Drypigment.net

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 327- The Frohman Brothers as Modern Theatrical Managers

Part 327: Modern Theatrical Managers

The Inter Ocean published an article on “Modern Theatrical Managers” (4 Aug. 1895, page 33). I am posting the article in its entirety, as it really gives wonderful insight into a shift that occurred in the American theatrical industry during the 1890s:

Illustration of Gustave Frohman from the New York Times (9 Aug 1908 page 37). Frohman took over the direction of the Schiller Theatre in 1895. Ira La Motte was the manager for the venue.

“The fact that the Schiller Theater, the newest house in Chicago, has again changed hands may give reason to pause and consider the drift of the day in theatrical management. There was a time not very remote when the manager of the theater was not a mere figurehead, or landlord, but an important factor in molding the drama as an artistic ideal. But this is the age in which money is playing a leading role, and the businessman is forging to the front in no uncertain fashion and dominating the destinies of the drama. The demands of a nervous and exhausting public idolizing the genius of change is primarily responsible for the new departure, which calls for business shrewdness rather than artistic acumen or studied experience in the old school, which led the manager to rely upon his own resources and his accurate knowledge of plays and stage-craft.

Theatrical management has simply developed on new lines to meet current conditions. The fact that there are perhaps not three managers in this city who understand the technic of the stage from “the vampire trap” to “grid-iron clamps,” from “ground rows” and “set raking pieces” to “cut borders, or can nominate the distinguishing features of the dramas from Moliere to Sundermann, does not argue any particular discredit, for he is engaged in speculative and not creative capacity. With one theater paying an annual ground rental of $25,000, another $35,000 (including heat), and the so-called “out-lying theaters” paying $10,000 to $15,000 per annum on long leases, the manager has other things to consider than technical details. The stock company that is his most solicitous care is one that erected the theater; in other words, his chief aim, according to the nature of the case, is to secure paying attractions, rather than to make artistic productions. With this end in view he becomes a spirited bidder in the market of amusement attractions, where the highest percentage knocks the choicest popular “persimmon.” Of course shrewdness and sagacity enter the competition, and this is why one of our younger managers has succeeded in sustaining the inherited prestige of his house in retaining attractions that have been claimed in the prospectus of new theaters as the basis for calculating prospective profits on stock.”

Why Chicago needs more new theaters is problematical in the practical sense, but it continues to be popular dissipation on paper. All managers will admit it is difficult to secure a clientele with the number now in the field. The multiplication of the so-called continuous theaters has a significance in the direction that appears to have passed comment. While their aim might appear to be merely to gratify transient trade, their stronghold is really the regular clientele. Their evident intent is to keep an even grade of entertainment, which is popular in the public eye. Many of our more pretentious theaters are apparently unable to do this owning to a lack of high-grade attractions. One week may see their stages occupied by the highest stars of the theatrical firmament, the next the most blatant display of farcical mediocrity, and there is no change in price indicative of the distinction as far as the theater is concerned. Of course there will some day be disastrous reaction in this drift in the clearing-house of popularity, and a fixed policy will necessarily prevail, all of which appears to indicate that Chicago must renew her prestige as a producing center is her theaters are to remain independent factors in the field of art.

New York claims five stock companies of the first rank. An insight into the workings of one of these organizations may be interesting in t his connection, and that of Augustin Daly may be cited as the first having “the traditions” and experiences of nearly thirty years incorporated in its warp. A New York exchange says: “He has a Broadway theater in a central location at a moderate rental. First of all, he must lay by for the landlord; then the insurance, whose rates are higher on theatrical than other property. These expenses provided for, the manager plunges into deep water. His productions are costly. On certain of his Shakesperean revivals, Mr. Daly has spent $10,000. It cost at least that amount to put on ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ and ‘The Merry Wives’ and Tennyson’s ‘The Foresters,” and almost as much to stage ‘As You Like It.’ Then the salary list. Mr. Daly does not pay high salaries. With the exception of Miss Rehan the organization contains no high-priced member. Yet the Daly company is composed of many actors, and the aggregate sum paid for their services is heavy. It is rather below than above the exact figures to state the Daly’s Theater must take into its treasury $3,000 every week throughout the year in order to meet expenses. That means summer as well as winter. The season ends in May, and this year it will begin in September, much earlier than usual. The doors are closed, the investment is absolutely non-productive for four months; yet the rent must be paid, the insurance and repairs kept up. During the summer season the Daly company goes on the road, and a considerable part of the profits of the tour is used to defray expenses of idle property in New York. Of course Chicago is paying its share of these expenses, and will continue to do so willingly so ling as Mr. Daly continues to sustain the standard he has established.

Now Mr. Daly avoids an item of large expense that many of his brother managers incur in the payment of royalties, for he produces his own plays or revives classical comedies, the rights of which are not restricted. He prefers direct art investment rather than the hazard of spectacular fortune, sustaining ethics of tradition. But it is not the payment of direct royalties that the manger loses, for, generally speaking, the more he gives the author the more he earns for himself. The questions of advance payments to the authors of repute constitutes quite a serious question with speculative management. For he may advance $5,000 or double that amount with absolutely no guarantee of its return. Some statistician has computed 30,000 plays are written in this country every years. We take this to be a very theatrical estimate; at any rate, out of a vast number “Trilby” has been the only great moneymaker this season. Mr. Palmer, who has spent thirty years of studying the managerial business, pays 10 per cent royalties on this profitable property and is glad of it. Daniel Frohman annually pays out a great deal on royalties, and Charles Frohman is the most dashing and daring manager in the business in advancing on unwritten plays or buying them outright.

To return briefly to the Schiller Theatre. This house was created for a distinct art purpose as the home of the German drama is concerned. This may be a matter of keen regret for the projectors, but the property may possibly be advantageously developed in another direction. Gustave Frohman, who comes into possession of the beautiful house, is a manger of experience, and his business alliance with his brothers, the largest factors in the productive field, may succeed in building up the falling fortunes of this theater and make it conspicuous in another sense than merely being topped by the highest tower of any other theater in America. The nature of existing contracts will necessarily not permit of any immediate new departure, but the Schiller Theater may in time come to fill the higher sphere of dramatic production for which it was erected. C.E.N.

Illustration of Gustave Frohman’s office published in the New York Times (9 Aug 1908 page 37).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar: Part 326 – Thomas G. Moses, Gustave Frohman, and the Schiller Theater

Part 326: Thomas G. Moses, Gustave Frohman, and the Schiller Theater

In 1895, Thomas G. Moses was the scenic artist for the Schiller Theater. He painted several productions for the German Opera House, and used the paint frames to create scenery for outside projects.

Photograph of the Schiller Theatre, ca. 1900. Notice the Masonic Temple in the distance with roof top garden. That venue also had scenery contracted by Sosman & Moses.

In 1895, Thomas G. Moses was the scenic artist for the Schiller Theater. He painted several productions for the German Opera House, and used the paint frames to create scenery for outside projects. In 1895, Thomas G. Moses was the scenic artist for the Schiller Theater. He painted several productions for the German Opera House, and used the paint frames to create scenery for outside projects.

The exterior of the German Opera House in the Schiller Building, referred to as the Schiller Theatre, had extensive decorative terra cotta work. This is an advertisement by the Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. depicting their work on the Schiller tower.

This was a common practice for many scenic artists at the time, as the theater where they worked became their studio. On March 24, the Chicago Tribune reported, “Thomas G. Moses, the scenic artist of the Schiller Theater, has recently finished a new drop curtain for the Schiller Theatre. In his judgment a subject embracing foliage and water is restful to the eye in the act intervals and a relief from the high colors and action of dramatic scenes, so he selected a forest scene upon the Bronx River, New York, with a rustic bridge in the foreground and a perspective showing the windings of the river stream. It will be placed in position tomorrow evening” (Chicago Tribune, 24 March 1895, page 36). The Inter Ocean added that the drop was “painted from a sketch taken on the Bronx River in New York. The locality is a lovely one and is a favorite sketching point for New York artists, and the scene represented has been made the subject of three drop curtains in the country” (23 March 1895, page 3). Rivers were his signature pieces and he would even write a poem called, “The Brook.”

The German Opera House that was first called the Schiller Theatre. It would later be renamed the Garrick Theatre as noted on the postcard.

Here is a brief description of the Schiller Theater to provide context as I continue to discuss his work there. It was in a 7-story building designed by Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler, of the firm Adler & Sullivan, for the German Opera Company. With a 1,400 seat house, it was originally funded by German investors, including Anton C. Hesting, a former “Illinois Staats-Zeitung” publisher. It was intended for German-language operas and social gatherings, but ceased emphasizing German cultural events after some of the original investors backed out. The second story arcade also boasted a series of terra cotta busts depicting prominent German figures.

Link to the Schiller Building drawings: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schiller_Building,_64_West_Randolph_Street,_Chicago,_Cook_County,_IL_HABS_ILL,16-CHIG,60-_(sheet_7_of_11).png

Link to the Schiller Building draftings: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schiller_Building,_64_West_Randolph_Street,_Chicago,_Cook_County,_IL_HABS_ILL,16-CHIG,60-_(sheet_7_of_11).png

The venue would later be known as the Dearborn Theater from 1898 to 1903, and finally the Garrick Theater. “Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide for 1885-1886” listed that the Schiller’s proscenium opening measured 28’-10” wide by 29’-8” high.

Page describing the Schiller Theatre in “Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide,” 1896.

Distance from the footlights to the back wall was 37’-7.” The measurement from the stage to the rigging loft was 76’-0” and there were nine bridges: the first was 15’-2” from the curtain line with the full length being 31’-9.” The depth under the stage was 16’-4.” There were 4 traps: two traps each 9’0” ft. on off center; one trap 6’-0” from the curtain line and a final trap 9’-0” ft. from the curtain line. The staff included G. E. Stephenson (electrician) and W. H. Bairstow (misspelled as “Bairston,”stage carpenter), Thomas G. Moses (scenic artist), Michael Coyne (prop man) and Ira La Motte (manager).

The only extant photograph of Gustave Frohman, taken by Raymond Patterson, Washington correspondent of the “Chicago Tribune.”

The Inter Ocean reported, “Gustave Frohman, through Ira J. La Motte, who will be resident manager of the Schiller Theatre after Aug 24, has expressed himself with respect to the policy which will govern that house in the future. The Schiller is to be made a purely dramatic house, playing the best combinations to be had, and probably at no very distant day supporting a stock company. It is Gustave Frohman’s intention, during the coming season, to make one or two productions by way of experiment, demonstrating at the same time his theory that actors should be engaged with respect to their personal fitness for certain parts, no less than in consideration of their reputation in a given line. The policy of the house will be opposed to Sunday night performances, and it is probable that the result will be a revival of the custom of presenting German plays by a local company on that night. During the six or seven months of his stay here last year, Gustave Frohman spent a large part of his time at the theaters and expresses great confidence in the future of the Schiller as a home of drama pure and simple” (15 August 1895, page 6).

Frohman and Moses were only two years apart in age and both entered the theatre business at the age of seventeen. Moses had a sibling who also found employment in the theatre – his sister, Illinois “Illlie” Moses. Frohman had two brothers who also led theatrical lives and formed the Frohman trio (Gustave, Charles and Daniel). In 1895 Gustave’s business alliance with his brothers was considered “the largest factors in the productive field” (Inter Ocean, 4 Aug. 1895, page 33).

All three rose to prominence in the industry as theatrical managers of numerous touring productions. Julius Cahn, of Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guides, was the Manager of the Charles Froman’s Booking Department at the Empire Theatre.

Advertisement for Charles Frohman’ Booking Department listing Julius Cahn as manager in the first issue of “Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide” 1896.

In the foreword to his theatrical guide, Cahn stated the “need of a complete and official Theatrical Guide that would give the managers of theaters throughout the country, the managers of traveling attractions and others closely interested in their affairs, a complete and exhaustive volume pertaining to the various braches of business, arranged in a concise and clear manner, so as to make it both valuable and available as a book reference” (Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide, 1896, page VII).

“Greeting” in first issue of “Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide” that notes the professional relationship between Julius Cahn and Charles Frohman.

Sadly, Charles was lost when the RMS Lusitania sank, but Daniel was still in working in the theatre at the time of Gustave’s death in 1930. Gustave retired from the profession in 1918.

The Frohmans are often credited with the originating the “road business” for complete theatre companies. Prior to this time, stock companies permanently resided in a city and supplemented hosted visiting theatrical stars. In other words, the “star” worked with local stock companies while touring from theater to theater. Managers discovered that taking an entire theatre company on tour was more economical that hiring a continuous line of costly “stars,” so the “star system” was gradually replaced with the “combination system.” Touring companies began their tour after spending the summer season in their home city. In 1895, Frohman had several touring productions that included “The Fatal Card,” “Mexico,” “The Wife,” “The New Boy,” “The New Dominion,” “Jane,” “The Lost Paradise,” “Sowing the Wind,” “The Girl I left Behind Me,” “The Colonel’s Wives,” and “The Witch.”

This was the secondary type of business venture entered into by Sosman & Landis with Hunt when they established their theatrical management firm Sosman, Landis & Hunt in the 1890s (see installment #304). The logistics were complex, but the endeavor could be very profitable.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 325 – Scenery for Edwin Milton Royle’s “Mexico”

Part 325: Scenery for Edwin Milton Royle’s “Mexico”

In 1895, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “We also did a fine production of ‘Mexico.” He painted the scenery on the frames of the Schiller Theatre and commented that a few years later it was re-named “Captain Impudence.”

Advertisement for “Captain Impudence,” 1897. The Times, (Philladelphia) 12 Sept 1897, page 14

Edwin Milton Royle in the production “Captain Impudence.” Fort Wayne News 9 Oct 1897, page 3

Edwin Milton Royle was both the playwright and the leading role for the production. Gustave Frohman inaugurated his management of the Schiller Theare presenting this new romantic drama (Inter Ocean, 1 September 1895, page 37). One review commented that “Mexico” was “a melodrama of the Walter Sanford School mounted like a London Lyceum production” (Chicago Tribune, 3 September 1895, page 12).

The production previewed in Cleveland, Ohio during August 1895. This provided time for the company to make the necessary changes to the staging and scenery before officially opening at the Schiller Theatre in Chicago. The Akron Beacon Journal reported “Thomas Moses, the famous scene painter of the Schiller Theater, Chicago, is working a large force of assistants day and night in order to deliver the scenery on time” (28 February 1895, page 4). Cleveland newspapers praised Moses’ settings for the production, reporting “Special and very beautiful scenery by Thomas G. Moses, of Chicago, was painted for the production” The scenes of the play were all set in Mexico, at Montery, Buena Vista, Saltillo, and Chapultepec, during the Mexican-American War (The Pittsburgh Press, 27 August 1895, page 5).

Illustration of a scene from “Mexico” published in the Chicago Tribune (1 Sept 1895, page 36).

The plot took place during the occupation by the American army from 1846-1848. It featured Royale and his wife Selena Fetter Royle in a convoluted loved story between Captain Willard Shield and Jovita Talamanca. The dramatic intrigue was accentuated with spectacular scenic effects in exciting war scenes. In almost every review, however, the scenery was highlighted as an incentive to see the production. The Chicago Tribune’s review reported, “The scenery is the best part of the production at present. The first act is laid in the plaza at Montery, just before daybreak; the second and third in the courtyard of the Mission Dolores – a really beautiful scene; and the last in the Mexican fortifications at Chapultepec. Thomas G. Moses deserves credit for this very excellent work.”

Moses’ scenic art was praised for he beautiful compositions and historical accuracy. The St. Paul Globe reported, “Thomas G. Moses, the Chicago artist, prepared the scenery for the production, and his models were drawn from special photographs and sketches secured in the City of Mexico and forwarded to him by Hon. Thomas T. Crittenden, consul general of the United States, who is a personal friend of Mr. Royle, and who took great interest in the production of his play. The valley of Mexico is said by travelers to be one of the most beautiful in the world, and with its vista of towering mountain peaks, naturally forms a rare setting for a story of love and war” (St. Paul Globe, 29 Sept. 1895, page 4).

Painting by Carl Nebel “Battle of Buena”

After Chicago, the production toured to the Metropolitan Opera House in St. Paul, Minnesota. The St. Paul Daily Globe commended Royle “for selecting such a fertile field and prolific period for his story…The period of the Mexican war is just far enough removed to obliterate all prejudices, while its deeds of bravery and brilliancy still illuminate the records of our martial achievements.” (St. Paul Daily Globe, 29 Sept. 1895, page 8). Royle played the hero, an American officer who falls in love with the heroine, a Mexican girl who has been detained as a prisoner within the American lines. Bannerman’s Military Museum in New York furnished a numberous artifacts from the Mexican-American War for use on the stage, such as swords, pistols and battle flags. That meant they were using real guns.

The St. Paul Globe article reported “The scenery for the production is especially magnificent, and was painted by Thomas G. Moses, the well-known Chicago artist, from accurate sketches taken in Mexico for the purpose. There is a storm scene in the play, introducing some startling and novel effects that arouse the enthusiasm of the audience” (2 September 1895, page 4).

By 1897, “Metropolitan Magazine” would comment on the name change, “Edwin Milton Royle’s play, formerly known under the title “Mexico,” but rechristened “Captain Impudence,” has been produced in New York with good results, at the American Theatre. The scene is laid in ‘Mexico’ and the incidents are military as well as highly dramatic” (March 1897, Vol. V, No. 2, page 170).

As I was looking for images from the production, I stumbled across another pyro-spectacle produced by Pain – The Mexican War’s “Siege of Vera Cruz” on Manhattan Beach. How appropriate to follow yesterday’s post. It really was all about the visual spectacle!

Poster for the “Siege of Vera Cruz” by the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company for Manhattan Beach.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 324 – “The Storming of Vicksburg” Spectacle in the Jackson Park Amphitheater

Part 324: “Pain’s Storming of Vicksburg” Pyro-Spectacle and the Jackson Park Amphitheater

In 1895 Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The year opened good. So much so that I was obliged to get more room so I rented the old “Waverly” and put new frames back where the old ones were. They had all been torn out when Sosman & Landis gave up the lease, as it was only month to month, and that was the best I could get, as the building was owned by a Cincinnati man, and it was in the courts and had been for several years.” Moses was already using the paint frames at the Schiller theatre, so this was his second painting space. The Waverly space was the same one that Sosman & Landis rented for Moses and his crew in 1892 for all of their subcontracted work. It measured 93 feet wide by 210 feet long and 40 feet high with four paint frames and plenty of floor space (for more information about the Waverly, see installment #244).

Moses’ recorded that the first project in the Waverly studio was scenery for an outdoor show called the “Siege of Vicksburg.” He wrote, “it proved to be an artistic success only.” I believe that the show Moses referred to was actually Pain’s “Storming of Vicksburg” that was performed in the amphitheater at Jackson Park.

Advertisement for Pain’s Storming of Vicksburg in Jackson Park, from the Chicago Tribune (23 June 1895, page 36). Thomas G. Moses created scenery for this production.

The Inter Ocean reported that the “Grand Historical Spectacle Arranged by Pain,” was selected to mark the Pain’s return to Chicago (Inter Ocean 23 June 1895, page 9). His company was the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company of London and New York.

A photograph of another production created by the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company – Last Days of Pompeii. Published in the Street Railway Journal (May 1896, page 317).

A photograph of another production created by the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company – Carnival of Venice. Published in the Street Railway Journal (May 1896, page 317).

The Jackson Park amphitheater was massive and sat 12,000 people; reserved chairs were seventy-five cents and box seats a dollar for the “Storming of Vicksburg.” 100 arc lights illuminated the space every evening for the show that started at 8PM. Advertisements promised “Gigantic, thrilling, and beautifully pyro-spectacular military production.” The show was listed in the Chicago Tribune as a “Grand Revival of the Glorious World’s Fair Midsummer Night Fete” and included “600 people on the monster stage” with “12 acres of massive scenery” (23 June 1895, page 36). Other newspapers reported that 800 people were involved in the production.

Advertisement from the Chicago Tribune (23 June 1895, page 36). Thomas G. Moses recorded that he painted the scenery for this production.

The spectacle depicted the siege and final surrender of the Southern stronghold on the Mississippi. It opened with “a presentation of Southern life in slavery days” that included the performance of songs and dances by a “colored chorus of 100 jubilee singers” (Inter Ocean, 23 June 1895, page 9). After this musical opening, the battle began along the banks of a constructed river, measuring 350 feet long and 100 feet wide. A gun was fired, followed by the capture and execution of a Union spy. Then there is the arrival of war vessel, that include Farragut’s gunboats, Porter’s fleet of mortars, and the rebel ram “Arkansas.” Grant’s land forces enter the scene and the batteries open up for fire. After twenty minutes of intense battle, Vicksburg bursts into flames and Pemberton surrenders.

At the close of every performance, there was a display of fireworks. This was common a common finale by every spectacle created by Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company. Newspapers reported that $1,000 was spent on the fireworks display nightly.

On July 4, 1895, an Inter Ocean article provided a little more information about the fireworks display, commenting that the day marked the thirty-second anniversary of the fall of Vicksburg (page 6).

Below is a section of the article that described the fireworks display in great detail. I was astounded at the numerous descriptions and names.

“The pyrotechnical programme arranged for this performance will rival many of the grand displays seen by Chicagoans at the World’s Fair, some of the features of which are as follows: Salute of maroon or aerial cannons, fired from iron mortars and exploding at a great altitude with a tremendous report. Magical prismatic illumination with lights of intense brilliancy, which change color repeatedly and finally blend with pleasing effect. Flight of monster balloons, carrying the most powerful magnesium lights and tri-colored fires, discharging, when at a great height, batteries of Roman candles, showers of golden rain, and superb jewel showers. Sunflower wheel, thirty feet in circumference. Flight of rayonet tourbillions, revolving oriental wheels. Flight of large shells, forming jeweled clouds, studded with gems of every hue. Celestial stars – rayonet fires marooned. The aerial acre of variegated gems. Nests of writhing silver snakes. Flight of twenty-three-ball concrete rockets, exhibiting the rarest tints, peacock plumes, silver streamers, triple parachutes, etc., etc. Twin fiery dragons, flying to and fro and performing most amusing evolutions. Salvos of gigantic bombs, forming a golden cloud, studded with jewels. Great silver fire wheels, with intersecting centers, forming a chromothrope. Display of mammoth shells, twenty-four inches in circumference, displaying at an immense altitude showers of rubies, sapphires, laburnum blossoms. Flight of rockets with peacock plumes. Aladdin’s jeweled tree, with blossoms of every hue, terminating in a fairy fountain. Swarms of wild snakes. Fireworks portrait of George Washington. Flight of infant parachutes. The monkey gymnast, an amusing piece of pyrotechnic mechanism. Aerial bouquet, produced by the flight of asteroid rockets. Salvo of aerial saucissions, filling a space in the air with wonderfully brilliant fires of grotesque form. The Kalediescope, with intersecting centers, cutting a silver spray with colored fires, the whole concluding with a revolving sun, 150 feet in circumference. Discharge of monster aerial wagglers. Parisian novelties – rockets with silver threads. Salvo of thirty-inch bombs – prismatic torrent and silver clouds. Groves of jeweled palms. Finale, grand flight of 1,000 larger colored rockets fired simultaneously, producing a grand and magnificent aerial bouquet.”

For the July 4, 1895, performance, the Jackson Park amphitheater was packed with 12,000 people. An additional 5,000 people were turned away from the packed venue. Wow! I could not get over the fireworks descriptions and marveled at the complexity of the pyrotechnics program. Who could afford to fund this endeavor?

“The Storming of Vicksburg” was produced by the Coliseum Gardens Amusement Company, in conjunction with the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company, or London and New York. The local company was composed of the principal stockholders in the Chicago Exhibition Company, which built the big coliseum on the old Buffalo Bill “Wild West” lot on Sixty-Third Street. Past productions by Pain included “Last Days of Pompeii,” “A Night in Pekin,” “The Siege of Sebastopol,” “Capture of Vera Cruz,” “Carnival of Venice,” “Paris from Empire to Republic,” and “Japan and China.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 323: Thomas G. Moses and “Little Robinson Crusoe” at the Schiller Theatre

Part 323: Thomas G. Moses and “Little Robinson Crusoe” at the Schiller Theatre

Illustration in the Chicago Tribune (9 June 1895, page 38)

In April of 1895 Thomas G. Moses designed and painted scenery for “Little Robinson Crusoe” at the Schiller Theatre in Chicago. The musical burlesque was for Thomas W. Prior and intended as their summer attraction. Moses wrote, “We had a great opportunity and I am pleased that we took advantage of it… We introduced some very good effects.” The “we” was Moses and Walter Burridge. The Indianapolis Journal reported “The scenic environment of the play is all from the brushes of two natives of the United States, and well-known scenic artists, Thomas G. Moses and Walter Burridge” (1 Sept. 1895, page 10).

Advertisement for “Little Robinson Crusoe,” Chicago Tribune, 23 June 1895, page 36.

A review of the production was published in the “Amusements” section of the “Inter Ocean” (2 June 1895, page 37). It noted that Prior had obtained the libretto from Harry B. Smith, a Chicago writer.

Harry B. Smith with his son Sidney in 1892. Smith would later write the book and lyrics for “Little Nemo” in 1909.

For the show, W. H. Batchelor wrote much of the music. The review noted that he had “furnished some clever compositions for local productions during the past few years.” Gustave Luders, the musical director at the Schiller, was also contributed a musical piece – the “cannibal chorus, with accompaniment of native instruments.” Costumes for the production were designed “Mr. Denslow,” who was reported to be a “newspaper artist.” The review also included a detailed description of the scenery and that it had been “painted upon the frame of the Schiller by Thomas Moses, the artist of the house.” Moses had left Sosman & Landis and was striking out on his own again, with much success.

Review of “Little Robinson Crusoe” with scenery by Thomas G. Moses. From the Chicago “Inter Ocean” (2 June 1895, page 37).

Here is a portion of the Inter Ocean review, as I found it absolutely fascinating:

“The action of “Little Robinson Crusoe” arises in the English seaport town of Hull, arranged very much up to date, the scene including a fashionable summer hotel, a view of the beach and ocean, and groups of summer boarders about, among them girls in fancy costumes, a la ‘Daily Hints from Paris;” dudes in white flannel suits, and the girls, of course, in stunning gowns, splendidly and beautifully arrayed. An odd idea of Smith’s has been to introduce in this ultra-fashionable scene, in the full beauty of a glorious summer day, a pawnbroker’s shop and auction-room, kept by one Hockstein, over whose door is painted “Philanthropist,” with the sign of the three golden balls. Precisely why Hockstein’s pawn shop should be so close to the fashionable summer boarding house is explained in the story by the suggestion that the mammas, the girls, and the dudes are all so likely to get flat broke, and they need Hockstein’s kindly services not only to pay their board bills to the landlady of the Anti-Fat Hotel, but to get home again.

The second act opens on the deck of a modern war vessel of the first-class battleship, with its polished cannon and general nautical equipment. This action of the third act is laid in Robinson Island, with its strong contrast to the fashionable dresses of the summer watering place of today, created by native costumes, tropical foliage, etc. The piece concludes with an elaborate and entirely original transformation scene, designed by Thomas G. Moses, the artist of the house, and his assistants, which represents a vision under the sea in transition effects, from the bed of the ocean up through the homes of the funny tribes, culminating in a brilliant and opalescent picture of beauty.”

The article also reported “the scenic features which will be made specially attractive, are the sea beach scene in the first act, the deck of the ship ‘Adventure.’ With tableau of the wreck, Robinson’s home in the Valley of Palms upon the South Sea Island, a rocky coast and the raft scene, and the Grand transformation, a vision ‘neath the ocean..” The Chicago Tribune reported that Manager Thomas W. Prior “has given Thomas G. Moses carte blanch for the scenery” (9 June 1895, page 38)

Moses recalled that Eddie Foy, Marie Dressler, and Adele Farrington were in the cast. Foy played Dare-Devil William, an amateur pirate. Marie Dressler played Ophelia Crusoe, Robinson’s aunt who had romantic admiration for pirates. Adele Farrington played Robinson Crusoe, Captain of the H. M. Marines. One thing that I have noticed over the years is that Moses typically did not include the names of many performers, and I was surprised to see the names of three actors attached to one production. I was curious to learn about Foy, Dressler and Farrington, the three who warranted comment in Moses’ typed manuscript.

Eddie Foy pictured in “Little Robinson Crusoe,” Chicago Tribune, 23 June 1895, page 36.

Eddie Foy was born Edwin Fitzgerald in New York City in 1856. Foy’s father joined the Union Army in 1862, where he soon died of syphilis. By 1863 his mother moved their family to Chicago where Foy found work as both a newsboy and bootblack to help support the family. The Foy home was destroyed during the great fire of 1871 and Eddie sought work as an entertainer, working with a variety of partners and touring the country. In addition to acting, Foy incorporated singing, dancing, clogging, blackface, acrobatics, and impressions into his acts. By the 1890s, Foy starred in a series of large-scale musical spectacles for the Chicago-based producer David Henderson based on popular tales, such as Bluebeard Jr. (1889), Sinbad,(1891), and Ali Baba (1892). The 1896 show Little Robinson Crusoe. It was in Little Robinson Crusoe where he paired with Marie Dressler.

Marie Dressler pictured in “Little Robinson Crusoe,” Chicago Tribune, 23 June 1895, page 36.

Marie Dressler. Actress, opera singer and author of autobiography, “Confessions of an Ugly Duckling”

Dressler was born Leile Koerber in Cobourg, Canada in 1869. When she was 14, she joined a traveling stock company, bringing along her sister to not only function as her chaperone, but also play a few small roles. She later joined the chorus of an opera company. In an unbelievable turn of events, she ended up playing the role of Katisha in “The Mikado” after the lead actress sprained her ankle and the understudy was unprepared. Her success led to a series of other roles, and soon she was supporting her family with the proceeds from her career. Interestingly, the title of Dressler’s autobiography is Confessions of an Ugly Duckling. Despite her success as a singer and actress, she gravitated toward character roles for comedy.

Adele Farrington depicted in “Little Robinson Crusoe.” Chicago Tribune, 16 June 1895, page 36

Adele Farrington (1867-1936) was born in Brooklyn and started her career in musical comedy, touring the vaudeville circuit with Dressler. Later she was featured in stock companies. At the age of 47, she became a film actress and appeared in seventy-four films between 1914 and 1926. Her husband was Hobart Bosworth, actor and film director. Unfortunately, the marriage didn’t last as he left her for a younger woman and started a family in 1920.

Moses also wrote about one scene in the production, “Our big storm at sea was so realistic the audience was terrified and after the first show we had to modify it.” Two months later, the “Inter Ocean” confirmed this change in an article from the Amusements section. It reported, “The ship-sinking scene, in which Eddie Foy (Daredevil Willie) and Marie Dressler (Ophelia Crusoe), both clinging to the highest bulwarks of the old-fashioned three-decker ship, the Adventure, are submerged beneath the waves. This is quite a vivid stage picture, and so admirably executed that it really partakes of the sensational and surprises the audience” (4 Aug. 1895, page 33).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 322 – Charles E. Porter, African-American Scenic Artist

Part 322: Charles E. Porter, African-American Scenic Artist

Before I was distracted by Daguerre’s chemical paintings, I was getting ready to complete my section on African-American scenic artists when another was brought to my attention. Gene Meier contacted me when I first mentioned Solomon E. White about an African-American panorama painter – C. E. Porter.

Charles E. Porter (1847-1923) worked on the cyclorama Niagara Falls for the Columbian Exposition. Meier shared information from a newspaper article, April 9, 1892 – the Freeman (Indianapolis, Indiana). It reported that C. E. Porter, an artist if Meridian, Conn., was working on the cyclorama of Niagara Falls that would be presented at the World’s Fair. Porter was also noted as the first “colored man” admitted to the Art Academy of New York and had studied two years in Paris. That was all he knew about C. E. Porter, so I decided to do a little digging.

First page Article in the Hartford Courant, “Charles E. Porter Paintings to be Auctioned” 9 Sept. 2012, page G1.

Second part of the article in the Hartford Courant, “Charles E. Porter Paintings to be Auctioned” 9 Sept. 2012, page G2.

Midway into my search, I encountered an article in the Hartford Courant, “Charles E. Porter Paintings to be Auctioned” (9 Sept. 2012, page G1-G2). It was an ideal story for “Antiques Roadshow”; a woman is urged by her mother to purchase some paintings at an estate sale by an unknown artist who turns out to be remarkable. Thirty years later, the paintings are positively identified as the work of C. E. Porter. Luckily for me, his life was briefly summarized to generate interest in the upcoming auction. Someone had really done their research, and the story helped me locate additional information. This article also reported that Porter was one of the first African-American artists to exhibit at the National Academy of Design.

Charles E. Porter, “Landscape with Grain Stacks.”

Here is what I discovered about C. E. Porter:

Porter was born in Hartford, Connecticut, and raised in the Rockville section of Vernon. The family was well connected to the New England abolitionist community, but exceedingly poor. Before reaching adulthood, he lost eight siblings due to childhood illnesses and war. Eight, I cannot imagine. Porter’s artistic talent was recognized by the local community at a young age, and he soon established a studio in Hartford. Porter gained the respect and admiration of many other, and much more well known, artists who lent their support over the years. One of his sponsors was Frederic Edwin Church. I was intrigued as Church has always been one of my personal favorite landscape artists. Then a second famous personality popped up in the story!

Mark Twain wrote a letter of recommendation for Porter to continue his studies at the Académie Julian in Paris. Wow. After studying abroad, Porter returned to the Hartford area where he established his residence at 23 Spruce St in Rockville. Near the top of Fox Hill, he had a studio at the summit.

As many artists, his fortunes slipped later in life and he ended up selling his paintings door-to-door in the town of Vernon. As many Vernon residents were hesitant to buy art from a minority, his friend Gustave A. Hoffman, a Bavarian artist, helped Porter sell his work. Hoffman (1869-1945) was a portrait painter, etcher, and lecturer. Born in Cottbus, Brandenburg, Germany, he studied at the Royal Academy in Munich before moving to America.

Sadly, Porter’s artwork was not always purchased, and on some occasions, he was forced to barter his artwork for food or clothes. Some historians have purported that when the community tired of trading goods for paintings, Porter was reduced to menial labor and had to cease painting for periods of time. Hildegard Cummings in “Charles Ethan Porter: African American Master of Still Life” (2007 exhibition at the New Britain Museum of American Art) wrote that “[Porter] was referred to as respectfully as Professor Porter and a disparagingly as Charles the Nigger.”

His tail continues as so many artists who never see fame in their lifetime. He sadly and slowly sank into obscurity until his death in 1923. Gradually losing his faculties, Porter continued to paint throughout his final years. I immediately got that mixed feeling of anger and helplessness. It never fails; extremely talented artists die penniless, only to have patrons crawl out of the woodwork and sell their art for exorbitant prices when they no longer need any care or financial support. Porter’s paintings now sell for the thousands and are included in collections at the Whitney in New York and the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. In Connecticut, his work is part of the collections at the Wadsworth Museum of Art in Hartford, Florence Griswold Museum in Old Lyme, Lyman Allyn in New London, Connecticut Historical Society and the New Britain Museum of American Art.

Well, there is more to the story that came to light as I scanned newspaper databases. The Hartford Courant reported, “D. W. Tryon, the artist, has been sketching in the neighborhood of Rocky Hill for a couple of weeks, and C. E. Porter has been working with him.” (1 Aug 1881, page 2).

Article in the Hartford Courant about D. W. Tryon and C. E. Porter (1 Aug 1881, page 2).

This was Dwight W. Tryon (1849-1925) who was born in Hartford and raised on his grandparent’s farm in East Hartford. Tryon first sold his art in 1870, exhibiting at the National Academy of Design by 1873. Quick rise to fame, but he was also a white male. In 1876, Tryon auctioned all of his paintings to partially fund a trip to France with his wife where he enrolled at the atelier of Jacquesson de la Chevreuse and took classes at the École des Beaux-Arts. In addition to painting, Tryon was an art instructor at Smith College from 1886-1923. His personal papers are currently held at the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in Washington, D.C. Charles Land Freer, founder of the Freer Art Gallery. Freer was a primary patron of Tryon.

In 1881 Porter prepared for his trip abroad and also auctioned off all of his studio collection (Hartford Courant, 25 April 1881, page 2). The article titled “Porter’s Paintings” reported, “The pictures, nearly one hundred in number, were painted with the strictest regard to artistic worth, from time to time during the past two or three years, and it is to satisfy a desire to acquire a finishing touch to his art education in Europe that Mr. Porter has decided to put them on sale at auction. The collection is quite varied in subjects and incudes some of his best efforts at fruit, flower, game, fish, interior and landscape painting. All the pictures have been elegantly framed by D. Vorce & Co. The sale will be held at the large studio in the Chesney building…”

Upon his return two years later, there was an art exhibition in Hartford of watercolors and oil paintings. The exhibition included not only Porter but also some very successful artists from the region (Hartford Courant, 16 Nov. 1883, page 2). The hope of this exhibit was to revive the Connecticut School of Design. I quickly scanned the names and found both Charles E. Porter and Dwight W. Tryon. Then I encountered a surprise – Mrs. Porter. It appears as though his wife was an artist too. I was unsuccessful with tracking down any of Mrs. C. E. Porter’s story or artwork. I finally managed to locate her married name in 1903 beyond a simple “Mrs.”

On January 13, 1903, the Pittsburgh Press posted the legal notification of the divorce between Charles E. Porter and Sallie G. Porter (page 15). I had to wonder if that was the beginning to his end.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 321: M.M. Maffey and the Spectacle du Petit Lazari

Part 321: M.M. Maffey and the Spectacle du Petit Lazari

I just had to dig a bit deeper about the first show with Daguerre’s paintings as I was really curious about M. M. Maffey. Why had Daguerre selected Maffey to market his dioramas in America? What skills did he bring to the table? How was Maffey an asset? After a bit of digging through French publications from the 1820s, I believe that it was his puppetry skills – the movement that occurred behind the translucent sections of the paintings, as they were backlit. They incorporated a type of shadow puppetry. I believe that the backlit figures were painted paper puppets where you could see the detail clearly in translucent sections. I had encountered similar transparencies used by Volland & Toomey for their Scottish Rite scenes. For example, Jesus was painted on paper and lightly glued to the back of a translucent sky section.

View of backside of Scottish Rite drop in Quincy, Illinois, with the front light bleeding through to the backside.

It’s just that some of the figures moved. In short, Maffey assisted backstage during the show, while Lonati worked the front lights. Plus, Lonati, would be in the house during the performance. Maffey was the perfect person to have on board and backstage.

You see, there was an “M. M. Maffey” associated with Spectacle du Petit Lazari in Paris on boulevard du Temple during the 1820s. In 1823, Journal De Paris et des Départmens Politique, Commercial et Littéraire published numerous shows at Spectacle du Petit Lazari de M. M. Maffey, every day from six to nine (Tous les jours, depuis six heures jusqu’a neuf).

Mention of M. M. Maffey and his connection with Theater de Petit Lazuri during the 1820s.

The following information was published in Journal De Paris et des Départmens Politique, Commercial et Littéraire – (three issues: 8 septembre, 13 septembre, et 24 octobre 1823):

1. Werewolf (Loup garou)

2. A Point of View of Naples (un point de Vue de Naples)

3. Harlequin King in the Moon (Arlequin roi dans la Lune)

4. A Point of View of Mexico (un point de vue de Mexico)

5. Pulcinella Vampire, or the Sybille de Balzora, parody (Polichiuelle Vampire, ou la Sybille de Balzora, parodie)

As I continued my search for Maffy, I stumbled across a wonderful book – John McCormick’s “Popular Theatres of Nineteenth-century France” (1993, page 42-43). Here is the paragraph in its entirety as it gives a little more context. McCormick wrote, “There is an interesting document of 1837 in the Archives Nationales from the Brothers Maffey, requesting permission to open ‘Gymnase maritime et pittoresque’ (presumably some form of panorama specializing in sea-scapes – the term Gymnase implies a vaguely educative function. In it Maffey mentions traveling in France and abroad, and then returning to Paris in 1820 and setting up in a little theatre on the boulevard du Temple, which they called the Petit Lazari. The document says: “the genre which we have been exploiting from father to son for fifty years is simply a fantoccini show [i.e.string marionettes] and mechanical views after the fashion of Citizen Pierre [proprietor of a famous ‘spectacle mécanique’ on the boulevard. They also described themselves, currently, as “artistes mécaniciens’, a common term to cover many sorts of showmen, including puppeteers. Other references to the Maffeys are few.”

McCormick writes that Maffey claimed to have a license in 1822 for their performances at the Petit Lazari, and by 1824, the performances at their Spectacle du Petit Lazari moved beyond puppet shows and into Acrobates and Funambules. So, the 1823 shows were likely titles for puppet shows. After a brief closure, McCormick noted that in 1825, the venue reopened as a puppet theatre and then disappeared from the “Almanach des Spectacles” until 1830 when it established a troupe of live actors playing parodies, farces and melodramas.

So Maffey, as a puppeteer, would have been a great asset to both the manufacture and tour of “Daguerre’s Dioramas” as they were backlit to reveal the second scene with movement. Maffey’s presence behind the scene would suggest the movement with opaque figures, or flat puppets. We know that applying a translucent section of a backdrop will reveal either painted images, or pasted prints/paintings. Backlighting the scene reveals the hidden subject on the backside. The same principle would be applied to flat printed, or painted, puppet that moved across a translucent section. This would explain the movement of high priests in the Temple of Solomon, or floating gondolas in the Venice compositions previously mentioned.

I thought back to my MA thesis that explored the Japanese Influence on French Symbolist Theatre. Twenty-five years ago, I was examining the work of the Nabis toward the end of the twentieth century, the Chat Noir Theatre, and some theatrical productions of shadow puppetry that appeared incredibly innovative for the time. However, the idea of shadow puppets in the nineteenth century was nothing new.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 320 – King Solomon’s Temple

Part 320: King Solomon’s Temple

First generation of Scottish Rite scenery for Cincinnati by E. T. Harvey in 1882. He painted the scenes at Heuck’s Opera House.

In New Orleans during 1842, there was an advertisement for Daguerre’s “Chemical Pictures…representing the wonderful effects of Day and Night – (Oil Painting) – and which, by modifying the light upon the picture, exhibits two entirely distinct representations upon the same canvas” (The Times-Picayune, 20 Dec. 1842, page 3). By this time there were four scenes touring with the exhibitions:

1. The Sicilian Vespers, or Palermo in 1292! – A Graphic Episode

2. The “charming” Valley of Goldau, in Switzerland

3. The “admired and unrivalled” Interior of the Church St. Etienne du Mont, at Paris representing a Midnight Mass

4. The “magnificent view” of the City of Venice on a Festival Night.

A few things are happening at the same time as M.M. Maffey & Lonati’s show of chemical paintings reaches New Orleans. First and foremost – their show is imitated and there are now two sets of exhibitions with competing proprietors. In the same 1842 New Orleans newspaper, there was another advertisement for a similar exhibition just below Daguerre’s Chemical Pictures. The competition advertised, “the beautiful and magnificent paintings copied from those of the celebrated Daguerre, whose illustrative, wonderful and magic powers have been subject of great admiration through all Europe.” There were extremely detailed descriptions of transformation scenes in the Times-Picayune (20 Dec. 1842, page 3) depicting:

1. The Inauguration of Solomon’s Temple

2. The Falling Down in the Valley of Goldau (Switzerland)

3. The Interior of St. Stephen’s Church

By 1843, the competitors added a fourth painting – “The Interior of the Monastery of Mount Serrat, in Catalonia” (The Times-Picayune 15 Jan 1843, page 3).

Scottish Rite backdrop depicting the interior of King Solomon’s Temple – the Holy of Holies, ca. 1902. By Toomey and Volland Studio.

Golden gates leading to sacred artifacts in the Holy or Holies, or Sanctum Sanctorum, in King Solomon’s Temple. Toomey & Volland backdrop for the Quincy Scottish Rite from the early twentieth century.

Scenic design by Don Carlos DuBois (Great Western Stage Equipment Co. employee) for the Scottish Rite.

I kept returning to the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple – what an appropriate introduction for New Orleans considering its Masonic lineage. It is important to remember that the construction of King Solomon’s Temple and the assassination of its chief architect Hiram, play a prominent role in the degree work in Freemasonry. This historical tale was reenacted and expanded with additional events surrounding King Solomon’s Temple on nineteenth-century Masonic stages.

Holy of Holies design for the Scottish Rite in Joplin, Missouri (1902) by Toomey & Volland. This backdrop is now part of the Deadwood Scottish Rite collection.

Keep in mind that membership in Freemasonry and other organizations perceived as “secret societies” greatly diminished after a period of anti-Masonic sentiment, commencing in the 1820s. The decline of membership and change in societal attitudes is often attributed to an event called the Morgan Affair. To very briefly explain this event, Morgan is abducted after planning to publish Masonic secrets. His disappearance and presumed death were attributed to the Freemasons. Not all areas of the country suffer a devastating membership loss. Some regions only were subject to a minor decline in membership. There are some Masonic lodges that remained open during this period as others are forced to close their doors. Eventually, the Fraternity began to resurge by the end of the 1840s.

The Times-Picayune (New Orleans) advertised the Inauguration of the King Solomon scene as one of four “Grand Diorama!” (December 29, 1842, page 3).

The Times-Picayune (New Orleans) advertised the King Solomon scene as one of four “Grand Diorama!” (December 29, 1842, page 3). “An Exhibition as yet never known in this city – This day, will be exhibited the beautiful and magnificent paintings, copied from those of the celebrated Daguerre, whose illusive, wonderful and magic powers have been subject to great admiration through all Europe.” The first painting in the set described in the advertisement was “The Inauguration of Solomon’s Temple.” Here is the description:

“This painting represents the magnificent Temple of Solomon, son of David, which he caused to be erected in Jerusalem. Seen in the daytime, it exhibits to the spectacular the richness and elegance of its exterior architecture.

The same Painting soon after passes through all the modifications of light: then night comes on, (effects obtained by the decomposition of light, a new process of painting invented by Daguerre,) the Temple appears illuminated interiorly by degrees, reflecting a bright light exteriorly, which discovers a great multitude of people flocking to adore the Ark of the Covenant, which the High Priest has deposited in the Tabernacle.”

From December 1842 until March of 1843, there were twenty-seven advertisements for King Solomon’s Temple. If I were a Mason and witnessed the aforementioned scenic effects at the end of a room, I might envision the possibilities during degree work. Especially if the an exterior view of King Solomon’s Temple transformed into the interior and then revealed the Ark of the Covenant, I would want to share this vision with my fellow Masons. This was a group, after all, that was already familiar with lighting effects that revealed hidden symbols and objects painted on fabric and backlit, as described for the Rite of Perfection (the basis of the Scottish Rite that originated in France).

To be continued…

Another interior view of King Solomon’s Temple for the 6th and 9th degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. This is scenery from Sosman & Landis studios for McAlester, Oklahoma. This used scenery collection was purchased by the Santa Fe Scottish Rite in 1908 to practice with while their new building was undergoing construction.

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 319 – M.M. Maffey & Lonati’s Show

Part 319: M.M. Maffey & Lonati’s Show

Robert Winter Jr. advertised that “Daguerre’s Grand Chemical Secret” was discovered and imitated in his own show of “Chemical Paintings” during 1843. In Cincinnati, Winter claimed that his exhibition not only imitated Daguerre’s originals, but also surpassed them. His backdrops were substantially bigger than their French counterparts, measuring 200 feet square each. I could envision a backdrop measuring approximately 10’-12’ in height by 16’-20’ in width– a good size for the end of a Concert Hall.

Winter’s advertisement also responded to M. M. Maffey’s proclamation that no one in American could imitate his exhibition of Daguerre’s magical paintings. Well, that certainly was drawing a line in the sand and challenging many American artist’s abilities. In general, I was curious about Maffey and Lonati’s management of Daguerre’s paintings, the tour of the show, and any technical information that might be gleamed from newspaper advertisements between 1840 and 1843. So I started to look for additional findings in newspapers and journals from the period.

Maffey and Lonati’s exhibition of Daguerre’s paintings first appeared in New York during 1840. It stayed in the city from October through December. From New York it went to Philadelphia where the proprietors explained that their compositions were true “dioramas.” On January 22, 1841, an advertisement appeared in the National Gazette for the exhibition of “Daguerre’s Dioramas from Paris” (page 3). The newspaper reported, “Among the many Exhibitions which have been seen in the United States up to the present time, several have taken the name Dioramas without being entitled to it. M. M. Maffey and Lonati respectfully inform the Ladies and Gentlemen of this city, that they have just arrived from Paris and New York with a Real Diorama, in every sense of the word, painted by Mons. Daguerre.” Their show included two tableaux depicting “the magnificent view of Venice, or a Festival Night,” and “the admired and unrivalled interior of the Church St. Etienne du Mont, at Paris, representing Midnight Mass!!” The exhibition was open from 11-2 and 5-9 daily. So this meant that they had multiple showings daily. It was obvioulsy a reversible effect with light that could be shown multiple times over the course of a day in specified time slots.

A possible validation of this appeared in the “Boston Weekly Magazine” further describing Maffey and Lonati’s exhibition (Vol. III, 1840-1841, page 263). An article reported “The reflection and refraction of light producing the most surprising effects in the picture, totally changing the scene.” Here is how I interpret this statement: The “reflection of light” on the surface means that front light is used on the painted scene – front light and there may also be some metallic areas or sections with “Dutch Metal” applied, such as in the water to create glistening areas of the Venice canals. The painted surface also reflects the light to make the canvas appear opaque – showing the first scene in daylight.

A scene that is partially backlit, allowing the translucent sky and lake to “glow” and create a picturesque realism on stage.

The “refraction of light” mentioned in the article means changing the direction of the light to illuminate the backside of the backdrop – showing the same scene at night. The gradual lowering of the front light and raising of the backlight would provide a smooth and picturesque transition for the audience. Bounce light would be used to illuminate broad areas on the backside of the drop – such as sunsets and seascapes. This means projecting light away from the drop and allowing the light to bounce back to the translucent area.

Concentrated light in light boxes for the backdrop reveals smaller sections of a translucency, such as the words pictured below or illuminated windows. This would also allow any transparent sections of a drop to become illuminated, thus altering the appearance of the painted composition on the front.

Backlit section of a drop where a light box placed on the backside of a scene will illuminate a specific portion to reveal hidden words, objects and figures.

Backside of the translucent section, with back-painting to define the shapes and concentrate the light for the translucency.

Same section that is under front light. From the audience it appears uniform to the rest of the backdrop.

By the spring of 1841, a third painting was added to the show – Constantinople. However, this backdrop did not depict any transformation, only the two original pieces went from day to night. The Boston Post reported that only two scenes were “painted in that peculiar manner which causes them to change light.” The article continued, “The Church is first seen at mid-day, empty, the light gradually fades to twilight, and the moonlight is seen shining through the windows, and is reflected from the pillars on the opposite side. Presently the candles around the altar are lighted up, and then the seats (before vacant) seem filled with worshippers – the mass proceeds and ends – the lights are extinguished – day is seen to dawn – the moonlight disappears before the light of the sun, and the canvass which seemed crowded with objects, again becomes vacant” (13 May 1841, page 2). I believe that the people are a scenic effect that is similar to shadow puppets (more on that in tomorrow’s post).

As a scenic artist, it is hard not to read that description and envision a painted composition of an empty church – lit from the front. The front light goes down and the lights behind the backdrop go up, illuminating the backside of the drop and revealing a combination of translucent sections and opaque painting of another scene. The scene for Venice also transitions from day to night, revealing gondolas and gay revelers at a hotel reception – all heading to a festival banquet at a hotel. Whenever, I have taken visitors into a historic auditorium and successfully backlit translucent drops that transform daylight scenes to color sunsets there is always that small gasp, followed by “Oh!” This transition never grows old, as even seasoned stagehands will stop to admire the stage effect; it is magical.

In Baltimore, Daguerre’s painted compositions started to add a new descriptor – “Magical Pictures.” Pretty smart as “magical pictures” are far more exciting and promise a surprise – the movement! The Baltimore Sun reported Daguerre’s Diorama’s represented “the wonderful effects of day and night” and were once again advertised to be “the only Original Dioramas ever presented to the American Public” (Baltimore Sun, 30 September 1841, page 3).

Notice the use of “Magical Pictures” for Daguerre’s dioramas. This is before the same show is advertised as “Chemical Paintings.” From the Madisonian (Washington, D.C.) 28 April 1842, page 2).

But wait, there’s more. After Baltimore, the show travels to Charleston and then Washington, D.C. By D.C. the “the charming Valley of Goldau (in Switzerland) and the crumbling of a mountain, a historical occurrence” replaced the static Constantinople scene. The crumbling mountain makes me think of the double-painted Scottish Rite drop where a temple crumbles. As the front panel is lowered to the floor, the back of it is revealed as temple ruins. What a thrilling and splendid effect! Then, a fourth scene is added – “the Remains of Napoleon in the Church des Invalides, Paris, on the 15^th December 1840” (The Daily Madisonian, 18 April 1842, page 2).

Double-painted panels on a backdrop. This is before the volcano explodes and the buildings crumble.

Double-painted panels on a backdrop. This is after the volcano explodes and the buildings crumble.

Double painted panel attached to the front of a drop, before it is lowered.

Same panel being partially lowered to reveal that a scene is painted behind it.

The show undergoes further “rebranding,” and it is advertised under a new heading by the end of 1842 – “Chemical Pictures.” This is also when the first competition appeared for the French proprietors! A second show appeared in New Orleans at the same time.

New branding of the M.M. Maffey and Lonati exhibition of Daguerre’s dioramas that were also called “magical paintings.” Here is a later ad for the same exhibition, but with the new title of “Chemical Pictures.” From The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana) 29 Dec. 1842, page 3).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 318 – Descriptions Four Chemical Paintings in Cincinnati – 1843

Part 318: Descriptions Four Chemical Paintings in Cincinnati – 1843

Robert Winter Jr. was the proprietor of four “Chemical Paintings” that toured the country. Each of the four drops measured 200 square feet in size and depicted a transition from day to night. They were noted to be the American equivalent to original compositions painted by Daguerre and managed by M. M. Maffey and Lonati. Daguerre’s paintings were much smaller. And were initially advertised as “Daguerre’s Dioramas from Paris… tableaux being represented with modification of light, will produce the wonderful and magical effect of day to night” (Evening Post, New York, 29 Oct. 1840, page 3). Daguerre’s composition’s included the “interior of the Church St. Etienne du Mont, at Paris” and “the magnificent View of Venice, or a festival night of the Carnival.”

Almost three years later, Winter’s “chemical paintings show” appeared at a Concert Hall in Cincinnati. Articles reported that each painted backdrop “represented two distinct pictures, which form the peculiar style of execution, the varied nature and combination of the illuminating powers employed, produces changes the most astonishing, and at the same time the most natural, in the power of the artist, machinist or optician, to effect” (Cincinnati Enquirer, 14 Aug. 1843, page 3).
I am reminded the lengthy description of “A Day in the Alps” published for the Columbian Exposition of Thomas Moses’ painting. Fifty years earlier, here are the four descriptions of the compositions presented in 1843 in Cincinnati.

The following article described Winter’s compositions and was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer on 14 Aug 1843:
“Daguerre’s Grand Chemical Secret Discovered! To be exhibited at Concert Hall, over the Post Office, every evening, until further notice” (page 3).

No. 1 – View in the City of Milan
This picture represents the grand front of Milan Cathedral, which in gothic architecture, in fret work, in carving, and in statuary, surpasses all other buildings in the world. The building was commenced in 1306, and completed by order of Napoleon in 1805. It is adorned interiorly and exteriorly with four hundred statues in bas reliefs. The picture after passing thro’ all the gradations of light from day to night, will appear as though illuminated by the silvery beams of the rising moon, producing a surprising change in the sky. The several windows and lamps of the Cafes and Merchants Arcade will be lit, and discover numerous figures passing to, and entering the Cathedral, which will appear as when lit up for the celebration of Midnight Mass, displaying the gothic painted windows, and part of the interior.

No. 2 – View of the City Jerusalem and the Crucifixion
This picture is taken from the celebrated painting by Martin, represents a distant view of the far famed City; on the left will be perceived the three crosses erected on Mount Calvary; to the right, the gates of entrance through the walls to the City, which together with the Mount & the adjacent country, will appear buried in repose, no figures whatever at this time being seen. A gradual change will take place over the whole face of the picture, displaying the gorgeous tints of an Eastern sunset, until the sky assumes an awful and terrific aspect, occasionally illuminated by vivid flashes of lightning. The Heavens will now appear to burst with a lurid light, gradually displaying the figures on the crosses, and the various groups composing the subject of the crucifixion. After a while, all will seem to recede and die away, giving place to the beautifully calm and quiet appearance of the break of day, until the picture assumes the same image of coloring it had when first disclosed.

Details of a painted scene for the Scottish Rite in the late-nineteenth century. Currently the drop is at the Salina Scottish Rite Theatre in Kansas.

Looking through the cut drop at a crucifixion backdrop in Grand Forks, North Dakota at the Masonic Center.

No. 3 – Interior of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
This is a view of the large rotunda, in the center of whose floor stands the Holy Sepulchre, surrounded by several large columns that supports the gallery, and ornamented by an immense number of silver lamps and candlesticks, presents Rome, and the courts and religious orders of Europe. The Church is illuminated by day from the light which falls from the lofty dome on the Holy Sepulchre, which is oblong form, and composed of stone which has the appearance of fine white marble. Darkness will gradually spread over the building, when the large wax candles and numerous lamps, will appear as though burning, and casting their mellow light on the groups of pilgrims beneath, at their devotions, and display the grand procession of the three orders around the Sepulchre. During the Easter ceremonies, on the right the Greek and Romish dignitaries, surrounded by their chief ecclesiastics; on the left, the Armenians, who being the most wealthy, wear on this occasion their most costly robes. Over the entrance to the Holy Sepulchre are suspended two pictures, presents from the Greek and Roman Churches, one representing the ascension our Saviour, the other, His appearance to Mary in the Garden.

No. 4 – The Feast of Belshazzar
This picture, copied form one by Martin, on a much larger scale that ever before attempted, discloses to the admiration of the beholder, the immense Court of the Palace of Babylon, once the pride and wonder of the world – adorned with a countless number of colored marble Pillars, and an infinite variety of Sepulchres. In the distance stands the Tower of Babel; also the Temple of Belus, built by Queen Semiramia in honor of King Belus, who was afterwards worshipped as a God.- In the foreground at the foot of the table, already prepared for the Banquet, on which is displayed the Holy vessels which Nebuchadnezer brought out of the spoils of the Temple. The shades of evening will gradually close upon this splendid specimen of ancient grandeur, until sufficiently dark, for the numerous fires and incense burners to cast light enough to display the figures of Belshazzar and all his Court, on the Dais, or Platform, at the Banquet, with immense Multitude, amounting to over one thousand figures, engaged in the worship of the various Deities and graven images. The magical appearance of the handwriting on the wall, coupled with the consternation of the idolatrous King and household, at the interpretation by Daniel the Prophet, forms at this moment a picture which can hardly be imagined, much less described, it being actually necessary to witness it, in order t form a just conception of the grand and soulstirring effect it has, when thus presented to the eye of the wrapt and admiring beholder.

The doors will be open at 7 ½ o’clock, and the exhibition will commence at 8 precisely. Single Tickets 50 cents. Tickets to admit a lady and a Gentleman 75 cents; do to admit two ladies and one Gentleman $1 – to be obtained at the principal Hotels and Music stores in the city. Aug 10.”
The show was still touring under R. Winter’s management in 1846 when it was in Richmond, Virginia (Richmond Enquirer 10 March 1846, page 2).

To be continued…