Drypigment.net

Part 635: The Era of Brown’s Special System and the Role of Stage Carpenter

The “Star Tribune” article “Experts Behind the Scenes” (Minneapolis, January 13, 1901) noted that the “ruler of this realm behind the footlights” was titled “stage carpenter.” Titles have changed over the decades, as they are fluid and defined by a specific time or place. Titles may designate specific roles in the larger makeup of the theatrical trades, differing a century later. Today, some may identify the title “stage carpenter” as a “builder” and a “scenic artist” as a “painter.” There was a time when these two distinctive titles designated “stage visionaries” who brilliantly engineered and lit a variety of scenic effects and staged illusions, thrilling nineteenth-century audiences. During the late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth century, it was not uncommon for a stage carpenter to paint scenery or a scenic artist to engineer mechanical effects. Furthermore, many scenic artists controlled the lights on their painted scenes, visually guiding the intended stage aesthetic from conception to performance. It was a time of great possibility in America, when we were neither limited to a single trade nor skill.

By 1907, there was an article that defined the stage carpenter, using John Bairstow (also printed as Barstow) as an example. John, and later his son William H., were two of the Chicago Auditorium’s stage carpenters. While researching stage carpenters during the spring of 2017, I discovered a wonderful article about their work and the contribution of John Bairstow and the design of the Auditorium stage.

On September 28, 1907, the “Oregon Daily Journal” included an article written by Jonas Howard in their Sunday Supplement about stage carpenters. It provides a historical context for the title of “stage carpenter,” as it was perceived during the first decade of the twentieth century. This was printed at the same time that Sosman & Landis were delivering Brown’s Special System to Scottish Rite theaters across the country. Here is a section from the article:

“The only jack of all trades who has mastered them all is the stage carpenter. What the stage carpenter doesn’t know or can’t find out could be written in a small book. He must be not only a carpenter of the first rank, but a plumber, machinist, painter, blacksmith, sailor, tailor, artist and common laborer as well. In fact, the stage carpenter must be an all around genius or he wouldn’t hold his job five minutes.” [We’ll pause right here to look at two things. The first is that they distinguish between a painter and artist. The second circles back to the 1901 “Star Tribune” article that describes how the stage carpenter ruled the “realm behind the footlights.” No kidding, because if you are capable of doing it all, you understand the process and details that could prevent and foresee a catastrophe]

Howard’s 1907 article continues, “Stage carpenters begin their careers as assistants to the property men or scene painters. During the first year of their apprenticeship they do nothing but the rougher jobs around the stage, such as moving scenery, repairing frames and helping the electrician. Later they are allowed to work some of the ropes that are used to manipulate the scenery and gradually work into the positions as fly men. It is not until a stage carpenter can make and repair “trick” stuff that he is called proficient in his business, and as “trick” stuff is as intricate and varied as the tricks themselves it is only the keen witted carpenters that reach the front of their profession.

‘Trick’ stuff is that part of the stage machinery that is used to bring about various spectacular scenic effects that are so common on the present day stage. Sometimes there is an automobile race to be brought off, and it is up to the stage carpenter to devise a scheme that will make an automobile run a mile or more at top speed in the space of 20 or 30 feet. To do this there must be a set of rollers under the floor to turn the automobile’s wheels. The country through which the race is run must be painted on canvas and wound up on upright rollers so it can whizz by at the rate of 90 miles an hour or so. All of this arrangement must be put together with skill or it would not endure through the performance. Stage tricks are so numerous that there could be no accounting of them. Nearly every show has some mechanical device to produce its stage effects and the stage carpenter must be enough of a mechanic to be familiar with all of them.

In the Auditorium theatre in Chicago which has one of the largest stages in the world, there is 2,000,000 feet of rope and cables. To handle these and keep them in repair requires the services of a man who knows as much about ropes as a sailor. In the producing houses more stage carpenters are employed that are used in the theatres where the stage productions are shown after they are once set up. When a play is produced all of its scenery must be made and painted and the work is under the supervision of the stage carpenter. Each piece of scenery must be made so that it can be used in the average theatre throughout the country, for it would not do to make the scenery to fit any one house. John Barstow, former stage carpenter at the Auditorium, the stage of which he built, has been in the business nearly fifty years. He began his career in Europe, coming to this side shortly after the civil war. Before the Auditorium was built Mr. Barstow was sent to Europe to learn all he could about the stage arrangements of the best theaters and on his return he incorporated all of the best features of these houses in the Auditorium stage. His son, William H. Barstow, is the present stage carpenter at the Auditorium.”

Of all the stage carpenter’s in the world, the author uses Bairstow and the Chicago Auditorium as an example. I’ll look start with the venue tomorrow.

To be continued…

 

Part 634: Revisiting Brown’s Special System with William Knox Brown  

Scenic studios went far beyond painting drops. Scenic artists, stage carpenters, and stage mechanics were visionaries; those who combined painted illusion, lighting innovations, and new stage technology on a daily basis. They were at the forefront of technological innovation, integrating old trades and new technology, often registering their designs with the patent office.

In 1909, Brown’s Special System system was the Sosman & Landis’ “standard” when installing scenery and stage machinery in Scottish Rite theaters. For the past two days, I have examined possible candidates who may have been involved in the conception phase, design, and installation of Brown’s special system during the first decade of the twentieth century. I am now compelled to look at a few close connections in the Midwest – other stage carpenters, stage mechanics and scenic artists who may have been involved with this new counterweight system. I realize that it will be impossible to pinpoint, but that contributes to the enjoyment during this particular quest.

During the 1890s, scenic studio employees drifted from one studio to another. It was an intricate network propelled by an ever-increasing demand for scenic illusion and stage effects. In fact, it greatly benefitted studio owners to not only know their competition, but also maintain close ties to their competitors; they may need to draw upon another’s labor pool if a large project came along. During this period massive projects would appear, requiring a legion of theatrical suppliers and manufacturers to complete the projects on time. Projects requiring complicated stage machinery and painted illusion ranged from huge outdoor pyrotechnic events and grand circus spectacles to word fair amusements and electrical parades. There was a shared material culture between the general public and multiple entertainment industries.

Minnesota’s Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) were a short railway ride away from Chicago, the central shipping hub. Sosman & Landis completed many projects in Minnesota and the degrees of separation in the theater world were far less than the presently allotted six. It would be an anomaly to think that the movers and shakers of the theater world in Chicago were not in constant contact with those in the Twin Cities. There is one well-known stage mechanic and stage carpenter, William Knox Brown, who traversed the country throughout the late-nineteenth century. In 1888, the “Saint Paul Globe” reported, “W. K. Brown of New York, the stage carpenter, deserves credit for the clever mechanical effects to be seen at the People’s [Theatre]. He is enthusiastic, a skilled mechanic and an artist in his line” (Saint Paul Globe, 19 Feb 1888, page 10).

William Knox Brown engineered brilliant stage effects, and was a well-known stage carpenter and stage mechanic who traversed the country. Brown was an up and coming inventor during the late nineteenth century.

An article written by Geo. W. Welty, titled, “Experts Behind the Scenes,” included a brief synopsis of Brown’s career as a stage carpenter (The Star Tribune, 13 January 1901). The article noted that Brown was a “mechanic of experience” and “one of the best stage carpenters in the country” with a “thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the art of stage mechanism.” It then went on to describe his experience since first arriving in Minneapolis as a stage carpenter in 1882. Beginning in 1883, he was employed at the Grand Opera House in St. Paul. By 1887, he was connected with the People’s Theatre when it opened. He then took charge of the stage in Burd’s Opera house, in Davenport Iowa. From Iowa, he moved to the Harris theatre in Louisville, Kentucky,and by 1890 was connected with the Henrietta theater in Columbus Ohio.

By 1901, Brown had acquired the reputation for being one of the best stage carpenters in the country, being called “a mechanic of excellence” (Star Tribune, 13 Jan 1901, page 27).

Brown was also credited with “that rare quality of being able to control men without trouble, and while a strict tactician, he is yet extremely popular with all his employees.” These qualities landed Brown a position as master mechanic with the Hanlon Bros. spectacle “Superba.” Brown not only directed the staging of the production on tour, but also was engaged to direct the building, repairing and testing of new effects and “featured stage mechanisms” at their private stage and workshop in Cohasset, Massachusetts. The Star Tribune reported, “Mr. Brown, during his years of travel, with his splendid powers of grasping facts, has been able to acquire a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the art of stage mechanism. This knowledge he has put to good use at the Bijou, for the stage of that theater today is conceded to be one of the most complete in the country; traveling managers sending many compliments for the excellent manner in which it is conducted” (Star Tribune, 13 Jan 1901, page 27).

In 1894, the Hanlon Brothers lost $100,000 worth of “Superba” scenery during a fire at the “Globe” in Boston. It was the third time that the Company had been “burned out,” in other words losing their scenery, to fire in eighteen months (Chicago Tribune, 2 Jan 1894, page 1). If I were the stage mechanic, this may be my sign to leave the touring world and start my own studio. That year, Brown returned to Minneapolis to take charge of the Metropolitan stage in 1894 when it was opened by W. F. Sterling. Consider that there is a “Brown” who is testing new stage effects, developing machinery, and applying his know-how to the theater that he is working at by 1894. At this same time the Brown special system is likely in the early stages of conception.

By 1895, William Knox Brown enters a partnership with Theodore Hays and William P. Davis, starting the Twin City Scenic Studio. The three initially work out of the Bijou Opera House in Minneapolis and later construct their own studio on Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis. Each partner had a specific role: Theodore Hays was the business manager, Brown was in charge of the stage mechanics, and Davis, who had previously worked at the Chicago Auditorium, led the painting.

By 1904, however, Brown is heralded for a new invention that pertains to rigging. (Star Tribune, 7 Jan 1904, page 7). The fire at the Iroquois theater prompted many cities and theater managers to contemplate fire safety in their theaters. The “Star and Tribune” quoted then manager of the Bijou Theodore L. Hays. Hays stated, “The Chicago catastrophe has emphasized the importance of asbestos curtains and the Girard Avenue theatre fire in Philadelphia, where an asbestos curtain was lowered in proper time, demonstrated their worth by keeping the fire from the auditorium proper fully fifteen minutes, ample time for any audience to be dismissed, evening in a panic… Appreciating the necessity of its quick operation in an emergency, W. K. Brown our stage carpenter, has already perfected and put in practical operation an arrangement which permits the lowering or raising of the asbestos curtain from either side of the main stage floor, as well as from the fly gallery.” Later Hays added, “We want safety and not ingenious inventions that nobody understands but the inventor. Safety in this matter lies in the things that ones fingers out of habit would operate automatically no matter how excited the brain might be.”

I re-read this section several times seeing what I had known all along to be the whole point of Brown’s special system. It was easily operated and relatively safe; no locks, sand bags or belaying pins. Whoever pulled the line was in complete control of the speed, it could go as fast, or slow, as needed. Whoever designed the counterweight system that is still used by many Masonic stage hands every year realized that “Safety in this matter lies in the things that one’s fingers out of habit would operate automatically no matter how excited the brain might be.”

Think of the cowboys and bankers waiting off stage before a scene change at a Scottish Rite Reunion – first-time stagehands. Their brains were excited, but all they had to do was pull a rope.

The earliest functioning example of Brown’s special system still n the original venue is located in Duluth, Minnesota. The Sosman & Landis installation of the system is dated 1904. In 1905, the “Minneapolis Journal,” advertised, “general stage apparatus and appliances designed, manufactured and modeled by the Twin City Scenic Studio, leading scenic contractors of the northwest” (Minneapolis Journal, 25 Feb 1905, page 18). Brown was listed as the stage mechanic for the company in the ad. That meant  W. K. Brown was designing special stage stage apparatus. At the time, stage apparatus was the word designating rigging systems. So W. K. Brown was designing special systems for the stage, like Brown’s special system.

To be continued…

Part 633: Revisiting Brown’s Special System

I am still exploring the development of Scottish Rite stages and degree productions, specifically the implementation of “Brown’s Special System.”

I left off yesterday with a new counterweight system being developed in the Midwest with a unique client – the Scottish Rite. This innovation allowed more drops to be crammed into a limited amount of space, resulting in the sale of even more stage machinery and scenery. This development and sale of this new counterweight system involved three entities – a fraternal supplier (E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Co.), a salesman (Bestor G. Brown), and a scenic studio (Sosman & Landis). It happened sometime between 1896 and 1904. I am aware of only one example that exists, as originally installed from 1904. This system would be still be installed by Sosman & Landis in the 1920s, as used stage machinery was recycled for future Scottish Rite installations. In other words, during a time when metal frames became the standard, Sosman & Landis was still installing used wooden arbors.

 

So lets look at the major players: E. A. Armstrong Co. is the fraternal supply company secures the stage contract and then subcontracts the scenery, rigging and lighting portions to other firms. They move to Chicago in 1892 and construct a new factory in 1893. Bestor G. Brown, who leads the Maosnic Department at E. A. Amstrong and Co., moves to Chicago and begins working as a traveling salesman in 1894. Joseph S. Sosman and Abraham “Perry” Landis who establish a scenic studio, manufacture stage hardware, and install Brown’s special systems. These two also establish the American Reflector and Lighting Company in 1894.

Who may have been responsible for the design of “Brown’s special system?” Obviously, someone who understands the mechanical needs of stage houses. After examining Bestor G. Brown’s education, training and early career choices, there is nothing to suggest that he had any mechanical experience as a stagehand or worked backstage at a theater. If would be unlikely for someone devoid of any backstage experience to intimately understand a stage house and come up with an innovative new system to improve it.

If we interpret the “Brown” in Brown’s special system to designate the salesman peddling the new technology and not the designer of the system, one needs to look at potential candidates in the region, especially those at the Sosman & Landis studio, who may have designed the system. We do not know who was in charge of delivering Brown’s special system at Sosman & Landis. Here are the known individuals who we know worked with development, construction and installation of stage machinery at Sosman & Landis:

W. H. Clifton, a Sosman & Landis stage machinist sent to superintend installations at opera houses, theaters and Elks auditoriums. The first mention of Clifton working for the company is 1889, and he continues into the first decade of the twentieth century. Newspaper articles report that Clifton was sent to superintend the work, requiring him to spend time on site – often about four weeks. His duties on site included fitting the stage carpets and conducting a final run through of all items with the client.

Charles S. King, often listed as C. S. King, was listed as both a stage mechanic and stage carpenter in the same article! King began his career in 1859, and by 1887 had installed 200 stage systems. In 1889, he mentioned that he began working for Sosman & Landis fifteen years earlier – in 1874 – the same year that Sosman arrived in Chicago. Sosman & Landis did not officially form until 1877. The date of King’s death is currently unknown. Both Clifton and King are the only stage carpenters/stage mechanics who I have discovered being publically mentioned as installing scenery and stage machinery on site. Both appear in article during the late 1880s.

David A. Strong was a scenic artist and stage mechanic. We know the most about his scenic art work at Sosman & Landis in the memoirs of Thomas G. Moses. Moses worked with Strong in the beginning, assisting him as an “up and coming young artist.” Strong also works as the lead scenic artist in the beginning at Sosman & Landis, painting much of the Masonic scenery orders as he is a Scottish Rite Mason and has a wide artistic range of subject matter.Moses later refers to Strong as the “Daddy” of all Masonic design, yet he does not differentiate whether the design was solely painted composition or the entire stage aesthetic and scenic effects. We know that brown was a member of the Theatrical Mechanics association and the in same Theatrical Mechanics Association Chicago Lodge No. 4 was John Bairstow who worked on the stage house for the Chicago Auditorium. Brown unexpectedly passed away at in early February 1911.

By 1904, Moses supervises the production of most Masonic work at Sosman & Landis. We know that he did not simply paint scenes, but also designed scenic effects and some of the necessary machinery needed for a variety of spectacles. He had done this for many clients, whether he was representing Sosman & Landis or himself. He also designed amusement park rides after briefly working for Fred C. Thompson.

“Mr. Brown” was a Sosman & Landis stage carpenter who worked for the company during the first decade of the twentieth century, maybe before. Thomas G. Moses mentions the unexpected death of their foreman carpenter– Mr. Brown, who died during late February of 1911.

Now this is where the stage carpenter and stage mechanic can get confusing. Throughout the nineteenth century, the term is somewhat fluid, as stage carpenters are credited with the design and construction of mechanical effects and stage illusion. Stage mechanics are also credited with the design and construction of mechanical effects and the engineering of metamorphosis on stage. Newspapers will refer to the same person associated with the same production as both a stage carpenter in one article and a stage mechanic in another. Although there may be specific duties applied with each, they did not seem to be uniform when used in programs, newspaper articles, or handwritten memoirs.

There were many other stage carpenters and mechanics who filtered through the Sosman & Landis shops from 1877 until 1904. But only one was recognized as being “the only one” who was thoroughly familiar with Brown’s special system by 1912. A statement made by Bestor G. Brown in written correspondence with the Austin Scottish Rite during 1912 states that there was one specific stage mechanic who supervised the installation of the stage machinery for all Scottish Rite installations. At the time, this mechanic was currently working at the Santa Fe Scottish Rite on their new stage. Brown explained that the mechanic’s anticipated timeline was three weeks on site during the fall of 1912. This statement about timeline corresponds with information pertaining to the stage mechanic Clifton superintending an installation.

A later letter from Brown to the Austin Scottish Rite reported that their “superintendent and installation expert” died from an accident, commenting that their deceased employee was the “only one thoroughly familiar with the special method of installing Scottish Rite scenery.” Then he continued, “We do not mean that it is impossible to follow the same methods as heretofore, but it will take a longer time to do it because of a lack of familiarity with the work.”

It may not be the case that this he was the only person who knew the special method – ever. He may have been the only one remaining who was familiar with the special method. If we consider that two potential candidates unexpectedly died during 1911, a team of three could have rapidly been depleted to a team of two in one month. Scenic artist and stage mechanic David A. Strong died on February 5, 1911. Sosman & Landis’ foreman carpenter “Mr. Brown” died on February 27, 1911. It is possible that the only remaining individual who understood the system was Charles S. King. We do not know that the expert was King, but we also don’t know when King died. In 1912, King’s age could have been 69 years old. I use this as a baseline, since many in the technical theatre industry started their profession at the age of 16. Would the expert be sent out on the road at an advanced age? Yes as we know that Moses worked well into his seventies; not solely from an office, but he worked in the studio and on site.

Now there was another “superstar stage mechanic” in the region when Brown’s special system was developed and installed…William Knox Brown. Same name even. Brown was also a Scottish Rite Mason. As a stage mechanic, he had certainly proved his worth and ingenuity time and time again. Brown would also found a scenic studio with two others in the mid-1890s. We’ll look at what Brown was doing in the Midwest tomorrow.

To be continued…

Part 632: Tying Up Some Loose Ends and Flying It Out

The development of the counterweight system installed at Scottish Rite theaters by Sosman & Landis between 1904 and 1917 was called “Brown’s special system.”

At first glance it appears to be the brainchild of traveling salesman Bestor G. Brown, or someone he was working with at the time, possibly a stage mechanic at the Sosman & Landis scenic studio. There was one potential client who would benefit in the end– the Scottish Rite. This new technology allowed more drops to be crammed into a limited amount of space, resulting in the sale of even more stage machinery and scenery. It was a win-win for the manufacturer, distributor, and client.

This system does not use sandbags and pin rails, like those iconic backstage scenes depicted in movies. For those unfamiliar with the counterweight system, let me explain a few characteristics in laymen terms. “Brown’s special system” raises and lowers scenery completely out of sight, necessitating a fly loft to accommodate the full height of each drop. The counterweights are located off stage and match the weight of the scenery onstage (it is balanced like a big teeter totter when both kids are the same size). The counterweights (little metal blocks of varying sizes with notches to keep them in from falling out) are held in wooden frames, called arbors. Brown’s special system requires no locking mechanism at all, as each line is perfectly balanced. In other words, one can easily raise or lower the scenes without any effort; whenever I stop pulling on a line, the drop will stop moving and stay put. This is an deal system for stagehands without any knowledge of technical theater or rigging. Problems only occur when some well-intentioned person starts messing with the system; adding weight, moving drops to other lines; or doing in-house maintenance and repairs.

Back to the salesman who sold this system. From 1894 to 1917, Brown represented two separate fraternal supply companies – E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Co. and M. C. Lilley & Co. During that time, Sosman & Landis received the majority of subcontracted work from Brown. The Sosman & Landis studio consistently worked with Brown during his time, manufacturing and installing the stage machinery and scenery at Scottish Rite temples. This means that someone at Sosman & Landis worked with Brown to design the counterweight system called Brown’s special system. It may have been a stage mechanic at Sosman & Landis who conceived and developed the counterweight system that would become the standard for Scottish Rite theaters. The earliest existing example of Brown’s Special System, still working as originally installed in 1904, is located in Duluth, Minnesota. Earlier examples exist, but the scenery and stage machinery were removed from the original venue and installed in another Scottish Rite theater over the years. Earlier examples include scenery originally installed in Little Rock Arkansas (1896-1901) and later installed at Pasadena California; scenery originally installed in Wichita, Kansas (1898) and later installed in Yankton, South Dakota; and scenery originally installed in Guthrie, Oklahoma (1900) and later installed in Austin, Texas.

There is another player who enters into the fraternal mix with Bestor G. Brown, Sosman & Landis, and E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Co. That would be the veteran Sosman & Landis stage mechanic, Charles S. King. Let’s briefly review the first few players before throwing King into the mix.

1. Brown was a very successful traveling salesman, representing two different fraternal supply companies (E. A. Armstrong and M. C. Lilley) after he left an investment banking career in 1893. For each firm, he promoted the outfitting of fraternal lodges and staging of Masonic degrees. He was a prominent member in many fraternal organizations that included Freemasonry, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, and Benevolent and Protected Order of Elks. He also was renowned for his worked as the Wichita Scottish Rite stage director and heralded as the only “Masonic stage carpenter” and “Masonic stage manager” in the United States. Brown was a member of both the Northern and Southern Jurisdiction of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish rite of Freemasonry, so he fully understand the staging requirements and possibilities for the degrees.

2. E. A. Armstrong Company (est. 1868 in Detroit, Michigan), like M. C. Lilley & Co. (est. 1865 Columbus, Ohio), was a supplier of regalia and paraphernalia for all societies, including fraternal, military, and band. They manufactured uniforms, costumes, banners, badges, flags, lodge furniture, and other accessories for various organizations and lodge rooms. Costumes and other fraternal regalia were essential elements to all rituals, especially after ritual revisions. E. A. Armstrong established their offices and manufacturing plant in Chicago, as the city became a central shipping hub for the western United States. Lavish clothing and the addition or even more elaborate décor transformed many lodge room degrees into fully tsgaed spectacles. Neither company, however, specialized in theatre scenery, stage machinery or lighting. For theater installations, they subcontracted all part of the stage portion to scenic studios, such as Sosman & Landis (Chicago).

3. The scenic studio of Sosman & Landis was established in 1877 by Joseph S. Sosman and Abraham “Perry” Landis. Sosman arrived in Chicago as a young assistant to the successful scenic artist T. B. Harrison in 1874; keep that date in mind when we circle back to King working for Sosman. Little is known of Sosman’s scenic artwork in Chicago before establishing Sosman & Landis, yet the firm successfully ran until the mid-1920s. Sosman passed away in 1915, and the company president became long-time scenic artist Thomas G. Moses. Moses credit Brown with the development of Masonic scenery.

Enter Charles S. King, a well-known stage mechanic and Sosman & Landis employee. Before I start connecting the dots, there is a link between C. S. King and E. A. Armstrong during 1890 that appeared in the “Courier-Post” (Camden, New Jersey, 6 Jan 189, page 1). There were two cases in the circuit court involving E. A. Armstrong (plaintiff) and C. S. King (defendant). Each case pertained to a contract dispute between the two, suggesting that E. A. Armstrong was involved in theater before Brown. At the time, C. S. King was working for Sosman & Landis as a stage mechanic and E. A. Armstrong was operating his regalia company.

King’s name was first brought to my attention by Rick Boychuk, He detailed King’s contribution as a stage carpenter during the construction of the Crump Theatre in 1889, a project with scenery and stage machinery delivered by Sosman & Landis and a drop curtain painted by Moses. This is only one year before the abovementioned court case with E. A. Armstrong.

By 1887, King was credited as working in more than 200 theaters across the nation, yet very little is known about this prolific stage mechanic beyond a few newspaper articles. Let me summarize what I know about this individual. King began his career as a stage carpenter and stage machinist in 1859, With the exception of serving in the Union Armey during the Civil War and managing a large touring company, King solely functioned in these two roles his entire career. King notes that he began working for Sosman & Landis in 1874, yet the firm did not officially open until 1877, suggesting that King began working with Sosman upon his arrival in Chicago during 1874. King installed stage machinery in theaters throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico. A “Star Tribune” article from January 27, 1881, reported, “Mr. C. S. King, the stage carpenter at the Grand Opera House, was initiated into some of the mysteries of stage mechanism as exemplified in our new temple of amusement. Mr. King who was summoned here from Chicago, is regarded as one of the best stage-carpenters in the country, having had wide experience and possessing perfect knowledge of his progression. He says that our opera house will have the finest stage, the easiest worked, and will be the best appointed theatre west of Chicago, or of many large eastern cities.” The stage carpenter who would manage the venue after King’s departure was William Knox Brown, one of the three founders of Twin City Scenic Company. Another Twin City Scenic Co. founder was William P. Davis who previously worked as the primary scenic artist at the Chicago Auditorium. Brown’s stage mechanic flourished with the Hanlon Brothers who hired William Knox Brown as one of their stage mechanics to develop scenic effects in their Massachusetts studio (see past installment #155). The Hanlon Brothers engineered amazing mechanical effects for their staged spectacles.

In 1889, an article about the Crump Theatre reported, “Mr. King Came to Columbus Sept. 11, and commenced on the bare floor of the new theatre to construct the various stage machinery, mount scenery, and everything connected with stage settings, all without drawings or specifications, except those stored in his head from long experience. How well he succeeded in his work is there to speak for itself, and is pronounced by the profession to be the most modern, convenient and elaborate.” The 1881 and 1889 articles suggest two things: 1. King possessed techniques pertaining to the design and construction of stage machinery that others did not and, 2. King’s keeping everything connected with stage settings in his head, “all without drawings or specifications,” suggests he maintained trade secrets. Think back to guilds and cathedral builders, complete with lodges, masters, passwords, and secret signs. Being able to do something that others can’t gives you the leading edge. Now think of King being “initiated into some of the mysteries of stage mechanism.” It is possible that these were more than common ceremonies associated with the rise of American fraternalism.

What new innovations pertaining to stage machinery could be occurring at this same time? Lets look back to Chicago where Sosman & Landis are running a successful studio, Detroit fraternal supplier E. A. Armstrong is contemplating a move to Chicago, and the Chicago Auditorium is being planned. Add in the possibility of a world fair, with the potential of untold networking and future projects.

One particular event examined at this time is in Rick Boychuk’s “Nobody Looks Up: The History of the Counterweight Rigging System, 1500-1925” (https://www.amazon.com/Nobody-Looks-Up-History-Counterweight/dp/1508438102/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1548878503&sr=8-1&keywords=rick+boychuk) – the Chicago Auditorium of 1889. Boychuk writes, “The first counterweight rigging system in American was state-of-the-art technology when it was installed in 1889 in the Auditorium Building in Chicago – commonly referred to as the Chicago Auditorium” (page 167). Boychuk explains how Ferdinand Peck, the visionary for the Chicago auditorium, traveled to Europe to examine opera houses, later joined by architect Dankmar Adler (Adler & Sullivan) and Chicago stage carpenter John Bairstow. Boychuk suggests, “Chicago borrowed the sheave design and configuration from Budapest and the balance of the counterweight system from Vienna” (page 172).

Now consider that John Bairstow was a member of the Theatrical Mechanics Association, an organization established in New York during 1866 (see mentions in past installments 125, 153, 215 and 384). By 1891, there were 28 lodges represented at the Theatrical Mechanics Association convention in Chicago, including members from Chicago Lodge No. 4. Lodge No. 4 – John Bairstow and David A. Strong. Strong was a well-known scenic artist and stage mechanic working at Sosman & Landis, Strong provided scenery for the original “Black Crook” at Niblo’s Garden in 1866. He later moved to Chicago where he joined the Scottish Rite and continued work as a scenic artist, eventually joining the studio of Sosman & Landis, working alongside another Sosman & Landis stage mechanic – King. Thomas G. Moses would credit Strong in his memoirs as the “Daddy” of Scottish Rite design; he did not specify that Strong solely designed the painted aesthetic. Two other Theatrical Mechanics Association Chicago Lodge No. 4 members who attended the 1891 convention would also later become Scottish Rite Masons – F. V. Sauter (joined Oriental Consistory in 1892) and Wallace Blanchard (joined Oriental Consistory in 1899).

So lets look at the players who were known Scottish Rite Masons when this all began – E. A. Armstrong (regalia supplier), Bestor G. Brown (salesman), William Knox Brown (stage mechanic), Joseph S. Sosman (scenic artist and studio owner), David A. Strong (stage mechanic and scenic artist).

To be continued…

 

 

Part 631: Original and Reliable – E. A. Armstrong 

Those first theaters created for the Southern Jurisdiction of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry were secured by the E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Co. and subcontracted to Sosman & Landis. Both companies were in Chicago and both companies were run by Scottish Rite Masons. The key figure was Bestor G. Brown, a traveling salesman for E. A. Armstrong who was in charge of their Masonic Department. Brown was also involved in multiple fraternal orders and understood all necessary degree requirements. Brown opened the door to this enterprise, E. A. Armstrong provided the financial backing, and Sosman & Landis created something remarkable for staged degree work. Let’s look at the E. A. Armstrong company first, a fraternal supply company that got its start in Detroit during 1868. By the 1890s, they were building a new manufacturing plant in Chicago.

The E. A. Armstrong Company, manufacturers of and dealers in society and military supplies, were located at Nos. 149 and 151 Wabash Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, during 1893. The company had already run a successful business for two decades in Detroit, Michigan, moving to Chicago during the summer of 1892. At the time, the officers of the company were E. A. Armstrong, President; F. S. Armstrong, Vice-President; and F. C. King, Secretary (Chicago Tribune, 6 June 1893, page 3). In 1893 while finishing the construction of their factory, the company encountered some financial trouble. Newspapers across the country reported that the company would close its doors due to money owed and a court ruling.

The “Indianapolis Journal,” commented, “Mr. Armstrong said that the cause of the trouble was due to the drawing out of more money than they anticipated in the building of their new factory at Ninety-second street and the Grand Trunk road. ‘Every dollar’s worth of property that we owe on earth,’ said Mr. Armstrong, ‘is here in this business, and every dollar of it is in the hands of our assignee for the protection of our creditors. This suspension is only temporary at most” (6 Jun 1893, page 1). The company managed to survive, becoming the E. A Armstrong Manufacturing Company. They managed to corner the market on a significant client in the years to follow– Scottish Rite Consistories. Keep in mind that the Scottish Rite consists of four bodies: the Lodge of Perfection (4-14 degrees), Chapter of Rose Croix (15-18 degrees), Council of Kadosh (19- 30 degrees) and the Consistory (31-32 degrees). It is the Consistory that often led the construction of a theater that all of the Scottish Rite bodies used to stage degree productions.

By 1902, “Masonic Voice-Review” included an article about the E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Company that included the “Eminent Sir Bestor G. Brown” as working in the Masonic Division of E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Company of Chicago (page 282) Brown would later go onto become the western sales representative of the M. C. Lilley & Co., with his regional offices in Kansas City, Missouri, bringing all of his Scottish Rite contacts with him. He was the catch of the day when it came to securing Scottish Rite theater business.

Here is the article “Original and Reliable” from “Masonic Voice-Review:”

‘Made on honor; is a legend that every manufacturer should be ambitious to have justly applied to his product, and is certainly an evidence of the good faith, integrity and courage of the concern that brands every article turned out with the significant sentiment in question as its trademark and guarantee. The right to use this protective designation as applied to Masonic supplies has been earned by E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Company, of Chicago, by more than thirty years of continuous production of the most reliable and serviceable articles to be found in the market. The business was organized in Detroit, Michigan in 1868 by Mr. E. A. Armstrong, who has been in charge of the business without interruption since the date. The business was removed to Chicago in 1893, and in the following year was reorganized, additional capital invested, and a stock company formed under the name of E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Company.

The worthily popular products of this house have made the name “Armstrong” famous as the equivalent for reliability. None of the rights, patents or patterns employed in the production of “Armstrong Goods” and the “Armstrong Uniforms” have passed to other hands, and the Masonic requisites so long familiar to the Craft are still produced upon the same plans of superiority that originally secured favor for them, and are manufactured solely by this company. The guarantee that goes with every sale is that the goods will give perfect satisfaction and are absolutely as represented.

The E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Company is entitled to point with pride to the preferment it has secured among the various bodies of the Scottish Rite throughout the country. Excepting the Consistory at Columbus, Ohio, they have furnished the equipment and paraphernalia for every Consistory in the United States that has been in the market for an outfit in the past five years – certainly a phenomenal showing, and one that commends the output of the concern in unmistakable terms. The Consistories that have been equipped within the period mentioned by the company are located at Indianapolis, Ind.; Little Rock, Ark.; Galveston, Tex.; Kansas City, Miss.; Wichita, Kan.; Guthrie, Okla.; Fargo, N.D.; and St. Louis, Mo.

The equipment of the St. Louis Consistory which represented an order of $6,200, was delivered in May of the present year. The secret of this practical monopoly of the Scottish Rite patronage by the Armstrong house is the inherent excellence of its goods and the uniformly courteous and honorable treatment accorded its patrons. The Eminent Sir Bestor G. Brown has special charge of the Masonic Department, and his intelligence and energetic methods coupled with a thorough knowledge of the requirements of the Craft has much to do with the notable success of this branch of the business.”

To be continued…

Part 630: Bestor G. Brown and E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Co.

In 1909, Moses wrote, “The Dallas Masonic work came in early, so did San Francisco and Cleveland, Ohio.” That year, Moses also supervised scenery collections for Scottish Rite theaters in Kansas City, Kansas, Winona, Minnesota, and Atlanta, Georgia. Today we look at the Kansas and Bestor G. Brown (1861-1917) before looking at the Scottish Rite installation in Kansas City, Kansas, during 1909.

Starting in the 1890s, Kansas became a hot bed of Scottish Rite activity. Theatre construction, new degree productions, and Masonic celebrations drew men together from across the region. It was during this time that both fraternal and business alliances were formed. Bestor G. Brown became the central hub on a spinning wheel of fraternal activity. As I have discussed in recent posts, Brown, would become the future western sales representative of the M. C. Lilley & Co., with his regional offices in Kansas City, Missouri. Brown joined Siloam Lodge No. 225, on March 11, 1884, where he served as Master in 1887 and 1888. Brown was also involved with other Masonic orders, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, York Rite, Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, and Order of the Eastern Star. In fact, Brown’s outstanding fraternal service gained him title to Kansas Lodge No. 433 A. F. & A. M. Lodge on March 1, 1923. It is now the Bestor G. Brown Lodge No. 433. Brown was involved with other non-Masonic fraternities, such as the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, the Knights of Pythias and the Benevolent and Protected Order of Elks. I have to ask myself where the guy found enough time to do it all as he traveled so much.

Brown became a traveling salesman, peddling supplies for E. A. Armstrong during the 1890s. This was before Brown became the western sales manager for M. C. Lilley & Co. in 1904. From 1897 until 1902, Brown had special charge of the Armstrong’s Masonic department and secured ALL of the consistory contracts except one. That one was in Columbus, Ohio, however, by 1909, he would secure that Consistory contract too. In the 1902 publication “Masonic Voice-Review,” an article titled “Original and Reliable” commended the quality of products manufactured by the E. A. Armstrong Manufacturing Company of Chicago and Brown’s contribution. The article noted, “Excepting the Consistory at Columbus, Ohio, they have furnished the equipment and paraphernalia for every Consistory in the United States that has been in the market for an outfit in the past five years… The Consistories that have been equipped within the period mentioned by the company are located at Indianapolis, Ind.; Little Rock, Ark.; Galveston, Tex.; Kansas City, Miss.; Wichita, Kan.; Guthrie, Okla.; Fargo, N.D.; and St. Louis, Mo.” The article continued, “The Eminent Sir Bestor G. Brown has special charge of the Masonic Department, and his intelligence and energetic methods coupled with a thorough knowledge of the requirements of the Craft has much to do with the notable success of this branch of the business.”

This is a big deal, as it suggested that E. A. Armstrong captured the Scottish Rite theater business of the entire Southern Jurisdiction after Pike’s passing; remember, Pike, was not a supporter of stage degree productions and he was in charge of the Southern Jurisdiction until his death in 1891.

Brown was there when the Southern Jurisdictions first designed and installed their new scenery. He would be there again when these Masonic venues grew and needed new scenery a decade later. The only difference was that Brown would later be representing M. C. Lilley & Co. Consider this…the Valley’s were repurchasing scenery thru Brown. This did not necessarily mean that they were going with another company; they were going with the same man who just happened to now work for a new company. Brown knew what they wanted and what they already had. In other words, the Consistories believed he would take care of them as a fellow 32nd degree Scottish Rite Mason.

The April 15, 1908, issue of “The American Tyler” would credit Brown as “the only Masonic stage manager in the country.” The article would further explain, “This is because he has a national reputation among scenic artists and builders of stage appliances, and because he created and developed the application of modern scenic properties to the dramatic presentation of all Masonic degrees. More value is probably attached to his opinion in such matters than to that of any other man in the country, and he is almost invariably consulted in regard to the construction of stages for the work of the Scottish Rite, everywhere throughout the United States.”

Each Scottish Rite Valley’s loyalty was to Brown and not necessarily the company he represented – M. C. Lilley. The scenic studio of Sosman & Landis was closely linked to Brown and his business. Brown and Sosman were both Scottish Rite Masons. After Sosman died in 1915 and Brown died in 1917, the Masonic connection dried up and much business went to Toomey & Volland who had been steadily building up their Masonic repertoire. And guess what? Volland was a Scottish Rite Mason and in charge of the stage direction at the Scottish Rite in St. Louis; the same as Brown who had been in charge of the stage direction in Wichita, Kansas. Volland was the “shiny new thing” on the Masonic playground. Volland got his Masonic scenery start in 1902, when Toomey & Volland were subcontracted by E. A. Armstrong to deliver $6,200 worth of scenery and stage equipment to the St. Louis Consistory during May and Brown was the one to negotiate the contract.

To be continued…

Part 629: The Cleveland Scottish Rite, 1909

In 1909, Moses wrote, “The Dallas Masonic work came in early, so did San Francisco and Cleveland, Ohio.” That year, Moses also supervised scenery collections for Scottish Rite theaters in Kansas City, Kansas, Winona, Minnesota, and Atlanta, Georgia.

The Valley of Cleveland consists of a ten-county area in northern Ohio. The four Scottish Rite bodies included the Eliadah Lodge of Perfection, Bahurim Council, Ariel Chapter and Lake Erie Consistory. I have uncovered very little information about the building occupied by the Cleveland Scottish Rite before their move to their new home at 3615 Euclid Avenue. The previous Masonic Temple was built in 1883 and located at Superior Avenue and East 6^th St.

Of this first home for the Scottish Rite, the “Akron Beacon Journal” noted that eight Akron Masons received the 32^nd degree at the Spring Scottish Rite reunion in Cleveland (10 March 1910, page 4). The article reported, “The territory covered at this meeting is of northeastern Ohio. Several hundred are expected from the cities. Between 50 and 100 from Akron intend to go. There will be a class of 95 who will take their degrees up through the 32^nd degree.” The first Masonic Temple was obviously a sizable space.

Construction for the new Masonic building commenced during 1918. Interestingly, in 1919, Toomey & Volland scenic studio records indicate that they created scenery for the Cleveland Scottish Rite Temple. Ten years earlier, Sosman & Landis created the scenery for degree work in Cleveland. After 1915, it was not uncommon for Toomey & Volland to underbid Sosman & Landis on Masonic projects, especially in the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction. The Masonic connection provided by Joseph S. Sosman, of Sosman & Landis, disappeared when he passed away in 1915. Thomas G. Moses had taken over the company but was not yet a Mason.

The new Masonic Temple in Cleveland was designed by Hubbell & Benes, the same firm that designed the Cleveland museum of art in 1916. Home to many Masonic Orders, including the Scottish Rite, the massive Masonic structure covered 102,000 square feet of space, with a 2200-seat auditorium. Acclaimed for its acoustics, the Masonic Temple was once home to the Cleveland Orchestra for a decade, before their move in 1931 to Severance Hall.

As with many other Masonic buildings of this scope, declining membership after World War II and escalated expenses from deferred maintenance cause the Cleveland Masons to put their building on the market in 2017. The corporate secretary of the Cleveland Scottish Rite admitted that it cost $400,000 a year to maintain the building, “an outlay that would soon exhaust the operating endowment.” There is an article from 6, August, 2015 that includes some lovely photographs of the building. Here is the link to many of the attached pictures (https://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/08/landmark_masonic_auditorium_-.html).

Nearly one hundred years after construction began on the Masonic Auditorium in Cleveland, it was sold to a private developer. An affiliate of Arkansas-based Beaty Capital Group, Inc. paid only $725,000 for the complex on March 31, 2017. Cleveland’s Masonic building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the property is eligible for preservation funding including state and federal tax credits.

This is the same group that purchased the Scottish Rite in Forth Smith, Arkansas.

A subsidiary of the Beaty Capital Group, TempleLive (https://www.templelive.com/about/), also purchased the Zembo Shrine building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 2018 (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/01/zembo_shrine_sale_shriners_ple.html).

In Cleveland, Fort Smith and Harrisburg, the Fraternity will never be able to afford the expense of constructing anything comparable. The materials and craftsmanship necessary to build these types of buildings are often no longer available. In Cleveland, the chandeliers are made from pieces of shell and hobnailed doors lead to the auditorium. The ones who lose are future generations of Masons who will never experience the space, or the physical sense of heritage. The buildings were planned and constructed by men with vision. It also takes vision to place Freemasonry in the context of today and contemplate how these venues can be saved. The winners in the end are those who are able to purchase these jewels for less than market price and turn a profit.

To be continued…

Part 628: The San Francisco Scottish Rite, 1909

In 1909, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The Dallas Masonic work came in early, so did San Francisco and Cleveland, Ohio.” These were only three of six Scottish Rite installations supervised by Moses in 1909 while he was working at Sosman & Landis. Others included Kansas City, Kansas, Winona, Minnesota, and Atlanta, Georgia.

The first San Francisco Scottish Rite outfitted with scenery by Sosman & Landis was destroyed during the fire after the San Francisco earthquake. The original 1906 collection was contracted with M. C. Lilley & Co., and subsequently subcontracted to the Sosman & Landis scenic studio. In 1906, the western sales representative for M. C. Lilley & Co., Bestor G. Brown, was in town attending a meeting at the San Francisco Masonic Temple when the earthquake struck. During the first tremors early in the morning of April 18, 1906, Brown was sleeping at the Union League Club. The San Francisco earthquake triggered several fires that burned the city for the next two days. Brown’s eyewitness account of his experience was first published in the “Topeka Daily Capital” (April 25, 1906, page 7).

The article reported, ““The Grand Chapter of Masons met in the forenoon at the Masonic temple and were holding their meeting when the military came in and said it was time to move as they were going to dynamite the Palace hotel.” Brown elaborated, “I went out to the street and saw the fire creeping up from two sides. I saw it creep up to the back door off the meat market on Market Street and the minute it touched the rear of the building it seemed to sweep through and bulge out into the street in front. About the time I took to the woods, I started for the waterfront and got there in about an hour and a half.”

The cornerstone for the second San Francisco Scottish Rite Temple was laid on October 12, 1909, by the Grand Master of California, Oscar Lawler. The “San Francisco Call,” reported “Cornerstone of Scottish Rite Cathedral Lowered Into Place Before Big Throng.” The trowel was a “handsome beaten silver blade of which the insignia f the order was an appropriate inscription” and presented to Grand Master Lawler by W. P. Filmer in behalf of the Scottish Rite Temple Association. Lawler was retiring and being succeeded by W. Frank Pierce. Remember that Pierce was also the Inspector General of California and the Grand Grand Chancellor of the Scottish Rite instrumental in advocating for the new House of the Temple. As part of the Finanace Committee, Pierce introduced the 1904 resolution that paid each SGIG and Deputy $2 per each incoming 32^nd degree Mason for each respective jurisdiction

The “San Francisco Call” article continued, “The dedication of the building itself was as a house erected to God, and destined to stand as a symbol of truth, intelligence, honesty and integrity in the pursuit of the highest ideals of mankind.” The time capsule placed under the cornerstone included a roster of the members of the San Francisco bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a copy of the Trestle Board for October, 1909, the bulletin of the San Francisco lodges of perfection for August and September, 1909, the latest bulletins of the chapter, council, and consistory, the bulletin of the reception to Sovereign Grand Commander James Daniel Richardson, the notice of laying of the cornerstone, samples of the stationary used by the San Francisco bodies of Scottish Rite, the San Francisco morning daily papers of yesterday, the proceedings of the grand lodge of California for 1908, coins minted in 1909, a copy of the New Age for September of this year and business cards of the architects and contractors in charge of the construction of the building.”

Located on the northeast corner of Sutter Street and Van Ness avenue, the block was cemented in the foundation wall of the new building. The final cost of this four-story building was $330,000 and was home to the San Francisco Bodies No. 1, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. As part of the ceremonies on October 12, 1909, the “San Francisco Call” noted that “many members of the grand body attended a meeting in King Solomon’s Hall, where Berkeley lodge exemplified the work in the apprentice, or first degree.”

The stage was outfitted with scenery by Sosman & Landis, and Moses supervised the production of the backdrops for the West Coat. These drops area still used on the same stage, but the building is now known as the Regency Center. It is no longer owned by the Fraternity and odd to see the Masonic settings as thematic backings for a variety of public events, including cabaret shows. The current stewards of the building now advertise the edifice as a unique venue with three separate event spaces. The Scottish Rite theater is now marketed as “The Lodge.” Generations of San Franciscans have now performed on the stage, worked the fly lines, or applauded from the audience, all marveling at the painting from years ago. Moses’ scenery, especially his forest scene, continues to thrill both spectators and performers.

In 1964 the San Francisco Scottish Rite moved to new building, new scenery constructed by the Western Scenic Co. of Oakland, California. The backdrops were designed and painted by member Gus R. Schneider, an MGM artist. The third Scottish Rite constructed for the San Francisco Bodies is a sign of the times when it was built. I have included some images that from their Facebook page that give a sense of the degree work now being performed in the space with Schneider’s scenery.

To be continued…

Part 627: The Dallas Scottish Rite, 1909

In 1909, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The Dallas Masonic work came in early, so did San Francisco and Cleveland, Ohio.” These were only three of six Scottish Rite installations supervised by Moses in 1909 while he was working at Sosman & Landis. Others included Kansas City, Kansas, Winona, Minnesota, and Atlanta, Georgia.

Sosman & Landis delivered 119 drops and stage machinery to the Scottish Rite at 500 S Harwood Street, Dallas. This Temple was not completed until 1913, however, degree productions took place on the stage by 1909. The scenery contract for the stage was negotiated by Bestor G. Brown of M. C. Lilley & Co.

On April 26, 1913, the “Dallas Morning News” described the Masonic Cathedral and Architect Herbert M. Green’s contributions. Keep in mind that the theater of the building was referred to as “the great degree room.”

The article reported, “On the second floor one will find the lobby, which is in Roman Ionic; the Corinthian lodge room is green and gold: candidates lounging room, modified Colonial with color scheme of brown and blue and smoking foyer in the same effect. In the great degree room are columns copied from those in the Temple of Karnak at Thebes. Over sixty shades of color are used harmoniously in the ornamental beams and columns supporting the ceiling of sky blue – a ceiling whereon the stars of the twelve signs of the Zodiac are so cunningly constructed, and with such ingenious electrical attachments that when the great hall is in total darkness, the constellations seem to blaze in all reality from the very heavens above.

The largest stage in Texas is in this degree room – and the largest pipe organ. There are offices restrooms, wardrobe rooms, bowling alley, grill and kitchen – heating, ventilating and lighting systems which are unsurpassed, push button elevator and house telephone system – In short every device by which modern ingenuity can add to beauty and comfort and convenience.”

The article further described that the theater, “a proscenium arch 28×22 feet is the largest stage in Texas, 24 feet deep and 60 feet in width. One hundred and nineteen scenic drops are so delicately counterweighted that the stage picture can be changed in two seconds, and if necessary in the dark. These drops are hung over the entire ceiling of the stage, being spaced three inches apart from the proscenium arch to the rear wall of the stage. Each degree has its own scenery, some degrees three and four scenes, all forming an extensive and complete equipment that it is possible to produce more different scenes than on any stage in the country. Fifteen hundred white, blue, red and amber lights, controlled from a switchboard seven feet high and twelve feet long are required to light the stage properly. These are subdued and softened as necessary by bank after bank of dimmers arranged by interlocking devices to control the degree of light at any one point of en masse. The dawn of day, a nightfall or a moonlight effect can be reproduced with marvelous fidelity…To the rear of the stage are property rooms, etc. and on the third floor a large wardrobe room, with cases for the various costumes.”

The 1913 article concluded, “”The complete cost of the building has not been, as yet, made public but it is expected to be close to $230,000. Other items not included in the building cost are:
Organ $23,000.00
Stage Scenery $28,000.00
Furnishings $21,000.00
Ground $34,000.00
Making an estimated cost of the complete equipment of about $350,000.”

The article ended here.

 

Today’s monetary equivalent of $28,000 spent in 1909 for a Scottish Rite scenery collection is $773,024.62. Dallas was only one of six Scottish Rite collection supervised by Thomas G. Moses that year. The others were in San Francisco, CA, Cleveland, OH, Kansas City, KS, Winona, MN, and Atlanta, GA. Keep in mind that Masonic work only made up 25 -30% of all work at the Sosman & Landis studios. The firm, like the Scottish Rite, was accumulating a massive amount of money at this point.

In a letter from Brown to William G. Bell at the Austin Scottish Rite, dated July 7, 1912, Brown provided further information pertaining to the Dallas Scottish Rite stage. This correspondence was to help Austin Scottish Rite bodies understand the design and delivery process; Sosman & Landis could not provide estimates or cost and installation without knowing how much scenery was needed and the structural condition of the building. Brown used the Dallas Scottish Rite as an example, writing, “the Dallas stage has in the neighborhood of 25,000 lineal feet of wire and rope in its installation; the quantity of wire and rope necessary, is determined by the heighth of the gridiron, the location of the fly gallery, and the general dimension of the stage. We would also have to look into the question of freight charges and be advised as to what prices we could obtain common gray iron castings in Austin for use as counterweights. We would have to determine on the correct number of drops to be used, because each drop requires eight pulleys besides counterweight frames and eye bolts.” These costs all needed to be estimated prior to providing a number, yet the Austin Scottish Rite kept asking, “but how much will it cost?”

Brown continued, “In our original correspondence, Mr. Green of Dallas, indicated that he was preparing plans for remodeling an old building [in Austin] and that when these plans were determined upon, he would send us the dimensions of the stage. Mr. Green understands what would be wanted, as he had the experience on the Dallas Temple.” Again, Brown was referring to Herbert M. Green, the architect and a member of the Scottish Rite and the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine.

To be continued…

Part 626: Photographing Scottish Rite Scenery

There was another significant moment that occurred during the 1909 Biennial Session of the Supreme Council of the Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the Thirty-third Degree of Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America.

It was an attempt to regulate the use of photograph images of Scottish Rite scenery in publications throughout the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions. Both Supreme councils would implement legislation to limit the amount of visual information that was released to the general public. In other words, they were trying to keep certain elements “secret,” noting that too much was being “shared” with the general public. Up to that time, pictures of Scottish Rite scenery were included not only in souvenir programs for Scottish Rite reunions, but also in newspaper articles. For example, there were photographs of two degree settings published in the “Topeka State Journal” depicting the Egyptian and Peristyle settings for the 31^st and 18^th degrees, respectively ( 30 Oct. 1909, page 6). In 1909 Grand Commander James D. Richardson called for a stop to this practice at the Biennial Session, citing legislation that had already been implemented in the Northern Jurisdiction. From this point on, the publishing of photographs depicting Scottish Rite degree productions or scenery was strictly forbidden.

This legislation mostly worked until the 1970, and is now impossible in the age of social media where most Scottish Rite Masons have a camera on their phone. Today there are photos of degree work all over social media – scenes from reunions on Facebook posts, tweets and instagrams of Masons in costume. It is just too tempting for members not to post pictures of things they love.

However, 110 years ago, it was an entirely different issue when Grand Commander James D. Richardson realized that they needed to pull on the reigns of something that was becoming a runaway issue. In the section “Programmes of Reunions. Etc.” of the 1909 Transactions of the Supreme Council (page 64) Grand Commander Richardson commented,

“The inspection of the programmes published by some of our subordinate bodies announcing reunions, etc., and which are sent broadcast throughout the country, I think, will show that the form or ceremony conferring Degrees is advertised by illustrations in these programmes to an improper extent. Many of them are works of art and of exquisite taste. I have no desire to stop, or even discourage this attractive style of advertising, but am of the opinion that greater care should be exercised in the matter than is at present observed. When I was at the session of the Northern Supreme Council, September 1908, I heard with interest the discussion on this subject by Bro. Palmer in his Allocution. He had had his attention called to it by a request for permission to publish in a programme the photographs of the casts of some Degrees. I quote a portion of his reply to this request, as follows:

‘I have to say in reply that the rituals of the Scottish Rite Degrees, like those of all other Degrees in Freemasonry, are secret in all respects. The rituals of Freemasonry constitute its methods of teaching great truths to those who apply for and are found worthy to receive them. These rituals and methods of communicating them to those who have been duly chosen to receive them, in my judgment, rank with secrets of Freemasonry and should be most carefully guarded. No part of the forms or ceremonies connected with the conferring of Degrees, or any of them, or any part thereof, should be published or exhibited to those Masons, either by photographs, written or printed circulars, or advertisements in newspapers, either before or after the Degree or Degrees shall be conferred, and being of this opinion, I was obliged to decline to comply with the courteous request.’

This portion of the address was referred to committee. The committee reported the resolution which was adopted, and which declared, “That it is not permissible to print, publish, distribute, or exhibit any illustration of any part of the rituals, form, or ceremonies, connected with the conferring of degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, or any of them, or any part, or synopsis, in any manner of form, to the public, or to any one entitled thereto.”

I think it would be wise for the Council to adopt this, or a similar resolution. I am of the opinion that it would be well to require that all programmes and announcements of reunions should be submitted to the Inspector General, or Deputy of the Supreme Council in a jurisdiction where there is no Inspector-General for his approval before they are published and distributed.”

Fast forward ahead eight decades. A small troupe of theatre professors cross the country, documenting historic scenery collections in Scottish Rite theaters. This group, partially funded by USITT travel grants, included Lance Brockman, Larry Hill, Rhett Bryson, and Bruce Brockman. Whether together, or separate, each of the men spent hours gaining access to these significant historic scenery collections and documenting the painted scenery and stage effects.

Their visits caused quite a stir and soon a letter was sent out to every Scottish Rite Valley in the Southern Jurisdiction with the following announcement from the Grand Secretary General:

March 6, 1984

“TO ALL ACTIVES, DEPUTIES AND SECRETARIES

Dear Brother:

It has been brought to our attention that requests have been made in several Valleys in the Southern Jurisdiction to take photographs of the backdrops used in our ritualistic work. Further information has indicated that the individuals pursuing this project have no knowledge of Masonic ritual and consequently have engaged in useless and ignorant speculation concerning the uses to which these backdrops might be put. These discussions lead to derogatory criticism of Masonry.

My suggestion would be not ever to let anyone take photographs of any of the backdrops used in ritualistic work for other than Masonic purposes. This policy should eliminate future problems of this type.

With best wishes,

Cordially and fraternally yours,

Fred Kleinknecht

Grand Secretary General”

This action may have been the equivalent to throwing water on a grease fire. It was not out of spite that the men continued their documentation, but out of an understanding that the historic scenery collections were valuable cultural artifact shared by both the Fraternity and American public; each had a place within American history as well as Masonic history. Thankfully, the photographic documentation continued as Brockman trudged along with his research, soon facilitating the acquisition of two primarily Masonic scenery design collections – the Great Western Stage Equipment Company collection and the Holak Collection – for the Performing Arts Archives at the University of Minnesota from 1988-1991. These were the two collections that I processed with two Undergraduate Research Opportunity Grants while working on my undergraduate degree at the University of Minnesota.

In 1992, the symposium “Theatre of the Fraternity: Staging the Sacred Space of the Scottish Rite” was held from September 10 – 12 in Minnesota. This event was supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the University of Minnesota. Activities included a presentation at the Minneapolis Scottish Rite and even a trip up north to visit the Duluth Scottish Rite. The support for the “Theatre of the Fraternity” continued and by 1996, the touring museum exhibit “Theatre of the Fraternity: Staging the Ritual Space of Freemasonry, 1896-1929” opened at the Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota before crossing the country. The exhibit was conceived and curated by Prof. C. Lance Brockman. A catalog was published in conjunction with the exhibit, including contributions by Kenneth L. Ames, William D. Moore, Mary Ann Clawson, Mark C. Carnes, C. Lance Brockman and Lawrence J. Hill. A few more years went by and many of these Masonic Designs became available for the general public in an online database (https://umedia.lib.umn.edu/scenicsearch). This was the project that I helped with in both the design, selection and entering of metadata for each item.

In additional to archival work, I entered into the fray thru the back door of the Scottish Rite – the stage door – restoring deteriorating scenery and replicating historic compositions for various Scottish Rite theaters across the country. However, it was never simply about the art, restoration, or historical scene painting techniques. Working as an assistant to Prof. Brockman, provided me with the incentive to use the subject for my doctoral dissertation: “Scenic Shifts Upon the Scottish Rite Stage: Designing for Masonic Theatre, 1859-1929” (UMN 2009). All the while, membership in the Scottish Rite continued to decrease. Scottish Rite Valleys began closing their buildings and moving to alternative locations. If the new space did not permit the use of their old scenery, entire collections were abandoned or disposed of over the years. In some cases, photographs of Scottish Rite scenery taken by a handful of theatre professors and practitioners are the only thing that remain of these glorious collections. More will disappear in the decades to follow and I have to wonder which ones will survive.

My concern for this loss of this history is one of the reasons that I now daily publish digital images of Scottish Rite scenery to my public FB group Dry Pigment. I hope to raise awareness of this valuable resource for not only theatre practitioners, but also historians. It is also why I pushed so hard to include a degree portfolio, featuring the twenty-nine settings of the 1912 Santa Fe Scottish Rite stage in “The Santa Fe Scottish Rite Temple: Freemasonry, Architecture and Theatre” (Museum of New Mexico Press, 2018). Full-page color plates of Scottish Rite degree productions, complete with costumed actors and props, may be all that is left someday. Believe me, convincing a secret society to publically share images of their scenery for all the world to see is no small feat, especially when I was very familiar that this fight had been occurring since 1909.

However, I am not alone, as many Scottish Rite Valleys across the country are attempting other ways to increase membership and sharing their stage. Opening up their doors to the public is one option to increase revenue with rentals. Here is an article in South Dakota magazine that explains why declining membership is prompting some Masons to shed the mystery. This is quite an interesting article that reads a bit like an advertisement:

https://www.southdakotamagazine.com/masons-losing-the-mystery

To be continued…