Pantomime – Drypigment.net

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 989 – William F. Hamilton, 1918

In 1918, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “I made a lot of models and sketches for floats for Labor Day. Hamilton came out from New York to superintend the work. He always drops into a fat job somewhere.” Moses was referring working with William F. Hamilton again. The project was floats for the San Francisco Labor Day. The parade of 1918 focused on labor unions and worker’s rights, with eighty-seven unions participating in the parade that day, spread out over seven divisions.

Article about the San Francisco Labor Day parade in 1918, From the “San Francisco Chronicle,” 3 Sept 1918, page 11.

Detail from the “San Francisco Chronicle,” 3 Sept 1918, page 11.

It has been more than two years since I explored the life of scenic artist Will Hamilton and the short-lived firm of Moses & Hamilton. It is time to recap, because I think that working with Hamilton during the summer of 1918 prompted Moses to tender his resignation to Sosman & Landis by that fall. Hamilton may have reminded him that better opportunities were lurking elsewhere, and that Sosman & Landis was a sinking ship.

Moses first met Hamilton in 1892 when they were both hired to design the models and paint scenery for “Ben Hur,” the pantomime tableaux (see past installment 256 https://drypigment.net2017/11/22/tales-from-a-scenic-artist-and-scholar-acquiring-the-fort-scott-scenery-collection-for-the-minnesota-masonic-heritage-center-part-256-thomas-g-moses-painting-scenery-for-the-ben-hur-tableaux-and/).

Less than a decade later, the two established Moses & Hamilton in New York. The partnership lasted until 1904 when Moses returned to Chicago to become vice-president at Sosman & Landis studio. When Perry Landis had to leave the company for health reasons, Sosman assumed many of the administrative and marketing duties. Therefore, someone was needed to supervise all design, construction, painting and installation.

Moses & Hamilton advertisement in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide, 1903-1904.

It had been difficult for Moses to leave in 1904. That year he wrote, “When I had to tell Hamilton, I almost gave in to stay with him, for he was awfully broken up over it.” Moses was leaving a good friend, a good crew, and good work, hoping for something even better upon his return in Chicago. This was especially difficult as the theatrical center of the United States was shifting to New York.

Moses & Hamilton had assembled a paint crew at the Proctor’s 125^th Street Theatre only three years earlier. Their staff included Ed Loitz, Otto Armbruster and Al Robert. Projects were plentiful, and consistently spread across three theatres: The American Theatre, Proctor’s Twenty-third Street Theatre, and Proctor’s 125^th Street Theater. Thomas G. Moses was the lead scenic artist at the American Theater, William F. Hamilton was the lead scenic artist for Proctor’s Twenty-third Street Theatre, and Al Roberts was the lead scenic artist at Proctor’s 125^th Street Theatre.

For three years, Moses & Hamilton had more work than they could handle, producing scenery for opera, vaudeville, and other entertainments. Their work for Frederick Thompson at Luna Park included “A Trip to the Moon,” “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” “War of the Worlds,” and “Fire and Flames.” A few of Moses & Hamilton’s Broadway designs included “Under the Southern Skies” (Theatre Republic, Nov. 12, 1901 to Jan. 1902), “In Dahomey” (New York Theatre, Feb. 18, 1903 to April 4, 1903, with a return to the Grand Opera House from August to September, 1904), “The Medal and the Maid” (Broadway Theatre, Jan. 11, 1904 to Feb. 20, 1904, Grand Opera House, March 1904), “The Pit” (Lyric Theatre, Feb. 10, 1904, to April 1904), and “Girls Will Be Girls” (Haverly’s 14th Street Theatre, Aug. 27, 1904 to Sept. 3, 1904). Their work was sought after by Helena Modjeska, John C. Fisher, Henry Savage, and other well-known theatre personalities.

Another advertisement for Moses & Hamilton.

Even after Moses & Hamilton folded, the two continued working together on a variety of projects across the country until 1909. Moses remained at Sosman & Landis, while Hamilton worked at New York Studios, the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis. However, as business picked up at Sosman & Landis, it became more and more difficult for Moses to do any outside work with Hamilton. Previously, he earned extra income by taking on these outside projects. Part of the perks was his being able to use the studio for night work. However, as Sosman & Landis took on more and more work, hours were extended into the evening, prohibiting outside projects.

So work slows down during the war years, and Hamilton comes around again. It was no coincidence that Hamilton shows up in July and Moses resigns as president of Sosman & Landis less than two months later. Moses wrote, “September 1^st, I resigned as President of the Sosman and Landis Company which severs my connection with the firm after thirty-eight years of service. I joined the New York Studios and expect to get a studio and an office to do business.” On September 2^nd Moses recorded, “There was a big Labor Day parade and such a crowd. Mama and I went down but were very careful not to get in the thick of it.” That was his first day of freedom from Sosman & Landis, his first day without the worry of being president at the company.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 406 – “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

Part 406: “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

E. L. Blanchard wrote the article “Scenery and Scene-Painters” in 1871 for “The Era Almanack.” This was to be the fifth and final section of the article. However, it describes in detail some of the designs by Clarkston Frederick Stanfield and David Roberts. I am going to split the last part of the article into two parts as there is just too much information to process at once.

Clarkston Frederick Stanfield by John Simpson, 1829

Here is fifth section, first part.

“Clarkston Stanfield, who died May 18, 1867, aged 73, first distinguished himself at Drury Lane by the scenic effects with which he illustrated the opera Der Freyschutz, produced on that stage in 1824. From that time he remained the chief of the Drury Lane painting-room; and the series of exquisite dioramic paintings he contributed to this theatre long gave special attraction to the pantomimes there produced. His earliest scenes of this kind were in “Harlequin and the Flying Chest,” and his Crystal Grotto in “Harlequin and the Talking Bird” created a marked sensation.

Then came his panoramic display under the title “Naumetaboia,” in Jack of all Trades (Christmas, 1825), showing the adventures of a man-of-war, from the launch at Dover, its encounter with a gale, the wreck, and the towing into a foreign port. In 1826, the “Man in the Moon” introduced further illustrations of his powers as a marine painter, in two remarkable scenes called “England’s Pride” and “England’s Glory.” In 1827, “Harlequin and Cock Robin” was enriched with a fine representation of “Portsmouth in a Gale of Wind.”

In 1828, Stanfield painted a moving diorama for “Harlequin and the Queen Bee,” representing Spithead at Sunrise, entrance to Portsmouth Harbour, the Dockyard, Gosport, Mother Bank, Isle of Wight with the Royal Yacht Club, Cowes Regatta, the Needles by Moonlight, the Ocean, and the Rock of Gibraltar. In 1829, the pantomime of “Jack in the Box “was distinguished by his diorama of the pass of the Simplon, the Valley of the Rhome, Domo D’Ossola, and Lago Maggiore, with the Boromean Islands. In 1831, was painted the diorama of Venice for “Harlequin and Little Thumb.” In 1832, “Harlequin Traveller” displayed a magnificent painting of the Falls of Niagara, seen from the approach to Buffalo on Lake Erie, and the Horse Shoe and Great American fall from Goat Island. The Christmas equestrian spectacle of 1833 (St. George and the Dragon) was rendered remarkable by his Egyptian diorama, commencing with the great cataracts and showing the ascent of a pyramid. The next year this accomplished scenic artist illustrated King Arthur with some admirable scenery, depicting Penrith and Carlisle in the days of yore.

When Mr. Macready became lessee of Covent Garden, and there produced (December 26, 1837) the pantomime of “Peeping Tom of Coventry,” Stanfield painted for it a beautiful diorama comprising a series of views in the north of Italy, Savoy, the Alps, and through “French Flanders” to the sea. A special paragraph in the play-bill recorded how the distinguished artist had, “as a sacrifice and in the kindest and most liberal manner, quitted for a short time his easel in order to present the Manager with his last work in that department of the art he has so conspicuously advanced to mark his interest in the success of the cause this Theatre labours to support.”

Stanfield, however, in June, 1839, once more complied with Mr. Macready’s request, and for the famous Shakspearian revival of “Henry the Fifth” he painted the panoramic illustrations of the Storming of Harfleur, the Battle of Aginciurt, and the view of Southhampton with the departure of the Fleet. When Mr. Macready resumed his exalted purpose as Manager of Drury Lane, Stanfield, for similar reasons, furnished the exquisite Sicilian views, illustrative of “Acis and Galatea,” and this was the last of the artist’s labours for the stage.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 402 – “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, first section

Part 402: “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, first section

E. L. Blanchard wrote the article “Scenery and Scene-Painters” in 1871 for “The Era Almanack.” Blanchard was an author of Drury Lane Pantomimes from 1852-1888. He established a style of rhyming verse and wit that was often topical. Contemporary pantomimes seldom have rhyming couplets beyond the prologue. I find it fascinating that he wrote a substantial article about the history of scenery and scene-painters in 1871 – right in the middle of his pantomime-writing career.

This article is one of three that I transcribed a few months ago as I examined a series of newspaper publications describing the scenic art and design process for the theatre. I just completed a five-section series titles “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters” that was published in “The Era” (February 4, 1866). This second article gives another viewpoint of scenic art five years later. Much of the information is the same about the history of theatre scenery and scenic artists as in the previous article – almost a little too similar, but it is a delightful addition for historical context. I am posting it in four sections, as there are lovey gems of information about our craft.

“The ancient scenery employed for open-air representations at first consisted of mere boughs, but afterwards of tapestry, not painted canvas. The Greek stage consisted of three parts,- the scena, across the Theatre, upon the line of the curtain in our Theatres; the proscenium, where the actors perform; and the postscenium, the part behind the house. To form parts of the scenes there were prisms of framework, turning upon pivots, upon each face of which was stained a distinct picture, one for tragedy, consisting of large buildings, with columns, statues, and other corresponding ornaments; a second face, with houses, windows, statues, and balconies, for comedy; a third applied to farce, with cottages, grottoes, and rural scenes. These were the scenes versatiles of Servius.

Besides these there were scena ductiles, which drew backwards and forwards, and opened a view of the house, which was built upon the stage, and contained apartments for machinery and retirement of actors. As to the patterns of the scenes in comedy, the most considerable building was in the centre, that on the right hand was a little less elevated, and that on the left generally represented an inn. In satirical pieces they had always a cave in the middle, a wretched cabin on the right, and on the left and old ruined temple or landscape. In these representations perspective was observed, for Vitruvius remarks that “the rules of it were invented and practiced from the time of Æschylus by a painter names Agarachus, who has even left a treatise upon it.”

After the downfall of the Roman Empire these decorations for the stage were neglected till Peruzzi, a Siennese, who died in 1536, revived them. Classical scholars will readily understand the various opportunities for scenic effect afforded by the Greek dramatists, and there is some reason for believing the illusions of the ancient stage were much more perfect than has been generally supposed. There were three entries in front, and two on the sides. The middle entry was always that of the principle actor; thus, in tragedy, it was commonly the gate of a palace. Those on the right and left were destined to the second-rate actors; and the two others on the sides, one to people from the country, and other to those from the harbor, or any other public place.

Sipareum was the significance of the tapestry curtain; it was let down, not raised, when the performance commenced, and at the beginning of new acts. The auleum was probably a drop scene or curtain, to draw before doors, and contract the stage; choragium, the property room, where were kept the dresses, scenes, and musical instruments, and where were sometimes disposed the choir of musicians. In the Greek Theatre it was a place behind the scenes, used also for a dressing-room. This was an inner dressing-room named postsceniun. Thus even at a remote period we see that attention to the comforts of the performers was by no means overlooked by the theatrical architects of that period.

That the scene-painter’s accommodations has been, down to very recent times, completely lost sight of by those who have had the arrangement of our theatres, may be mentioned in curious contracts with the reliance now placed on the result of the artist’s powers. According to Malone, moveable scenes were not in use in England till 1605, when three plays were performed at Oxford before James I, thus described by a contemporary writer:- “The stage was built at the upper end of the hall, as it seemed at the first sight, but, indeed, it was but a false wall, faire painted; which pillars would turn about, by reason whereof, with other painted clothes, the stage did vary three times in one tragedy.” It was observed the writer was not acquainted with the word scene, but used “painted clothes” in that sense. In the early part of Shakespeare’s time, as is well known, the want of scenery was supplied by writing the names of the different places of action on the boards, which were so placed as to be visible to the audience. Thus [Sir William] Davenant, in the introduction to The Siege of Rhodes, 1656, says, “In the middle of the freeze was a compartment wherein was written Rhodes.” Movable scenes were first used in Rome in 1508. The first who painted moveable scenery in England was Richard Aggas, a specimen of whose work may be seen at Painter-Stainers’ Hall, in Little Trinity-lane.”

A few comments about Davenant’s production:

“The Siege of Rhodes” was actually titled, “The Siege of Rhodes Made a Representative by the Art in Prospective in Scenes, and the Story Sung in Recitative Musick.” The plot was based on the 1522 siege of Rhodes, when the island was taken by Suleiman the Magnificent’s Ottoman fleet. The score was by five composers; the vocal music by Henry Lawes, Matthew Locke and Captain Henry Cooke, with the instrumental music by Charles Coleman and George Hudson. Davenant is credited with the first attempt to revive English drama after Oliver Cromwell’s ban closed dramatic performances and closed public theaters.

He secured special permission from Cromwell for his production for his first dramatic work was “The First Day’s Entertainment,” a work disguised under the title “Declamations and Musik” and labeled the production as recitative music. He then created the first public opera in England, “The Siege of Rhodes” and is credited with introducing three innovations to the public stage: opera, painted stage sets, and a female actress singer.

The opera was first performed in a small private theatre constructed in the back portion of Davenant’s home at Rutland House in the upper end of Aldersgate-Street, London. The 1659 reprinting gives the location at the Cock-pit in Drury Lane. Although the score has been lost to time, the original designs by John Webb, a pupil of Inigo Jones are extant. They are available at https://restorationstaging.com/2014/01/26/john-webb-scene-designs-for-the-siege-of-rhodes/

‘The Siege of Rhodes’: shutter, prospect of Rhodes. Image from https://restorationstaging.com/2014/01/26/john-webb-scene-designs-for-the-siege-of-rhodes/

‘The Siege of Rhodes’: shutter, Rhodes besieged. Image from https://restorationstaging.com/2014/01/26/john-webb-scene-designs-for-the-siege-of-rhodes/

‘The Siege of Rhodes’: relieve, Solyman’s throne and camp. Image from https://restorationstaging.com/2014/01/26/john-webb-scene-designs-for-the-siege-of-rhodes/

‘The Siege of Rhodes’: relieve, Mt. Philermus. Image from https://restorationstaging.com/2014/01/26/john-webb-scene-designs-for-the-siege-of-rhodes/

‘The Siege of Rhodes;: shutter, the general assault. Image from https://restorationstaging.com/2014/01/26/john-webb-scene-designs-for-the-siege-of-rhodes/

‘The Siege of Rhodes’: frontispiece and wings. Image from https://restorationstaging.com/2014/01/26/john-webb-scene-designs-for-the-siege-of-rhodes/

For more information about Davenant, here is a link to the online “Encyclopædia Brittanica” https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Davenant

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 399 – “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters,” 1866, third section

Part 399: “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters,” 1866, third section

While researching the English scene painting families, I came across an interesting article from 1866. It seems an appropriate time to share this article, as my house is full of friends for the Helios Masonic Symposium in St. Cloud today. It is the perfect time to examine how the history of scenic art was presented during the mid-nineteenth century in the United Kingdom.

The article “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters,” was published in “The Era” on February 4, 1866. Here is the third of five installments.

“Great improvements in the scenic department were made at the beginning of the last century, when Rich, who was Manager of the playhouse in Lincoln’s Inn-fields, denominated the new Theatre, and set up in rivalry, of Drury Lane, designed a series of spectacular entertainments, which drew the audiences from the old house, although it retained a strong company under the management of Wilkes, Booth, and Cibber. Italy had long been famous for its scene painters and the splendour of its Pantomimic representations. Canaletti, the great painter, designed the scenery for the Venetian stage. Some of these foreign artists were employed by Rich, and then it was the English first beheld the delightful effect of the picturesque as viewed through a splendid proscenium on a lengthened stage.

The Managers of Drury, in self defense, were compelled to attempt the same kind of entertainment, and they pressed into their service a celebrated scene-painter, named Devoto, and a ballet-master, Monsieur Thermond, who projected a Pantomime of which Jack Sheppard was the hero. This set the wits of the town on the Managers, who, with the scene-painter, were dragged to the satiric whipping-post. On these Pantomimic pieces they were lavish of expense, as the scenery and machinery were the principal attractions.

When Rich removed his dramatic corps from Lincoln’s Inn-fields to the newly-erected Theatre in Covent-garden, Hogarth caricatured the whole house moving in procession across the market-place in front of the piazza, not forgetting to have a hit at his friend George Lambert, whose scenes he piled in a wagon wherein the thunder and lightning were made conspicuous. Lambert, who had been joint scene-painter at Lincoln’s Inn, was appointed principal in that department at Covent-garden, and it was in the scene-room here that he founded the Beef-steak Club. Harvey, a landscape painter, and Amiconi, who painted the fine groups on the upper part of the staircase at old Buckingham House, executed the decorations of the proscenium, an allegory of Shakespeare, Apollo, and the Muses. John Laguerre, the historical painter, occasionally designed the scenes for Lincoln’s Inn stage, and the curious scene-cloth representing the Siege of Troy, depicted in Hogarth’s “Southwark Fair,” is from his design. Michael Angelo Rooker, whimsically Italianized himself into Signor Rookerini, and who was at once painter, Harlequin, Scaramouch, and engraver, was principal scene-painter to the elder Colman at his Theatre in the Haymarket.

John Richards, the old Secretary of the Royal Academy, painted many years for the stage. His rural scenery for “The Maid of the Mill” is perpetuated in two line engravings, which are in the portfolios of all our old-fashioned Collectors of English prints.

The first scene of “The Maid of the Mill,” designed by John Inigo Richards. Painting by John Inigo Richards (1731-1810)

The first scene of “The Maid of the Mill,” designed by John Inigo Richards. Richards was a noted scenic artist, machinist and theatre designer. Engraving by William Woollett (1735-1785) after the painting by John Inigo Richards (1731-1810). 1768. Here is the link to the image: https://www.lubranomusic.com/pages/books/29668/samuel-arnold/the-first-scene-of-the-maid-of-the-mill-as-designed-by-mr-richards-fine-large-engraving-by-william

De Loutherbourg who for some time delighted and astonished the town by his interesting dioramic exhibition, which he called “The Eidophusikon,” was the first to increase the effect of scenery by lighting from above the proscenium, and using coloured glasses for the lamps. Many ingenious devices, now familiar, in their effects at least, to a playgoing public, owe their adoption to the dashing, vigorous Flemish battle-painter, whose appearance was as martial as his pictures, and whom Jack Bannister nicknamed “Field-Marshal Leatherbags.”

Another distinguished artist of this period was Mr. Greenwood, father of Mr. T. L. Greenwood, so long associated with the management of Sadler’s Well’s Theatre.

Sadler’s Wells Theatre, ca. 1745-1750. For additional history on the Sadler’s Wells Theatre and this image, see: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol47/pp140-164

For many years the scenery of the Royal Circus (now the Surrey Theatre) was painted by Mr. Greenwood, who invested the ballets and senior musical spectacles brought out there by Mr. J. C. Cross with remarkable scenic attractions, and, when the artist was transferred to Drury-lane he became even more prominent. Byron, in his “English Bards and Scottish Reviewers,” speaks of “Greenwood’s gay designs” as being then the chief support of the Drama at that period.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 394: William Telbin: Artist in Tempera

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence listed some prominent English scene painting families – the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins. This installment looks at the Telbins (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889). The most famous of the Telbin family was William (1815-1873).

William Telbin was a scene painter at Drury Lane Theatre, Covent Gardens and Lyceum Theatres. His scenic art was greatly influenced by the paintings of J. M. W. Turner. The following article about the artist was published in “The Magazine of Art” (January 1, 1902, page 371-376):

“In the records of scenic art no name is held in higher repute than that of Telbin. Since Clarkston Stanfield abandoned the painting-room of the theatre – nearly sixty years ago [1840s] – and was succeeded at Drury Lane by William Telbin the elder, much of the principal scene work for London, for provincial, and even some of the foreign theatres has been executed by painters of this name, the elder Telbin, the father of the subject of this sketch, was at one time scene painter for the four theatres in London then the most important – Her Majesty’s, the Lyceum, Drury Lane, and the Olympic; and in addition was frequently requisitioned for work at Covent Garden and the Haymarket. His elder son was principal assistant, and the younger one, William, drifted in to the same work. From childhood his mind was centered on artistic matters. Provided with models, and modeling tools as toys, he was encouraged in every possible way to develop his artistic tastes. The profession chosen for him when his school days were ended was that of architect, and with the view of training himself for it, he went through a course of sketching in Westminster Abbey, not wholly as a duty, but from an innate love of architecture. This was in 1862. In the following year he paid a visit of some months’ duration to Bonn, and spent the time sketching on the Rhine between that town and Coblentz. Thence he journeyed to Cologne, and worked for some time in the Cathedral. Upon his return home he entered the painting-room of the theatre as assistant to his father, where his brother was already engaged.

The first scene for which he received public credit was a vision of “Robinson Crusoe on the Raft,” painted for a pantomime produced at Covent Garden Theatre by Sir Augustus Harris’ father. Mr. Telbin confesses that, although he was mentioned on the programme as the author of the work, he “shrewdly suspected” his father of “tampering considerably: with t before it was placed on the stage. He was absent in Ireland for two months before Christmas, and when he saw the scene from the front of the house he recognized his father’s handiwork upon it – the brilliancy of color was mistakenly not his own.

Under the direction of Mr. Telbin the elder, the two younger painters were afforded many valuable opportunities of improving themselves in artistic work, for when sketches from nature were required for the work in hand, they were sent to make them. In the manner Mr. W. Telbin has become acquainted with the greater part of the Continent, his journeyings embracing the distances from Iceland to Tangiers, and Ireland to Vienna. Such experiences are invaluable to a scene-painted of the first rank, as well as to the general landscape painter.

From 1870 to 1873 Mr. Telbin’s work increased to an enormous extent, of, owning to the death of his brother, who fell from a cliff whilst sketching on the shores of Lake Lucerne, his father’s health broke down, and the responsibility of providing the family’s means fell upon Mr. Telbin. The many friends of his father showered do man commissions upon him, that he had a great difficulty in keeping pace with them. One instance alone may be given of his efforts to cope with the work: for when the manager of the Theatre Royal, Manchester, desired him to paint the complete scenery for the production of “Macbeth,” for a whole month Mr. Telbin worked twenty hours a day, reaching the theatre at 6 a.m., and leaving at 2 a.m. the following morning. Since then his work has been seen at all the principal theatres in London, and need not be referred to in detail here. He has latterly been engaged upon the scenery for the revival of “King John,” after having completed that for “Paolo and Francesca” for Mr. George Alexander. His scenes for “Faust,” executed for Sir Henry Irving some years ago, are seeing the light again in the revival of the piece at the Lyceum Theatre.

We desire now to call to attention to a branch of Mr. Telbin’s work which is not generally known to the public, but which, to our mind, is in its way as important and as beautiful as any of his stage productions. With tempera as his medium he has produced a series of black and white drawings which proclaim him a master in black and white art. For brilliancy of execution, for certainty of effect, sparkle of the touch, and beauty of presentation, these drawings are not easily surpassed. Some of them were reproduced in this magazine in two articles on “Scene Painters and their Work,” published in 1889, and others in a paper on “Iceland,” in 1893. Another series of views in the Mediterranean, more of which are to be published later, are admirable representations of the scenes to be witnessed during the season of the “bora” on the Mediterranean shores. They show Mr. Telbin was a careful and accurate student of nature, with an instinctive feeling for the picturesque allied to an inimitable power and facility of presentation and suggestion.”

The younger William Telbin, the principal scenic artist for Irving, believed that it was better “to work from the back of the stage to the front, since presumably the nearer the scene to the audience the more subtle and detailed its finishing”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 392 – The Greenwood Family of Scenic Artists

Part 392: The Greenwood Family of Scenic Artists

In 1796, the scene painter “Tom Greenwood” was the painter at the Drury Lane Theatre. He who worked with Thomas Bank, and both painted for a “Harlequin” production (“Life of an Actor” by Pierce Egan and T. Greenwood, 1825, page 207). This was T. L. Greenwood’s father.

“The Life of an Actor” with contributions by T. L. Greenwood.

The obituary of Thomas Longdon Greenwood (1806-1879) reported that he was “a clever scene painter.” T. L. Greenwood came from a scene painting family. His father was the son of the scenic artist for Sadler’s Wells Theatre and Surrey Theatre (originally the Royal Circus), also painting settings for the ballet and other scenic attractions by J. C. Cross.

Illustration of Sadler Wells Theatre interior, 1807, with water scene from the Ocean’s Peril

He later transferred to the Drury Lane Theatre and became an even more prominent artist there. T. L. Greenwood’s grandfather was the eminent scenic artist for the Drury-lane Theatre, working for David Garrick until the beginning of the nineteenth century. He was honorably commemorated by Lord Byron in his “English Bards and Scottish Reviewers.” Byron remarked about “Greenwood’s gay designs.”

T. L. Greenwoods obituary reported that he was “initiated behind the scenes of a Theatre at a very early period of his life.” Even though he was brought up to the study of medicine, which he followed so far as to open on his own account a druggist’s establishment in Clerkenwell, his inclinations were always toward a theatrical career. He was remembered for his “intimate knowledge of the Drama in all its varied forms, a practical acquaintance with every department of the Theatre and an administrative ability which was throughout his life associated with the most conscientious integrity, were rare acquirements, that he used to the advantage of others rather than himself.

When he was attached to the Olympic, Greenwood painted the original scenery for “Tom and Jerry” and Moncrieff’s extravaganza of “Giovanni in London.” He also wrote a series of pantomimes for the Surrey, Adelphi, and other theatres, “showing much originality of style and fanciful humour in treatment, and a number of melodramas and spectacles, popular at the time, proceeded from his always ready pen.”

In 1839, Greenwood joined Robert Honner in the management of Sadler Wells, when his adaptiation of “Jack Sheppard” and his melodramatic romance of “Paul, the Pilot; or, the Wreck of the Rover” obtained considerable popularity. In 1844, he was associated with Samuel Phelps in the lesseeship of the same theatre, and it took an active part in the direction of the legitimate campaign that did not end until 1860. Some years later, he accepted the direction of Astley’s for the Christmas period, and also accepted the position of Acting-Manager at the Princess’s during the early part of George Vining’s tenure. His obituary concluded with “Ever seeking out the means of rendering a kindly service to the deserving, and always prompt to assist those who could establish a fair claim to his generous remembrance, the announcement of the death of T. L. Greenwood will fall upon a large circle of the Profession like the tidings of the loss of a dear friend to whom they unfailingly turned for aid and advice in the hour of need. Those who knew him best will feel the deepest sorrow – for the loss of companionship, and hold his memory in highest esteem.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 347 – Thomas G. Moses during the First Half of 1896

Part 347: Thomas G. Moses during the First Half of 1896

Thomas G. Moses continued to financially struggle during the first half of 1896. Scenic art projects included a production of “Mountebank” for Frederick Warde; a production of “Sea King” for J.H. Shunk (Chicago, proprietor of the Calhoun Opera Company); a production of “Santa Maria” for Camille DeArville, “the Queen of comic opera”; a theatre installation in Anderson, Indiana; stock scenery for the Hopkins Theatre in St. Louis, Missouri; and a small project in Toledo.

Thomas G. Moses painted the scenery for “Santa Maria,” starring Camille D’Arville in 1896.

By early May, Moses traveled to Boston where he painted a production of R. A. Barnet’s “The Merry-go-Round. ” It was a project for Harry Askins. Of the production Moses wrote, “I was fortunate enough to make a hit in Boston. The show was fairly good.” The Boston Post reported the show as “a brilliant burlesque of contemporary local interest by R. A. Barnet, which will be given a colossal spectacular production,” featuring 150 people with 500 costumes (17 May 1896, page 10). The production team for “The Merry-go-Round” included William A. Seymour (stage producer); Thomas G. Moses (scenic artist); Mme, Seidle (costume designer); W. E. McQuinn (Musical Director); Gustave Sohlke (Ballet Master); Joseph Halliday (mechanical effects); and J. G. Estee (Properties), and others.

Thomas G. Moses painted the scenery for Harry Askin’s “the Merry-Go-Round” in 1896 (Boston Post, 17 May 1896, page 10)

During his absences from the studio, Moses left Ed Loitz in charge. Loitz was his long-time assistant and friend. In reality, he was Moses’ “right-hand man” for almost every project that he accepted. Whether working at Sosman & Landis or not, Loitz remained loyal to Moses and accompanied him on many adventures. He would still be working with him in 1923. However, in the scenic studio, Loitz was no Moses. When Moses was away, production slowed down. Furthermore, Moses’ stylistic flare was absent from the final product when he was on the road.

As with many studios, one name was on the work, but the painting was competed by many hands. That is one of the significant feature that made the Fort Scott Scottish Rite collection so unique; in 1924, it was solely painted by Moses on site – no big studio crew. In most cases, a Scottish Rite collection was composed of dozens of backdrops in a very limited timeframe, thus necessitating many people simultaneously working on the project. There are very few of these Scottish Rite collections that can solely be attributed to one scenic artist and a stage carpenter. They provide a unique glimpse into the past when individual artists were forced to complete a massive project by themselves. You can tell on certain drops when they were running out of steam.

Other 1896 shows that weren’t recorded in Moses’ typed manuscript included “The Bells.” The Times Herald reported, “Manager [Ira J.] LaMotte has given Mr. Clay Clement a superb scenic production of ‘The Bells,” painted by Thomas G. Moses with costumes by Schoultz & Co., so that a complete production in every detail can be expected” (7 Nov. 1896, page 7). Moses also painted the scenery for “The New Dominion” that toured with “The Bells.” The St. Louis Post – Dispatch commented that both plays were painted “from the brush of well-known scenic artist, Thomas G. Moses” (31 August 1896, page 2). The St. Joseph Herald reported “The company carries a car load of scenery from the brush of Thomas G. Moses of Chicago” (St. Joseph, Missouri, 29 August 1896, page 3)

Moses also painted another “Ben-Hur” set in 1896. A Tennessee newspaper article described how the Women’s Board of the Tennessee Centennial were preparing for the production of the grand spectacular at the Vendome (The Tennessean, Nashville, 10 May 1896, page 9). The article reported, “The scenery used is from the brush of the celebrated scenic artist, Thomas G. Moses, of the Schiller Theatre, Chicago, and the subject of the play itself offers spectacular effects the best opportunity of any amateur production ever had in Nashville.”

The description of this particular production is especially delightful, as it provided a sense of Moses’ designs:

“The play will begin in the lonely desert where the Magi meet, Joseph and Mary will appear at the Joppa Gate, and the Wise Men will arrive at the Damascus Gate in search of him who is born King of the Jews. The appearance of these men before Herod and all the Bible story will be vividly presented.

The scenes will again shift, and Ben Hur will be introduced in all the beauty and strength of his youth. The succeeding scenes will carry him through the thrilling experiences of the tale, from the home of happy companionship to the sad position of a galley slave.

The famous chariot race will be introduced, and this part is almost unexcelled in scenic pantomime. The reuniting of the separated families will be shown, ending with the dramatic farewell to Iras. The production will close with a beautiful transformation scene, Iras’ Dream of the Nile. In this closing view is represented $10,000 worth of scenery and costumes, and taken together with the many pretty faces of Nashville’s society girls, it will be the most gorgeous spectacle to gaze upon.”

Although the amount of scenery produced by Moses and his crew during the first half of 1896 seems somewhat staggering, it was simply not enough for him to survive on his own. Sosman & Landis had been keeping a watchful eye on their former employee and decided to approach him that July. They were still short one man and Moses was now desperate. It seemed to be a good time to bring him back on board for a reasonable price.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 266 – Thomas G. Moses and “The Black Crook” Production of 1892

During 1893, Thomas G. Moses worked on a variety of productions, spectacles and other attractions, including an elaborate revival of the “Black Crook” for Imre Kiralfy (1845-1919). The June 12, 1892, issue of the “Chicago Tribune” included the article, “Kiralfy’s New Pantomime for Chicago.” The article reported that Henry Abbey made a contract with Imre Kiralfy to furnish a new pantomime and produce it at the Auditorium in Chicago during the Columbian Exposition.

Kiralfy’s 1893 revival of “The Black Crook” was intended to be one of his largest indoor productions to date. Imre and his brother Bolossy (1848-1932) had previously staged a revival of “The Black Crook” during August 1873. It was their first musical spectacle at Niblo’s Garden Theatre and played over one hundred performances. Then the production went on tour, breaking the record number of performances for a revival. It was this production that brought the brothers immediate fame in America.

The Kiralfy Brothers revival of “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s Garden in New York, 1873.

Imre and Bolossy were born to Jacob Königsbaum and Anna Weisberger in Budapest, two of seven children. The brothers were trained as dancers and soon performed for a variety of venues, such as the Hungarian Circus. They traveled throughout Europe under the stage name “Kiralfy” due to their father’s activities during the Hungarian revolution. Their other siblings also joined the dance industry and the family motto became, “All the World’s a Stage.” The Kiralfys soon became producers and organized pageants by their mid-twenties.

Their travels eventually brought them to America in 1869 where they produced extravagant stage shows with spectacular scenic effects, large casts and stunning costumes. The brothers later separated, but each continued to produce shows. Imre primarily focused on grand spectacles, such as “The Fall of Rome” that was staged on Staten Island with two thousand performers.

Imre’s 1892 revival of “The Black Crook” was intended to challenge Eugene Tompkins’ version at the New York Academy of Music. Tompkins production opened in August 1893 and the September 5 Chicago Tribune review of his production reported, “Expectation has been both filled and disappointed in the “Black Crook” at the [New York] Academy. For sightlines in its costumes and scenery the spectacle has never been surpassed in this country.”

During October 1892 there was another revival of “The Black Crook” that appeared for a week at the Criterion in Chicago with the Alexander and Allen Company. No further mention or advertisements were published of Imre’s intended production, but it did merit mention in Moses’ manuscript that he produced the scenery. It is possible that his scenery was eventually used for the Criterion Theatre production.

Imre Kiralfy’s production of “America” at the Chicago Auditorium in 1893.

Kiralfy also created two other spectacles to coincide with the Columbian Exposition – “Columbus” and “America.” Each would prove to be a grand success. Their patriotic theme and consecutive appearance at the Civic Auditorium might have been why the “Black Crook” revival fell to the wayside and was never performed at the Auditorium as intended.

Advertisement of “America” at the Chicago Auditorium, 1893.

Kiralfy’s son Charles assisted with the opening of “America, 400 Years of American History.” It premiered at the Auditorium in Chicago and coincided with the opening of the World’s Columbian Exposition. It grossed almost one million dollars in its seven-month run.

The Chicago Auditorium, program for Imre Kiralfy’s “America.”

Imre also produced “Columbus and the Discovery of America” that opened at the Madison Square Garden Theatre, later touring to the Auditorium in Chicago during the World Fair. For this production, he hired Thomas G. Moses to create the scenery. “Columbus” then toured for two years.

Imre Kiralfy’s production of “Columbus and the Discovery of America.”

The amount of scenery that Moses produced from 1892 to 1893 is astounding. There is also an added interest for me concerning Moses’ involvement in the 1893 revival. At this same time, he was working with David Austin Strong, one of the original scenic artists for the 1866 production of the show. Moses had been painting with Strong since starting at the Sosman & Landis studio. His typed manuscript records that he and Strong painted a panorama of Grant’s trip around the world, the first project completed after the main studio was built.

What a small world, then and now.

There is also one more connection that affects another history beyond the stage; Kiralfy, Strong and Moses would all become Scottish Rite Masons.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 257 – The Ben-Hur Chariot Race

One of the things that I love about theatre is the magic – the “how did they do that?”

Just like a good magic trick, or slight of hand, I want to understand the magic on the stage. The simple illusion of Pepper’s Ghost in Fort Scott captivated seasoned stagehands by the simple reflection of a skeleton on plate glass. This scenic illusion and many other “smoke and mirror” effects still captivate audiences. We love the theatre magic that facilitates our willing suspension of disbelief during a production.

Wednesday’s post examined Thomas G. Moses’ involvement in creating a model and scenery for “Ben-Hur in Dramatic Tableaux and Pantomime.” This 1892 version was still touring the country when other productions, such as the 1899 Broadway show appeared on the stage. The 1899 production was produced by Klaw & Erlanger, adapted to the stage by William Young and designed by Ernest Albert (more about Albert in installments #131, 133-139, 145, 154, 179 and 2480).

Poster for Klaw & Erlanger’s 1899 production of “Ben-Hur” on Broadway with designs by Ernest Albert, a friend of Thomas G. Moses.

An August 7, 1899, an article in the Indianapolis Journal quoted Marc Klaw in an interview discussing the 1899 production. Although not going into detail, he stated “Our scenic calls for six acts, with the chariot race as the fifth act.” Klaw continued, “We are not quite ready to give out the exact details of the different acts, but the principal events of the book which will be dealt with will be the appearance of the three wise men, the chariot race, the galleon fight, the scene in the grove of Daphne, the boat ride of Iris, the scenes at the palace of the Hurs and the famous Palm Sunday scene.” The sixth act was to depict Palm Sunday with music that included the singing of Hosanna, “Star of Bethlem,” by Edgar Stillman Kellman who was a professor of Oriental and Greek Music.

The Indianapolis article also published, “The most extensive research has been resorted to in selecting the designs for the costumes and obtaining accurate scenes. Our artists spent weeks searching the libraries and old book collectors to find scenes of ancient Jerusalem…All the old books in Columbia University have been kindly placed at our disposal.” Ernest Albert was known for his close attention to detail and historical accuracy.

The September 22, 1899, issue of the Laredo Times (Laredo, Texas, page 1) published an article, “Ben Hur Chariot Race.” The article stated,” “General Lew Wallace’s ‘Ben Hur’ is to be dramatized and presented on the stage. For twenty years General Wallace refused to allow this dramatization because he believed that no mechanism could be devised to give lifelike imitation on the stage of the great chariot race, around which the historical novel centers and because ‘Ben Hur’ with the chariot race left out would not be ‘Ben Hur.’” Moses’ design in 1892 for “Ben Hur in Dramatic Tableaux and Pantomine” was just that – a stage picture for the audience with a live narration.

The design for the stage to accommodate the famous “Ben-Hur” chariot race on Broadway.

The staging of the Broadway race included eight horses and two chariots. It absolutely fascinated theatre audiences. As with other scenic effects for the theatre, the chariot race’s treadmill was even examined and illustrated in “Scientific American” (August 25, 1900, Vol. 83, issue 8). The Laredo article continued, “A New York manufacturer of stage appliances, however, devised a chariot race illusion which General Wallace believes will give the audience as stirring a portrayal of the great contest as he has given in the novel.” The production necessitated the tearing out of the Broadway Theatre stage and bracing it with steel beams in order to support the unusual weight and heavy impact of all the horses as they came thundering down the stage. The treadmill mechanism involved an amphitheater as well as an arena to create a panoramic effect.

Scientific American presented the complex mechanical device that facilitated a race on stage with eight horses and two chariots.

Here is the November 5, 1899 New York Herald’s description of the great chariot race:

“The stage has been propped underneath by enormous cross-beams and great uprights until it is impossible for the eight horses that pound away for dear life to break through. The great treadmill, large enough for eight horses and two chariots, is neatly fitted into the floor and seems to be part of the stage, so that you don’t notice that it is any different from the roadway.” The article went on to describe how the thunder of the horses hooves and whirr of chariot wheels drowned out any noise of the treadmill and moving panorama. The rubber and felt coverings were credited with the mechanism’s success. The article explained that the great moving panorama of painted crowds in coliseum seats moved as the chariots raced side-by-side. The cloaks and skirts of the chariot drivers fluttered in the wind, caused by powerful electric fans, placed immediately in the off-stage area and near the chariots. Furthermore, an additional blast of air from under the horses’ hooves and under the chariot wheels would throw great clouds of real dust through holes in the stage floor. The final “smash-up’ of the chariots is caused when Ben-Hur drives his chariot against Messala’s. A wheel is knocked off and the chariot goes spinning off the stage. When this catastrophe occurred every stage and auditorium light goes out for a moment, plunging the space into darkness. At this same time, the moving panorama stopped and 150 actors raced onto the dark stage. The lights go up to reveal the victor amidst cheering crowds.

On October 8, 1899, the Salt Lake Herald published an article, “The Chariot Race in ‘Ben Hur’” that looked at the preparation for this stage scene (pg. 8). It noted, “For more than a month expert horsemen have been training for this scene. Twelve horses are needed, says a New York paper. More that sixty have been tried and only eight competent ones found. They have to run at full speed on a mechanical device, a thing that some horses will by no means do. Eight horses will be on the stage at a time, and there will be four trained “understudies.”

There will be four bays for Ben Hur’s chariot, “chosen for beauty as well as speed.” Messala’s chariot will be drawn by two blacks and two whites. The substitutes will be two bays, a black and a white. The illusion, so far as the running of the horses is concerned, will be produced in a manner similar to that used by Burgess in the race scene in “The County Fair,” only on an enlarged scale. It is the treadmill principle. There will be eight treadmills built into the stage, one for each horse.

The framework and endless chain of slats which form the running surface are of selected hickory. The slats are two inches wide, and enough space is left between them to allow them to run over steel wheels about eight inches in diameter at either end of the machine. Between the larger end wheels, their tops forming the support for the running surface slats, is a mass of smaller wheels. There are 196 of these in each machine, 1,568 in all. They are of steel, about four inches in diameter and each has a solid rubber tire.

As the horse attempts to run each movement of his hoofs sends the movable platform back, running swiftly on the scores of perfectly balanced rubber-tired wheels beneath. The faster he goes the faster spin the wheels and the more perfect the illusion.”

The intricacy of this mechanical effect is astounding to me. If only I had a time machine to witness this production firsthand.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 256 – Thomas G. Moses Painting Scenery for the Ben-Hur Tableaux and Pantomime

In 1892, Moses recorded that he found some work with Will F. Hamilton. They were making models and scenery for a production of Ben-Hur. Moses would eventually leave the Sosman & Landis studio, forming a partnership with Hamilton, then moving to New York in 1900. About “Ben-Hur” Moses wrote, “I enjoyed this work – very interesting. This was before the story was dramatized. It was to be done as a tableaux and pantomime.”

This is the publication for the touring production with scenery designed and painted by Thomas G. Moses.

“Ben-Hur” in Dramatic Tableaux and Pantomime was arranged by Lew Wallace for Messrs. Clark & Cox and based on the author’s “Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ” (1880, Harper & Brothers). In an attempt to make his popular novel even more profitable, Wallace licensed his literary property to business managers and formed a tableau company for the purpose of presenting an adaptation of the novel for commercial purposes. This created a significant new and authorized market for the phenomenon. The author insisted on maintaining control and this is what differentiated this endeavor from previous ones of publications such as “The Last Days of Pompeii,” “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.” This was also on a much grander scale than previous tableaux popularized throughout the 1880s. In many ways, Wallace’s endeavor was unprecedented for a licensed literary property in the 1890s and was not terminated even after the appearance of Klaw & Erlanger’s production of “Ben-Hur” that opened at the Broadway Theatre on November 29, 1899. For the Broadway opening, Wallace was the special guest of honor. Interestingly, the Broadway production was designed by Moses’ long-time friend Ernest Albert (see past installment #137 that includes images from the souvenir program).

The first page of “Ben-Hur in Dramatic Tableaux and Pantomime” with the first Act opening with the Meeting of the Three Wise Men. Thomas G. Moses created a model for Gen. Lew Wallace and later painted the scenery for his production.

Here is the division of scenes for “Ben-Hur in Dramatic Tableaux and Pantomime” in its entirety:

Act I

Scene 1 – Meeting of the Three Wise Men

Scene II – Joseph and Mary at the Joppa Gate

Scene III – The Three Wise Men at the Damascus Gate

Scene IV – The Three in the Palace before Herod

Scene V – Ben-Hur and Messala in the Garden

Scene VI – Street in Jerusalem

Scene VII – Deck of a Roman Trireme. Arrius and Ben-Hur in Conversation

Scene VIII – Entrance Gate of the Grove of Daphne

Scene IX – The Fountain of Castalia

Scene X – The Orchard of Palms

Scene XI – Door of Ilderim’s Tent

Scene XII – Same Interior of Tent

Scene XIII – Iras and Ben-Hur on the Lake at the Orchard of Palms

Scene XIV – Interior of Simonide’s House

Scene XV – Saloon in the Palace on the Island

End of Act – The Chariot Race

Tableaux – The Chariot Race

Act II

Scene I – A Splendid Atrium in a Roman Place

Scene II – Desolate Home of the Hurs. The Gates of the South Side. Bright Moonlight

Scene III – The Well En-Rogel

Scene IV – The Road-side between Bethany and Jerusalem east of Mount Olivet

Scene V – On the Roof of the Restored Palace of the Hurs

Scene VI – In a Summer House on the Roof

Scene VII – The Shadow of the Cross

Scene VII I– Chamber in the Villa by Misenum

End of the Second Act

Transformation, Iras Story of the Nile

Scene 1 – Iras relating the story

Scene 2 – The Nile – Sphynx – Pyramids

Scene 3 – Opening of the Lotus Flower

Scene 4 – The Temples of Egypt

Scene 5 – The Priestesses of Isis and Osiris

In the January 4, 1893 issue of the “Wichita Daily Beacon” (page 4), the Amusements section reported on the production of “Ben Hur,” under the management of Messrs. Clark & Cox, “who have won remarkable success in the larger cities of the east.” The article noted “’Ben Hur’ is presented in the form of a spectacular pantomime, beautiful, impressive, refined, sanctioned and approved by Gen. Lew Wallace, author of Ben Hur. A special car load of scenery, painted by Chicago artist, Thomas G. Moses, representing historic scenes in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, will be brought to Wichita.” The article went on to describe that there were “twenty-two scenes of surpassing beauty” and that 150 people took part in the living tableaux.

On May 10, 1896, “The Nashville American” published and article “Scenes of the Orient” that described the scenery painted by Moses for the Ben-Hur production (Part 2, Vol. XX, No. 7123, pages 9 to 16). The Woman’s Board of Tennessee Centennial were preparing for the production of the “grand spectacular, Ben Hur at the Vendome beginning the week of May 18.“

The article noted, “The scenery used is from the brush of the celebrated scenic artist Thomas G. Moses, of the Schiller Theatre, Chicago, and the subject of the play itself offers for spectacular effects the best opportunity of any amateur production ever had in Nashville. Rapidly shifting scenes will pass before the eyes of those who have taken delight in reading Gen. Lew Wallace’s incomparable tale of Ben Hur.

The play will begin in the lonely desert where the Magi meet, Joseph and Mary will appear at the Joppa Gate, and the Wise Men will arrive at the Damascus Gate in search of him who is to be born King of the Jews. The appearance of these men before Herod and all the Bible story will be vividly presented. The scenes will again shift, and Ben Hur will be introduced in all the beauty and strength of his youth. The succeeding scenes will carry him through the thrilling experiences of the tale, from the home of happy companionship to the sad position of a galley slave.

The famous chariot race will be introduced, and this part is almost unexcelled in scenic pantomime. The reuniting of the separating families will be shown, ending with the dramatic farewell to Iras. The production will close with a beautiful transformation scene, Iras’ Dream of the Nile. In this closing view is represented $10,000 worth of scenery and costumes, and, taken together with the many pretty faces of Nashville’s society girls, it will be the most gorgeous spectacle to gaze upon.”

Even in 1899, the same year that Klaw “Erlanger’s Braodway production opened, Moses’ contribution was still noted in newspaper publications as the production continued to tour. The “Harrisburg Star-Independent (Feb 10, 1899, page 2) published “Thomas G. Moses of Chicago, an artist of national repute, with two assistants, worked for a whole year on the scenery employed in the production, which is conceded to be the finest of its kind ever shown in America.”

Well, it might have taken Moses a whole year to finish the scenery as he was juggling numerous projects throughout the duration of the year, but this was not his sole focus during his employment in 1892.

To be continued…