Protecting a Theatrical Past explains, “The scenery collection was made for the Normansfield Theatre and were well cared for in their day, however, they remained largely unseen and forgotten from the 1950’s onwards….The survival of this unique collection of Victorian scenery, came to the attention of theatre historian’s in the 1980’s. A team of specialist, including Dr. David Wilmore and Dr. Colin Sorenson form the Museum of London, began to list and photograph the scenery in 1984…13 years later, the Theatre Trust, with financial support from the Friends’ of Normansfield, was able to commission the Textile Conservation Centre, to survey the scenery and report on its condition. A Conservation Plan was put in place by John Earl while all the materials were carefully wrapped and stored properly and securely. The scenery was restored. Today, this collection is the largest Victorian collection of scenery in the UK. The Stage itself still contains the original working flaps and is only one of two theatres with this is place today. The scenery on the stage today is a painted replica of the original, due to the fragile nature of the scenery.”

Here are five of the eight framed pieces in storage at the Langdon Down Centre, once used at Normansfield Theatre.

The history about the documentation, preservation, and storage of the Normansfield Theatre Scenery Collection is absolutely fascinating! Here are three articles about the project, published by the Down’s Syndrome Association:

Dr. Langdon Down’s Normansfield Theatre, written by John Earl, provides an extensive history of not only the entertainment hall, but also the lives and good works of the Downs. Although out of print, a few used copies sporadically appear at online bookstores.

I first learned about the Normansfield Theatre in 2016, when Dr. Wilmore presented a paper about the historic scenery collection. It was for an international theatre conference in Stockholm (OISTAT Research Committee meeting event).

I was amazed that many pieces of the scenic pieces in the extant collection included studio stamps.

Normansfield Theatre was again the topic of two papers this summer, both presented at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference. Dr. Wilmore shared the discovery of portrait panels from the original Gilbert & Sullivan production of “Ruddygore” [later Ruddigore, Savoy Theatre, 1887], currently on display at the Normansfield Theatre.

Despite significant deterioration, the scenic art is absolutely exquisite!

For the Tyne Theatre & Opera House conference, Karen Thompson also presented a paper that focused on Normansfield’s scenery collection.

Thompson was the project manager for the conservation of the Normansfield Theatre Scenery. A full documentation took place in 1997, with a conservation methodology plan recommended by 2001. Between 2003-2005 conservation and storage of the scenery took place. Thompson and Frances Lennard published “Normansfield Theatre Scenery: Materials and Construction Revealed Through Conservation,” detailing many of their discoveries.

A week after the conference, we visited Normansfield Theatre, hoping to see as much extant scenery as possible. The historic scenery collection was placed in an ingenious storage system below the hall. 

Although designed to be easily accessible for viewing, the space is now also used for storage, so the rolling units remain quite compact. During my visit, we could only create a narrow walking path to examine painted details.

Other extant scenery not as accessible, stored in an upstage area at the theatre, connected to the stage by a pair of loading doors.

My next few posts will explore the lives and careers of scenic artists who painted scenery for Normansfield Theatre.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2024 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

This is the final post about my trip to the Adelina Patti Theatre in Craig Y Nos, Wales, on August 7, 2024.

Scenic artist, Walter Hann, was the subject of my previous post, exploring the his creation of the stock scenery collection. The act drop for the theatre was painted by another London artist – Daniel T. White.

An illustration of Patti’s new act drop was published in Western Mail on August 13, 1891.

The article, entitled “Opening of the Patti Theatre at Craig-Y-Nos,” reported, “Upon entering the house the visitor is struck by the beauty of detail sown everywhere in this miniature opera house. Before him rises the act drop, which is an elegant picture, by White, of London, of the prima donna in the character of Semiramide driving a chariot and pair of horses…The act drop, which is an elegant picture, by White, of London, of the prima donna in the character of Semiramide driving a chariot and a pair of horses.”

At the time I read the article, I had no idea that “White, of London” was actually Daniel Thomas White. My mind initially whirled, as I contemplated several nineteenth-century scenic artists named White. So, with only a common surname and a large city, there was very, very little information to start. Regardless, I knew that “Mr. White, of London” was no amateur artist, local hire, or talented youth at the beginning of his career.

For many nineteenth-century theaters, stock scenery collections and act drops were created by two different artists. Unlike standard stock scenes, the painting act drops (also referred to drop curtains or front drops in North America) required an extensive skill set, as well as familiarity with all subjects matter, including the painting of drapery, ornament, architecture, landscape, animals and figures.

On Dec. 18, 1894, in The Philadelphia Inquirer reported: “[The act drop] is the most expensive piece of furniture in any playhouse. Managers are most solicitous about the care of a handsome drop curtain than almost any other appointment in the theatres. They are usually painted by the artists of wide fame in the peculiar branch of art which they represent, whose charges for the work range from $1000 to $3000.”

A year later, The Magazine of Art published an article written by W. Telbin entitled, “Art in the Theatre: Act-Drops.” In 1895, he wrote, “…in the interval between acts a painted canvas, either representing drapery or other form of decoration, or a landscape (classical mostly), has been used. A commission to paint this canvas was always sought for by the scene-painter, for it was, and is, comparatively speaking, the only durable record of his work. Such a commission was considered a diploma of merit of the highest order, only falling into the hands of those of the ripest experience.”

My quest to track down “White, of London,” started with the opera. Semiramide is a two-act opera by Gioachino Rossini, based on the legendary figure Semiramis of Assyria who was heralded for her intellect, military leadership, and beauty.

I was surprised to find that Adelina Patti is frequently mentioned in various histories written about Semiramide. She performed the title role as part of the Cincinnati Opera Festival in 1882. This annual event not only featured world-class performers, but also featured well-known scenic artists from England, Europe, and the United States. On Jan. 16, 1882, the Chattanooga Daily Times provided a little context for the event, reporting, “The first Opera Festival realized the intentions of its founders, excelling as it did, in lyric, dramatic, and scenic splendor, any previous performance ever given in this country, if not in Europe; yet the second Festival will be more complete and attractive than any predecessor. The principal operas to be given are: “Fidelio,” Beethoven; “William Tell,” Rossini; “The Huguenots,” Meyerbeer; “Magic Flute,” Mozart. These splendid works of great composers will be presented with a magnificence and completeness heretofore unequaled. The scenery, costumes, and the stage properties of these great opera have been prepared in Italy, at a great expense, by Colonel Mapleson. The scenery, painted by Magnani, the greatest of living scenic artists, is elaborate and exceedingly beautiful.”  Other scenic artists associated with the Festival between 1881 and 1882 included Charles Fox, F. S. Humphreys, D. B. Hughes, John, Rettig, DeWitt C. Waugh, H. E. Burcky, and many others.

Col. Mapleson, named impresario for the Festival, was the key link between the Cincinnati Opera Festival and Adelina Patti. It was Mapleson who brought Patti overseas for her London debut in 1861, and Mapleson who brought her back to the United States for a, 1881. On Feb. 20, 1881, The Cincinnati Enquirer announced in “Opera Festival Notes” – “Adelina Patti will be the prima-donna at the Opera Festival next year” (p. 12). Interestingly, this was a week after the same newspaper announced, “Adelina Patti gets $3,000 for every performance she gives” (14 Feb 1881, p. 1). Patti consistently made American news throughout the early 1880s, even when performing in other countries. For many Americans, she was a household name.

It was Patti’s time spent in Cincinnati that made me contemplate if “White, of London” was actually the Cincinnati-based African-American scenic artist Solomon E. White (1841-1912). There were a few things that caused me to go down this particular rabbit hole. Solomon White had made a name for himself by the 1860s, working at the National Theatre, Robinson’s Opera House, Freeman’s Theatre, and Wood’s Theatre. He was a free African-American male who travelled all over the country to complete a variety of painting projects, including residential murals, oil paintings, and public artworks. Solomon White’s story is quite remarkable, but there is a period (c. 1885-1895) when he disappears from print – a time that coincides with the planning and construction of Patti’s Theatre. I had often considered that the omission of White’s name from North American newspapers at this time possibly indicated work abroad; a common occurrence for African-American theatre artists who sought friendlier receptions on foreign shores. This was also a period in American history accentuated by increased hostilities against Black communities. Amazingly, an artist named “Mr. S. E. White” was exhibiting in England at this time, including at the eleventh annual exhibition of the Sheffield Society of Artists in 1885 (Sheffield and Rotherham Independent 12 August 1885, p.3).

In the end, I traced the lives and careers of well over 100 other scenic artists with the same surname.  This meant looking at alternative spellings too, such as Whyte and Whaite. Many nineteenth-century scenic artists working in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia are now in my database, including Septimus Whaite, Marmaduke “Duke” John Horton White, Eugene N. White, Frank H. White, H. O. White, J. B. White, James H. White, James V. White, John White, T. White, and Walter White, to name a few.

Just about the time I was ready to give up, I stumbled across the following article, published in The Era on October 25, 1868: “The Commencement of the season at the Haymarket Theatre is an event of some importance in the dramatic world, and on Monday night last a large audience assembled to welcome Miss Bateman on her return to the London stage. A fortnight since we recorded the principal features of the new decorations and embellishments which have been executed in such perfect taste under the immediate superintendence of Mr. John O’Connor, Mr. Buckstone’s principal scenic artist. The co-operation of Mr. W. Telbin, Mr. E. C. Barnes, and Mr. Daniel T. White has resulted in the most advantageously, and the Theatre now presents a remarkably chaste and elegant appearance. It will be remembered the above-named gentlemen are respectively answerable for the new act-drop (representing Tasso reciting a poem at Venice), the magnificent allegorical painting on the proscenium, and the four medallion portraits of Shakespeare, Ben Johnson, Garrick, and Sheridan. The two groups of Cupids (one in each spandrel) are also painted by the clever young artist Mr. D. T. White. As regards the act-drop, the name W. Telbin is a guarantee that he picturesque subject chosen would be treated in the highest style of art. The whole of this Venetian picture is suffused with the rich glow of sunset, and Mr. Telbin’s reputation as a colourist if fully sustained.”

This article places White within prestigious scenic art circle as an up-and-coming “clever young artist.” Here is his tale…

Daniel Thomas White was born on April 19, 1843. Baptized on July 7, 1843, at Saint Mary-St. Marylebone Road, St. Marylebone, London, he was the son of a chemist, Daniel White (1801-1886), and Caroline Docwra (1811-1893). In 1843, the White family resided at 19 Park Terrace.

He is another scenic artist that links the painting and chemistry trades, continuing a topic in my recent posts about Edmund Handby (Victoria Hall, Settle) and George Rivers Higgins (Georgian, Theatre, Richmond).

Daniel T. White Jr. was the second youngest son of several children born to the couple. His siblings included: Edmund White (b. 1831-1915), Jane Margaret White (1833-?), George Farr White (1836-1900), Frances “Fanny” Anne White (1838-), Elizabeth Caroline White (1840-1840), Louisa White (1841-1931), and William Edwin White (1844-1915). The 1851 Census listed Daniel T. White as one of several children living with their maternal aunt Jane M. Docwra (1890-1895), in Hatfield Mill (Mill Green) in Hertfordshire, England. Jane Docwra was Caroline White’s oldest sister; their parents were William Docwra (1784-1852) and Elizabeth Farr (1786-1812).

In 1851, Daniel’s Aunt Jane was clearly listed as the head housekeeper at Mills House. Her household included the following children: Caroline White (11 yrs., niece), Louisa White (9 yrs., niece), Daniel White (7 yrs., nephew) and William White (6 yrs., nephew). Although the entry of each child’s occupation is somewhat illegible, it looks like “paint pupils.” Docwra’s household also included lodger George Harrison, noted as the Millers foreman.

Meanwhile, Daniel’s parents and three older siblings (Edmund, Jane and George) were living at 19 Park Terrace, Christchurch Parish, Middlesex County. For geographical context, this is approximately 42 miles south of Hatfield, near London. Both Edmund White and Jane White were part of the family business, listed as assistant chemists.

Now, I was extremely curious about this whole living situation, so I started looking at previous census reports. It seems that when the White children were quite small, they lived with their Aunt Jane,. Once they were old enough to support help their father as assistant chemists, they returned home. In 1841, Jane White (7 yrs.), George White (5 yrs.), Fanny White (3 yrs.), Charles White (3 yrs.) and Caroline White (1 yr.) all lived with Aunt Jane in Hatfield. However, at that time Jane Docwra’s occupation was listed as “Ink.”

There is a big problem census reports and young children, as that a lot can happen over the course of ten years. Unless they make news (death, marriage, or a legal matter), it is difficult to follow their lives.

By 1861, Daniel White Jr. and his sister Frances were the only children living with their parents at Christchurch Parish, St. Marylebone, Middlesex. That year, the White household included: Daniel White Sr. (60 yrs.), Caroline White (50 yrs.), Frances White (23 yrs.), Daniel White Jr. (17 yrs.) and their servant Mary Cooper.  This was about the same time that Daniel should have entered the scenic art profession, as an apprentice or assistant. Unfortunately, no occupation was listed for him in the 1861 census, not even as his father’s assistant.

It was during the 1860s, however, that Daniel T. White showed promise as an artist and began exhibiting his paintings. On April 7, 1867, The Era described a painting by D. T. White in an article entitled, “French and Flemish Gallery of Paintings for 1867.” The article reported, “Among the social and familiar every-day incidents of life, which the French artist catches up with such gusto and avidity, and out of which he always contrives to work a good picture, we wish to draw attention to No. 208, In the Bois de Boulogne, by D. T. White. The subject is the early advances of a French soldier on the affections of a middle-aged nursemaid, or bonne, who while listening to the gallant wooer, allows her charges to take care of themselves. This picture, as an illustration of character, is a study.

I want to pause here to also note that were other individuals named Daniel White at this time, men who also went by D. T. White.

The scenic artist who painted Adelina Patti’s act-drop is Daniel Thomas White (1843-1908), the son of chemist Daniel White (1801-1886). However, throughout my research, I noticed that a lot of art historians confuse the dates and activities of four different men – each named Daniel White. In addition to Daniel Thomas White and his father, there was an art dealer and another artist named Daniel White.

For example, on March 10, 1868, The Daily Telegraph noted the passing of Daniel White on Feb. 5, listing him as a “Dealer in works of art, No. 45 Maddox-street, Bond-street, Oxford-street in county of Middlesex”(March 10, 1868, p. 1). This is neither the father nor the son in my story. Daniel Thomas White’s father (Daniel White Sr.) passed away on Sept. 7, 1886. Unfortunately, the art dealer also appears in numerous historic records as D. T. White – hence, the confusion. The Royal Academy listing for D. T. White notes “(fl. 1850-fl 1864) Art dealer based in Maddox Street, London.”

AND… there is a second family of London artists with the patriarch named Daniel White. I want to make sure that people don’t confuse this individual with the scenic artist who painted the Patti act drop. The 1911 census lists 71-yrs. old-widower and artist, Daniel White, living with his three sons in St. Marylebone. His sons were Arthur Charles White (son, 37 yrs., artist), Percy Alfred White (son, 34 yrs., artist), and Charles Daniel White (son, 29, insurance clerk). This Daniel White (son of Thomas and Harriet White) worked at various 19th-century trades, including tin plate work. He died in 1921 and is buried in the same plot with his eldest son, Arthur Charles White (1876-1943). Again, this is a completely separate family.

There is even a stage character named Daniel White from a comic drama written by  H. T. Craven; a production titled MILKY WHITE.

Unreal.

Advertisements that appear from the 1860s onward really threw a screw in the works. For example, here is a Want Ad in The Era, published on March 21, 1885 (p. 20).

I am certain that Daniel Thomas White (1843-1908), son of Daniel White (1801-1886), is the “White, of London” who painted the act drop for Adelina Patti’s Theatre. He assisted scenic artist, John O’Connor, throughout the 1860s.

On Oct. 18, 1869, The Times advertised: “TREASURE TROVE, Operetta, at 7. The music by Offenbach. The scene by Mr. F. Lloyds. Characters by Miss Susan Pyne, Miss Henrietta Everard, Miss Bessie Loviel, Mr. Frank Crellin, and Mr. Henry Broughton. At the conclusion of the Operetta, a New Act Drop, “King Charles Leaving St. James’s Palace for the Play,” painted by O’Connor (the figures by Mr. D. T. White) will be exhibited. – ST. JAMES THEATRE TO-NIGHT (Monday)” (p. 6).

John O’Connor (1830-1889) was extremely popular as both a scenic artist and easel artist, well-known for his landscapes and architectural paintings (cathedrals, churches, old buildings and street scenes). His artworks were exhibited across the country, and he was associated with the Society of British Artists, the Royal Academy, Royal Watercolour Society, the Royal Hibernian Society, and many other organizations. Much has been written about his theatrical contributions. However, for the purpose of this story – O’Connor was principal scenic artist at Theatre Royal, Haymarket, from 1863-1878, having succeeded William Callcott. Upon his passing, The Era reported, “We think we are correct in stating that the drop-curtain still used here [Haymarket Theatre] was the work of O’Connor and a pupil of his, Mr. Daniel White, who painted the four figures dancing a minuet” (p. 9). O’Connor’s obituary also remembered his “correctness of drawing, manipulative skill, and keen sense of the picturesque in the strongest light.”

It was O’Connor who even submitted a sketch of the Haymarket paint room that was published in The Graphic on Dec. 27, 1873.

In 1871, Daniel T. White was listed in the Census as an artist, living with his older brother in Kingston, Surrey. The White household included George F. White (35 yrs., surgeon), Caroline (30 yrs.), Daniel T. White (28 yrs., artist), Mary Ann Steven (28 yrs., servant) and James Peters (17 yrs., groom).

1871 was the same year that D. T. White, E. F. Clarke, and W. J. Hennessy were credited with illustrations for a publication entitled, “The Dark Blue.”

I was also astounded to learn that in 1877 Daniel Thomas White was hired by Henry Labouchère to provide artwork for the new publication “Truth.”  The was remembered in an article entitled 50 Years of “Truth” that was published in The Evening Dispatch on January 5, 1927 (page 3). The article reported, “The jubilee number of “Truth,” which first saw the light on 4 January, 1877, appears to-day. It was founded by Henry Labouchere when he was 45 years of age, and its number bore on the front page which it still bears. The artist, Daniel Thomas White, was an unknown man who drew the design “on spec,” and sent it to Labouchere who, it is believed, paid £10 for it…for the first few years Labouchere edited the paper, and turned out columns of paragraphs, lengthy articles of several pages on theatrical affairs and a “city” article of several pages…”

Here is the link to the first volume, numbers 1-26, with D. T. White’s illustration: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002799229p&seq=17

In 1880, D. T. White was also listed as one of several men associated with the Junior Arts Club. On May 12, 1880 The Express reported, “The Junior Arts Club is the title of a new club at Lancaster House, Savoy, W. C. It is intended to be entirely a social club to facilitate intercourse between members of the literary, dramatic, artistic, and musical profession. It is anticipated that the rooms will be ready for occupation by Ladyday, when an inaugural dinner will be held. The following gentlemen constitute the honorary committee: – Sir Julius Benedict, J. Billington, H. J. Byron, Dutton Cook, W. W. Fenn, Luke Fildes, A.R.A.; W. P. Frith, R.A.; E. W. Godwin, F.S.A.; Major A. Griffiths, John Hollingshead, Henry Irving, Blanchard Jerrold, J. E. Millais, R.A.; J. C. Parkinson, C. Santley, Clement Scott, Major Hawley Smart, E. Solomon, Ashby Sterry, Charles Warner, D. T. White, W. G. Wills, and Edmund Yates” (p. 3).

By 1881, Daniel was living with another White brother in Christchurch Parish, St. Marylebone. Edmund White was now running the family business. The census listed the White household as including Edmund White (Chemist), Jane White (wife), George P. White (6, son), Edward D. White (3, son), Marshall Langtry (asst. Chemist), Josephus Mundaye (Chemist), Daniel T. White (brother, artist), Cecilia Purday (cook), and Elizabeth Bradford (servant).

In 1885, he married Maria Ann Curling (b.1861) in St. Giles Parish, London. Tragically, his young wife died that same year, and he did not remarry until 1897.

On Dec. 24, 1887, The Era Published an article entitled “The Drama at the Art Institute and the British Artists” (p. 9). D. T. White was listed as one of the contributors to the winter exhibition of the Institute of Painters in Oil Colours in Piccadilly. Of White’s artwork, the article reported, “Mr. D. T. White, who shows us, 509, “Garrick Introducing the Actresses to Dr. Johnson at his Theatre.” The actresses might have been portraits of Kitty Olive and Mrs. Abington, but are not. The Garrick is represented by Mr. White as almost of as many inches as Johnson, a height which makes Foote’s well-known jest about marionettes being “not so large as life – but only a little bigger than Mr. Garrick,” quite meaningless. The result of this introduction we know from Boswell was many a pleasant visit behind the scenes of Old Drury – visits which the susceptible old man, abruptly brought to an end, as he told Garrick himself, because the voluptuous charms of his actresses disturbed his meditations. Happily for the peace of mind our modern men of letters, they are not allowed to profane the mysteries of the Green-room!”

The 1891 Census listed Daniel as part of his mother’s household at No. 22 Orchard Road, Kingston, Surrey. Now a widower, Daniel listed his occupation as artist painter/sculptor. His older sister Caroline, now 51 yrs. old, was also living with their mother. This was just after he painted the act drop for Adelina Patti’s Theatre at Craig Y Nos Castle in Wales.

Amazingly, in 1895, White’s design for Patti’s Theatre act drop was pictured in The Magazine of Art!!!

In an article entitled “Art in the Theatre: Act-Drops,” White’s work was featured alongside that of William Telbin, Henry Emden, John O’Connor, F.  Harker, and Hawes Craven. I had accidentally stumbled across this article while doing one last search for “D. T. White.” 

What is remarkable about the image in the article is that it shows the actual design – not the completed act drop. We are able to see how certain elements were altered during the actual painting, including the addition of soprano roles to the border (see image below).

Interestingly, White’s design was criticized by William Telbin, author of the article. He wrote: “I also think that too much action is to be avoided on an act-drop. In the illustration on page 339, “Semiramide Driving the Chariot,” – though I have only seen the sketch herewith reproduced. The drop hangs in Madame Patti’s private theatre at Craig-y-Nos. Galloping horses must, of course, represent violent action, therefor the choice of subject I think not wise; calm water, placid skies, and the graceful rhythmic movement of the minuet – rather than stormy seas, wild and driving clouds, or dizzy whirling waltz – and thus the movement and colour in the School for Scandal scene exactly right.”

Wow….tell that to the dozens of theatre managers who selected Ben Hur’s Chariot Race as the subject for drop curtains…

Telbin’s article also included an image of the Haymarket Theatre Act drop, credited by D. T. White and John O’Connor.

Of this act drop Telbin wrote, “A decorative subject agreeable in coulour, graceful in design, will not offend in one case and may add tone in the other; I distinctly feel that representations of scenes from particular plays are inadvisable. In support of this opinion, two illustrations form subjects are given. The first is a reproduction of Mr. D. T. White’s and John O’Connor’s picture from the School for Scandal as represented by Mr. and Mrs. Bancroft at the Prince of Wale’s Theatre; and the other, Charles the First and Henrietta Maria in the grounds of Hampton Court Palace, by Mr. Hawes Craven, for the Lyceum. They are both charmingly painted, and most agreeable subjects, but are too distinctly individual to be quite appropriate in their agreeable public position.”

I have to wonder if Telbin was trying to pick a fight at this point. There is nothing like criticizing the work of your colleagues in a very public manner – and in an ART magazine.

A few years after Telbin’s article, Daniel White married again. At the age of 54 yrs. old, he wed 42-yrs.-old Kate Elizabeth Beyant Turner in Wandsworth, England. This was a second marriage for Kate too. Her first husband had been a banker, Charles Turner (1807-1891), 44 yrs. her senior. The childless couple lived in a house full of servants near the end, their marriage lasting from 1883 until Charles’ passing in 1891.

The 1901 Census listed Daniel and Kate White as living in Putney, London; White’s occupation as “artist oils/sculptor.” Daniel T. White passed away only seven years later, just shy of his 65^th birthday, in 1908. He is buried at Putney Vale Cemetery, in Wandsworth. Kate White outlived her husband by many years, living until 1936. I have located precious little information about her life as a widow.

It was almost 90 years before Daniel T. White made the news again. One of his paintings was pictured in The Independent On April 29, 1990. Titled “Battledoor and Shuttlecock,” it was part of the exhibit London’s Pride: the History of the Capital’s Gardens’ at the Museum of London, that ran from May 1-August 12, 1990.

All that remains of White’s legacy is a handful of oil paintings, some newspaper articles, and the Adelina Patti Theatre act-drop. Despite severe deterioration, the act-drop is the only extant example of White’s scenic art. It celebrates his brilliance as a scene painter who studied with John O’Connor. This drop desperately needs to be stabilized to prevent irreparable damage. It is a national treasure, a culturally significant artifact in the history of world theatre that not only documents the scenic artistry of Daniel T. White, but also the theatrical vision of Adelina Patti.

To be continued…