In 1910, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Fox Lake appealed to me all summer. I went up as much as possible and made good use of my time. How I wished in vain for time and money to spend all summer sketching. I know I could do something worthwhile.” The Palette & Chisel Club kept an artists retreat at Fox Lake. Numerous Sosman & Landis artists travelled to the camp during their time off each summer, including Moses.
Palette and Chisel clubhouse at Fox Lake, donated by Thomas G. Moses
Moses continued, “Mr. Ralph
Terwilliger was at Fox Lake – I hardly knew him. He was President of a city bank. He was with Burridge, Moses and Louderback as
a paint boy for $4.00 per week. He had
prospered. With his wife and two daughters
he enjoys a cottage near our camp.”
R. J. Terwilliger, from the “Liberal News,” 27 April 1911, page 11
Moses pasted a picture of R. J.
Terwilliger in his scrapbook years later.
It noted that Terwillger was the founder and first president of the
North-West Side Commercial Association. On the clipping, Moses wrote, “Paint boy
for Burridge, Moses and Louderbeck during the years of 1887 and 1888.”
Clipping pasted in The scrapbook fo Thoms G. Moses.
Burridge, Moses & Louderback only laster from 1887 to 1888.
The company’s offices were located at 22 Chamber of Commerce in Chicago,
Illinois, on the corner of Clark and Division Streets. Burridge, Moses & Louderback used the paint
frames at the Columbia Theatre. Located at the corner of Dearborn and Projects
completed by Burridge, Moses & Louderback included “Gypsy Baron” for the
Conried and Hermann Opera Company, 2 panoramas for Joe Murphy’s “Donah,” and 2
complete productions of “Kerry Gow.” The firm painted the scenery for the Duff
Co.’s production of “Dorothea” at the Standard Theatre in New York, as well as Steele
MacKaye’s “A Noble Rogue” at the Chicago Grand Opera. During these two busy
years, Burridge, Moses & Louderback stocked six theatres with all of the
necessary scenery, including the Grand Opera House in Columbus, Ohio, and
Foster’s Opera House in Des Moines, Iowa.
Burridge, Mosess & Louderback letter, from the Waszut-Barrett collection.
Moses and Burridge were two successful and well-known
artists when they partnered in 1887. Advertisements listed Louderback as the
firm’s business manager. He was and established and well-respected owner of an
auction house and fine art galleries. In November of 1888, Burridge pulled out
of the studio because he and Louderback couldn’t agree on the running of the
business. Louderback came from a “managing art” background while Burridge came
from a “creating art” background.
Burridge, Moses, and Louderback’s paint boy Terwilliger eventually
left the theatre profession, finding success in the banking industry after
moving to Kansas. The year after Moses reunited with Terwilliger in Fox Lake,
the “Liberal News” pictured R. J. Terwilliger as president of T-W Land and
Mortgage Co. (April 27, 1911, the (page 11).
The article noted the firm was “one of the oldest and one of the most
active real estate concerns of the city of Liberal.” T-W Land and Mortgage Co.,
was described as “the first and last [business] encountered from the Rock
Island depot on South Kansas Avenue.” Terwilliger was President, while C. M.
Cole was Vice-President and M. F. Eidson, Secretary and Treasurer; Eidson was
his son-in-law. The article continued, “The firm is the oldest and largest
concern of its kind in Liberal. They do a general real estate business in farm,
ranch and city property, and handle real estate loans of all kinds. Every
member is a substantial business man of the town and all are well and favorably
known to its citizens as men who are reliable in every way.”
I return to writing after cleaning up after a flood and attending to other responsibilities.
Joseph S. Sosman was a successful business man. Fame visited him early in his career and his partnership with Landis flourished, growing into a theatrical supply dynasty by the twentieth century. By 1909, Sosman was nearing retirement and he began redirecting his focus on his family. At first, he sought solace at his summer home, staying at their Fairlawn on the north shore of Lake Bluff. Like many other wealthy Chicagoans, the summer season was spent relaxing in the cool shade near a body of water. Although well-deserved, Sosman & Landis studio never recovered from his extended absences.
osman & Landis Scene Painting Studio brochure detail
Maybe it didn’t matter for
Sosman, as he was well established with ample revenue from multiple business
ventures that supported his retirement.
Maybe he was trying to make up for all of the time spent away from his
wife early in his career, when he was traveling the country and painting one
stock scene after another. Mrs. And Mrs. Sosman began to travel in earnest
during 1910. There were no longer children to consider, as their son Arthur,
married in 1906 and was currently living in New York. Mrs. Joseph Sosman
visited the young couple for an extended stay during 1909, possibly signaling
that she was going to start vacationing, with or without her husband (Inter
Ocean, 30 Jan. 1909, page 7). Regardless, Sosman’s absence was acutely felt by
Sosman & Landis employees as the business began to shift focus and become
subject to infighting.
Image of Mrs. Joseph S. Sosman in 1910 from the Chicago Inter Ocean, Jan 30 1909, page 7
In 1910, Moses wrote, “Mr.
Sosman went to Europe on January 30th for an extended trip. It lasted fifteen weeks. He simply informed me that he was going, just
a few days before he went. Never took
the trouble to inform me of any of the details that I should know. He had a good bookkeeper, and I depended on
him a great deal. I did some hustling
while he was away.”
Sosman & Landis main studio
On February 6, the “Chicago
Tribune” noted, “Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Sosman, 1628 Washington boulevard, have
sailed for a trip down the Mediterranean and to points in Europe. They will be
absent for four months” (6 Feb, 1910, page 23). By April 30, the London “Times”
reported that Mr. and Mrs. J. S. Sosman of Chicago recently arrived at the
Waldorf Hotel (Arrivals and Departures, page 1). On May 21, the couple was
again listed as one of the recent arrivals at the Hotel Waldorf in London
(Americans in London, Philadelphia Inquirer, 22 May 1910, page 2).
Image of Joseph Sosman during his European trip. This was one of the postacards that Sosman sent to Thomas G. Moses in 1910
In appreciation for Moses hard
work during his absence, Sosman presented him with “a fine ‘scarab’ that he
bought in Egypt.” Moses had the scarab turned into a stick pin.”
Yet Sosman’s absence for fifteen
weeks in 1909 was a difficult period for Moses, as he did not command the same
respect without his friend and colleague. This was a period of intense
productivity too. Moses remembered, “I had my own troubles with the
stenographer, and old crank that wanted to do everything as Mr. Sosman did
it. She would write Sosman a lot of
worry stuff that I had been keeping from him.
We were going along allright, making a little money.” The stenographer was just one of the obstacle
that Moses encountered during Sosman’s
absence. Athough Moses had control over the aesthetic and production arm of the
company, David H. Hunt retained control over the administrative offices and
expenses.
In his 1910 memoirs, Moses
wrote, “Mr. Hunt was secretary and treasurer, and expected to run the business,
but I wouldn’t allow it. Mr. Hunt kept
on the road most of the time.” And this is where the downfall of Sosman &
Landis commences; Sosman steps out of the daily running of the company, leaving
it to others. Keep in mind that Sosman was a scenic artist; Hunt was not. The additional
problem was that each of Sosman’s staff has a different focus, or endgame, for
the company. In some ways, Moses and
Hunt are diametrically opposed, each with a specific goals; Moses focusing on
the artistic product and Hunt focussing on the profits.
David H. Hunt pictured in 1903, from the Detroit Free Press, 21 May 1903, page 12.
Keep in mind that Moses returned
to Sosman & Landis studio in 1904. This was his final return to the company
after striking out on his own several times with various business partners. The terms for his return in 1904 specified
that Moses gain complete control over the design, construction and installation
of all projects. In other words, he was in charge of the shops and labor. By 1910, Moses had functioned in this capacity
for six years and the company was producing an amazing amount of product.
Hunt had remained a thorn in
Moses’ side for many years, as his treatment of many of good artists prompted
them to leave the studio. This group included the extremely talented John H.
Young, who went on to domnate the Broadway scene as a well known designer. Hunt
had been with the company since the early 1890s and wormed his way into both
Sosman & Landis’ confidence. In
1894, Hunt convinced Sosman & Landis to establish, the theatrical
management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt. This was a secondary business
venture; a company that leased theaters and founded touring companies in
Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Detroit.
The firm kept Hunt busy as the primary manager for the endeavor, yet
much of the necessary work was completed by the Sosman & Landis studio
staff from Chicago. Moses’ diaries suggest that Hunt did not treat the artistic
staff well; Artists were swapped and directed to various projects like pawns on
a chessboard, ready to be sacrificed at any point. Hunt had remained on the
administrative end of the studio for his entire career, yet always found his
way into the spotlight and newspaper articles.
By 1910, Hunt also talked Sosman
into investing in a new business venture – New York Studios. That year, Moses
wrote, “Hunt had started a New York studio in New York City and he expected us
to do a great deal of work, as he had Sosman invest a small amount.” New York Studios listed Adelaide A.
Hunt as the President, Edward A. Morange as the vice president, and David H.
Hunt, as the Treasurer. The company’s starting capital was $40,000, and listed
the following directors: Edward A. Morange, Adelaide A. and David H. Hunt, with
offices located at 325 W 29th Street,
New York. Business listings noted that theatrical equipment was the primary product produced by the company.
Now there were two scenic studios to consider, on only one Moses.
Around the end of May, Sosman returned to Chicago an
assessed the state of affairs at the studio. Moses returned about the same
time, after completing several New York projects that month. Moses recalled, “I heard some reports as to
what Hunt had reported to Sosman about my treatment towards him. I got mad and wanted to quit. Sosman wouldn’t listen to me. I finally got cooled… I arrived June
25th. Sosman had his doubts as to my
coming back.
Later Moses added, “Hunt remained away from the studio for
some time, before going back home.” Hunt’s home was in New York.
Four drop curtains painted by Lee Lash were described in the article “Well-known Drop Curtains in Philadelphia Theatres” published in “The Philadelphia Inquirer” on Dec. 18, 1894 (page 45).
Of the four, two depicted American scenes. Capturing life in the United States became a more prevalent theme as the nineteenth century progresses. Scene of the old world, its history and legends, began to be replaced with scenes of American activities and expansion:
Lash painted a drop curtain for the Chestnut Street
Theatre by 1894:
“What might be called realism in scenic effects-the
representation of actual sights and scenes of daily life-is becoming more and
more, a feature of stage curtains. Bits of “local color” appear on several of
these, as in the drop curtain of the Chestnut Street Theatre, painted by Mr.
Lee Lash, which is a view of Broad street, looking south from Jefferson with
the Public Buildings silhouetted in the distance. The big bus unloading a
flower-laden troop of pretty women and children, the hand-cart, the street
gamin, and other characteristic Broad street sights, are prominent in the
foreground. At the right is the Mercantile Club building, in process of
construction. The picture is a fine, bold piece of coloring and the figures are
admirably life-like.”
The first Chestnut Street
Theatre was located on the north side of Chestnut Street, between Sixth and
Seventh. It was referred to as the “New Theatre,” to distinguish it from the
“old” theatre in Southwark. Built in 1792, it was destroyed by fire on April 2,
1820. The second Chestnut Street Theatre opened Dec. 2, 1822, and was also later destroyed in 1856.
It was rebuilt and later opened by William Wheatly on January 26, 1863. The third
Chestnut Street Theatre was located 1211 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia. It
was the third Chestnut Street Theatre that Lash created a drop curtain for by
1894.
Lash’s second curtain noted in the 1894 “Philadelphia
Inquirer” article was for Philadelphia’s National Theatre. As with the Chestnut
Street drop curtain, it depicted an American scene:
“The curtain of the National Theatre, by the same artist
[Lee Lash], illustrates the picturesque side of American village life. The
foreground figures, a group of women and children gossiping at a quaint
old-fashioned well, are faithfully rendered, and the effect of sunshine on the
whitewashed exterior of the quaint country cottages is excellent.”
Lash painted a third curtain for the People’s Theatre in
Philadelphia. Originally opening in 1890, the venue’s seating capacity was over
2,200. The building was located on Kensington Avenue at the corner of E.
Cumberland Street. In 1914, Thomas Lamb was hired to remodel the People’s Theatre.
Part of the renovation included the reduction of seats to approximately 1,930.
From 1924-26, the People’s Theatre was renamed the Desmond Theatre. In 1927 the
theatre was remodeled again and renamed Kent Theatre by the Stanley Theatres
Corporation.
The People’s Theatre drop curtain by Lash depicted a French
scene:
“A fishing village in the south of France furnishes the
motive for the picture curtain of the People’s Theatre. Grouped against the
clear horizon are a picturesque handful of old houses, while on the wharf in
the foreground is a cluster of fisher girls and men engaged in lively
“chaffening” over the day’s catch. Large figures to the left of a young girl
and her dog, and the realistic basket of coils of rope, etc., scattered around,
are effective bits of still-life.”
The article then noted Lash’s drop curtain for Forepaugh’s
Theatre too:
“The same artist who painted this, Mr. Lee Lash, designed
also the striking curtain at Forepaugh’s Theatre, a broad boulevard in the
Champs Elysees, Paris, with the commanding arch of the Porte Smarting in the background,
a statue of Beethoven to the left, and the mounted figures of fashionable dames
and a fine tally-ho adorning the foreground. The whole is a handsome effective
piece of work.”
I have covered Lash in several posts over the past three
years, but here is a lovely article from 1935, that briefly sums up his career.
It was printed in the “Latrobe Bulletin,” on 25 June, 1935.
“The story of Lee Lash is an epic in American Art annals.
At 70 he has achieved an artistic goal from which he sidetracked in youth and
kept in the paths of commercialism for more than 33 years. Today the name of
Lee Lash known the country over as the perpetrator of advertising drop
curtains, is acclaimed with true artistic fervor. His first one mane show just
held in the Keppel Galleries, New York, has revealed an artist of the first
water, a painter of rare power and sensitive feeling.
The most discriminating of critics, remembering what the
Lee Lash Studios stood for, were taken aback when they gazed upon the exquisite
pictures to which the man has devoted his life for the past years. Not only
were critics unstinted in their praise but the public came to admire and buy as
well. His lovely vistas of New York roofs and skylines have been purchased by
private collectors.
Lash was born in San Francisco and began to draw before
he could write. His father a prosperous reporter from Prague recognized and
encouraged his son in his artistic ambitions. He studied in San Francisco and
then in Paris. He was already an excellent artist well on the road to fame when
his father’s business crashed. Lee’s career as an artist was checked. He had to
earn money. The advertising drop curtain was the result. At first he followed
the European idea of surrounding the central scene with advertisements. Then he
placed the “ads” in the picture itself, as signs in the landscape. The Lash
family recuperated its fortune even though the art sense of the country
suffered.
Today Lash, who lives with his wife in frequently
changed, sky-high apartments where he studies new view, has been compensated.
At this exhibition 67 picture, ranging from Brooklyn in the clear morning
light, to Manhattan through its customary haze, gave glimpses of roofs,
skylines – all breathing the spirit of New York” (page 3).
Other newspaper articles throughout the course of his
career note that Lee Lash drop curtain composition were often street scenes or
country lanes, often blocked with commercial ads. For another perspective on Lee
Lash and the history of the American ad drop, see past installments 578-580.
Lee Lash advertisement in the 1901-1902 issue of Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide1914 Advertisement in Gus Hill’s Directory
Nineteenth century scenic artists relied on satisfied clients; this not only helped secure future contracts but also guaranteed repeat customers. William F. Hamilton created scenery for the opera house in Wilmington, North Carolina, during 1896 and 1899. He was linked to the 1909 production of scenery too.
On August 25, 1896, the “Wilmington Morning Star” included the following announcement on the first page:
“Improvements at the Opera House.
“Mr. W. F. Hamilton, scenic artist and stage manager of the Standard Theatre, New York city and his assistant arrive in the city to-day to paint things in general in the Opera House. The present roll-curtain will be converted into a drop curtain, and a new drop curtain will be added. Four new sets of scenery will be painted and other necessary improvements in this line will be made. The theatrical season of 1896-97 promises to be the most successful for many years. The house will open with ‘Jim, the Penman,’ on the 7th of next moth.”
A few years later, Hamilton returned and the “Wilmington Morning Star,” reported “Mr. S. A. Schloss informed a representative yesterday that he had just closed a contract for a new drop curtain for the opera house, to be painted by Mr. W. F. Hamilton, the celebrated scenic artist of the Star Theatre, New York City. Mr. Hamilton was in Wilmington about two years ago and most of the finest scenes now at the Opera House were painted by him” (10 Oc. 1899, page 1).
And then there was his connection with another installation. The opera house underwent a significant renovation in 1909, with the installation of the current proscenium arch, measuring 32’ by 26.’ The work was completed under the direction of commercial lessee S.A. Schloss. In a local newspaper article Schloss explained that he was planning to restore and rehang the original drop curtain.
When I visited Thalian Hall this spring, Tony Rivenbark shared another piece of scenery found tucked away at the theater that looked to date from the early twentieth century. Sitting at the top of a backstage landing was an old book flat. It depicted a wood scene and was intended a masking, or a wing, for the side stage.
The New York Studios stencil on the Thanlian Hall flat in Wilmington, North Carolina, ca. 1910.
A painted detail from the New York Studios flat.
Backside of the New York Studios flat at the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Backside of the New York Studios flat at the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina.
The New York Studios flat at the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina.
The New York Studios flat at the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Amazingly, there was a studio stencil on the back of the flat, New York Studios. New York Studios was the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis of Chicago, started by David Hunt during the first decade of the twentieth century. In 1910, newspapers verified their increased presence in New York, describing scenery produced by “the well known New York and Chicago artists, Sosman & Landis” (The Times, Streator, Illinois, 14 Sept. 1910, page 5). New York Studios was incorporated on April 8, 1910, and lasted until its dissolution on Dec. 15, 1939.
An ad for The New York Studios from 1927.
In 1904, Joseph Sosman and David H. Hunt convinced Thomas G. Moses to return to Sosman & Landis in Chicago, effectively ending his partnership with Hamilton. Moses fostered many theatre connections along the eastern seaboard after establishing Moses & Hamilton. The success of the from 1900-1904 proved an asset to Sosman & Landis upon his return.
The New York Studios stockholders in 1910 included David H. Hunt, Adelaide Hunt, Edward Morange, Henry L. Rupert, and W. E. Castle. Like many firms, they operated under the name prior to incorporating.
Hamilton continued to work for New York Studios until he permanently moving to San Francisco to focus on Shrine Circus scenery and other large spectacles during the early 1920s. A “Variety” article from November 9, 1921 noted Hamilton’s continued connection to New York Studios that year, while also working for local firms. Under the heading “Hamilton’s Special Events,” the article commented, “W. F. Hamilton, formerly of the New York Scene Painting Studio, came to San Francisco to prepare the scenic equipment of the recent Shrine Circus.” In San Francisco, Hamilton also found work at Flagg Studios.
The 1858 Thalian Hall drop curtain is a significant artifact within the framework of American history. It is much more than an old piece of scenery created for a theater. This signed drop curtain is a large-scale artwork painted by a nationally recognized artist, one who left a substantial written legacy. Written records of Smith’s design, painting and installation of the curtain provide additional artistic provenance for the piece. Smith’s journal entries provide an extensive historical context not only for the 1858 drop curtain, but also theatre work at the time.
Smith’s memoirs give insight into the life of the artist, his art, and the shift in American theatre practices. Many of his journal entries were interpreted by Virginia Lewis and published in the book “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist.” Of Smith, Lewis wrote, “All through life he enjoyed talking and writing about his scenery work, and liked to explain his philosophy of scene painting, writing many thoughts into his journals.”
When Russell Smith painted the drop curtain destined for Wilmington, North Carolina, he was 46 years old. A well-known and established scenic artist, by this point in his career he had worked for three decades.
Of interest to me is Russell’s studio at Edgehill in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. He built his studio specifically for painting drops that he sometimes referred to as the “painting room for the Academy of Music.” This provided better light and a quiet environment to focus on his painting. A private studio space was preferable to the traditional one used by most artists in the theater. Most often, scenic artists painted scenery on frames that existed in the theater that they were creating scenery for at the time. However, a theater space was often busy with the hustle and bustle of rehearsals and stage preparation prior to a production. As there were fewer people watching him work, it is likely that criticisms and “suggestions” were kept to a minimum – a benefit when working off site. Smith suffered from chronic headaches throughout his entire life; to create art in the peace and quiet of his own studio must have been a relief from the noise of a commercial space.
Of Smith’s studio at Edgehill, Lewis notes that a frame structure was attached to the wing of the stone house. Smith wrote: “After the refreshment of sleep I would lie an hour and plan in my mind my day’s work – contrive the composition, dispose the masses of light, shade and color; and go over more than once, in fact, think it out; so that when I came before the canvas after breakfast, I never hesitated or lost time rubbing out, but went straight forward, and by night there would often be a finished scene. Some of the other prominent scene painters, Coyle and Jones, for instance, would express their surprise at the directness and the speed with which I pushed forward. They knew not the cause. But even that speed would not satisfy some stage managers; and I have been induced to paint three entire scenes in forty-two consecutive hours, and they were not simple scenes, like a calm sea and sly, or a quiet lake and distant hills, but represented an encampment, fortifications and a City, for ‘Edward the Black Prince.’”
Smith followed a traditional design process that is still used by many artists today, myself included. The design starts with a pencil drawing, or a simple concept sketch. This initially defines the composition. From this preliminary sketch, a quick painting or study is produced in a slightly larger format. These early works evolve into a finished picture, or scale color rendering that will be used for full scale painted drop. As today, this design process verifies the direction of the composition at every step. Ideally, it prevents a flurry of recommendations and alterations after any on site installation.
Small sketch for the Russell Smith 1858 drop curtain at Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina. It is approximately 2″ high by 3″ wide – very small. Almost like a sketch on a bar napkin!
1858 drop curtain by Russell Smith shows the final composition, after it evolved during the design process.
However, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder; then, as now, the value of scenic art varies from one to another. In his memoirs, Smith commented that some perceived scenic art as “but a coarse kind of daubing, indeed an inferior trade; and no doubt much of it deserves no higher position-with its want of nature and extreme exaggeration of color. But the best poetry of the Drama justifies the grandest and most beautiful illustration; and if the audience would demand it and the painter could bring to his great canvas sufficient genius a wide experience of nature and mastery of execution, where would lie its inferiority? And how much less would his power of instructing and pleasing be than a painter who strived to do so in the space of a yard or square foot? This was always my estimate of my profession; and I ever strove to sustain it by avoiding all false color, glitter and exaggeration of every kind, whilst striving to represent the most beautiful features of nature, I could see with reverential love of truth. The material, canvas and color, I used were also genuine as that of the best oil pictures; and as I painted in my own painting room, out of town, I was freed form the injudicious dictation of prompters, stage-managers, etc., who care little for real good art and are justly blamed for their shortcomings of the Stage, but who always justify themselves by saying. ‘The business must pay, and therefore it is our duty to give to the public what they want to see.’”
The Toomey & Volland studio of St. Louis was also installing scenery and stage machinery in Scottish Rite theaters during 1909. One example was the Scottish Rite in Fort Wayne. Here is the article published in the Kansas City Kansas Republic on Dec. 2, 1909.
Illustration accompanying newspaper article about the opening of the Fort Wayne Scottish Rite, 1909
“Finest Cathedral.
Scottish Rite Temple in Fort Wayne is Dedicated.
Masons of High Degrees at Exercises Attending Opening of $200,000 Temple-Has a Fine Banquet.
Fort Wayne, Ind. –The new Scottish Rite cathedral in Fort Wayne, costing about $200,000, and said to be the finest in America, was dedicated on the evening of November 17 in the order from most of the larger cities of the far east and middle west. The dedication was preceded by a banquet-room. At which 1,000 plated were laid. The banqet-room of the cathedral fills the entire ground floor and is one of the largest and most ornate halls in the west.
Owning to the illness of Sovereign Grand Commander Samuel C. Lawrence, 33, of Boston, the master of ceremonies was Barton Smith of Toledo, 33, puissant lieutenant grand commander, assisted by John Corson Smith, 33, grand minister of the state. William Geake, 33, of this city, commander-in-chief of the Fort Wayne Sovereign Consistory, assisted in the dedication.
The dedication was held at the regular time of the fall meeting of the consistory for the Valley of Fort Wayne, and 300 took the Scottish Rite degrees. Degrees were given from the fourth to the Thirty-second. Heretofore this valley had no jurisdiction beyond the eighteenth degree, and the degrees from the 19 to 32 were conferred here for the first time. As the consistory has already nearly 1,100 members, the Fort Wayne consistory has become one of the largest in the country.
The cathedral, which was designed by Mahurin & Mahurin of Fort Wayne, is a at Clinton and Washington streets, in the residence section, with the handsome First Presbyterian church across the street. It is built of Bedford stone on all sides and is thoroughly fireproof, being finished within with concrete floors, marble stairways and wainscoting, and iron balustrades. Some rooms are finished in Cuban mahogany, but there is very little inflammable material anywhere. The heating is by steam and the lighting by electricity.
The cathedral is three stories high, with a spacious basement. The ground floor will be the banquet and ballrooms, with galleries. The social rooms are on the second floor, which is also provided with quarters for the ladies. There is also a room for the Mystic Shrine. The third floor is occupied by the consistory auditorium, which is arranged on the stadium plan with tiers of opera chairs rising steeply, so that those in the rear seats can all see the work on the large floor below. There are seats for nearly 600 in this auditorium. The organ loft is in the north and at the south end there is a spacious stage provided with scenery, the work of a St. Louis firm.
The proscenium arch is elaborate with the designs and emblems of the several degrees. The decorative design and color scheme were the work of a Chicago firm. The organ was made in Rock Island at a cost of $6,000.”
Here is a link to the Consecration and dedication of the Scottish Rite Cathedral, Valley of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, November 16, 17, 18, 1909, on the Internet Archive:
Consecration and dedication of the Scottish Rite Cathedral, Valley of Fort Wayne, Indiana, 1909
Consecration and dedication of the Scottish Rite Cathedral, Valley of Fort Wayne, Indiana, 1909
This building on the corner of Washington and Berry Streets no longer exists. In 1953, the Fort Wayne Scottish Rite bought the Mizpah Shrine building on the corner of Ewing and West Berry. Constructed in 1925, the Shrine building had a seating capacity of 2,400 that hosted a variety of non-Masonic events and has quite and interesting history. Unfortunately, the Fort Wayne Scottish Rite left this home too when St. Francis University purchased the structure in 2012. Here is an article about the Shrine building, second home to the Fort Wayne Scottish Rite: http://historycenterfw.blogspot.com/2012/01/scottish-rite-history-in-fort-wayne.html
I left Genoa, Illinois, at 5:45 AM on Tuesday, March 19. My goal was to arrive at the Louisville Scottish Rite between noon and 1PM. The drive was pretty uneventful, but there were many places that I wished I had stopped along the way; there is just never enough time. The first was the exit that would have brought me to Thomas G. Moses’ hometown of Sterling, Illinois. The second was the Crump Theatre in Columbus, Indiana. I could not take the time to stop, as I knew that my time was really limited at the Louisville Scottish Rite. My plan was to evaluate the entire collection on Wednesday. Today was simply scoping out the collection, rigging and facility with Rick. Also, this was the only day Rick could visit since the “New World Rigging Symposium” would prevent him from visiting Wednesday.
I contacted my Scottish Rite host Randolph. The intent was to visit for two hours while they were still open. Randolph had scheduled one of the Masonic stagehands to be there – Jim. Jim had worked the stage for many years and was an absolute wealth of information at 75 years old. Fortunately for me, Jim gave me their stage book that provided a little guidance in terms of inventory and line order. This is an unusual gesture, as I often have to prove how much I know before that stage book is passed along.
The Louisville Scottish Rite auditorium
The Louisville Scottish Rite counterweight system
The Louisville Scottish Rite counterweight system
The Louisville Scottish Rite counterweight system
My visit on Tuesday was primarily about the rigging and Rick’s findings. Rick had a wonderful opportunity to fully explain the significance of this double purchase system to the stewards of this stage. He described that the 1930 system, original to the building, predated the Clancy patent several years later. As interested as I was in the unique aspects of the system I was more anxious to see a few scenes while he was in the flies. They brought in the first line and I began to catalogue information about this 4th degree interior setting.
My notes were placed within the historical context of the Louisville Scottish Rite that I have explored during the previous week. It was apparent that the majority of the scenery dated from 1910. Toomey & Volland business records noted two scenery deliveries – 1910 and 1951. The drops depicted standard designs and painting techniques characteristic of the studio.
Unfortunately, much of the scenery was restored at one point, with methods that may not be advantageous for the collection’s future. I understand the choices of those who repaired the scene, but wonder how these will age. Most scenes were backed with a type of gauze that appeared plastic, although it may have been the adhesive. The edges of cut scenes were backed with flexible foam core; this I had encountered in Cheyenne. For a new scene, ephemeral in nature, it is a brilliant idea. For historic scenery, I have to wonder how the foam will interact with the fragile fabric in the long run. The painted surface had also been sealed, resulting in a slight sheen. I have no idea what was used for this, as it had a plastic feel; almost reminding me of a product that I used on interactive exhibits for museum projects – Aquaplastic.
Finally, the netting was replaced with a plastic ½” square version; hot melt glued to the back. As Alessia Carpoca and I looked at this alteration near the end of the day, she asked the same question that has gone through my mind multiple times when seeing hot melt glued netting: “How could anyone be so stupid?” It is the idea that the drops of hot glue will never come of the back without damaging the fabric. The hot glue embeds itself in the weave and is permanently fixed. Even steam and heat only partially removed this product, as I have tried in the past. The process completely destroys the painted surface during its removal.
Meanwhile, Rick was occupied doing another good deed (as usual); helping balance some line sets to make them easier to move. He also took the time to thoroughly explain how the system worked and all of the various components. As previously mentioned, the Scottish Rite Reunion was scheduled to start in four days and some of the lines were difficult to pull.
For the most part, we try to leave any stage better than we found it, even if this means simply explaining a system and scenery for future clarity. In Scottish Rite theaters, the Masonic stagehands are often unfamiliar with the history of both. It is not unusual to find something amiss in these systems that require a simple tweak. After all, the systems have often not been maintained since their installation.
After Rick was done with his talk and the weight adjustment, we headed up to the grid. This was one of the easiest ascents ever to access the space above the stage.
Our journey to the grid at the Louisville Scottish Rite
The Louisville Scottish Rite counterweight system above the stage
The Louisville Scottish Rite counterweight system above the stage
We went up steps and followed boards above the auditorium space. I kept an eye out for trash, as treasures were often left in these attic spaces. Sure enough, there was a Mazda Edison box! We balanced our way to a small door, with Jim taking quick grip on me to make sure I would not fall. My sense of mortality has exponentially increased over the years, so I don’t wander to close to the edges anymore. However, I wasn’t going to miss an opportunity accompanying Rick and hearing his observations. It is always fun to be on site with Rick, as he so thoroughly explains what I am looking at and the nuances of each system. It is like the rigging class that does not end.
We left the Scottish Rite late afternoon, and I checked into the Hardy House (my Airbnb for the conference). Just about the time I was settling in and deciding to open a can of soup, I received a text from Randolph. He notified me that the Louisville Scottish Rite librarian and archivist would be contacting me soon, offering me the opportunity to visit the Scottish Rite library that evening. Regardless of my fatigue, this was not an opportunity that I would miss. So within the hour, I was waiting outside for my ride to head back to the Louisville Scottish Rite. It was certainly worth it as I spent the next few hours perusing books and chatting with Richard.
Like many, the library was a fraction of what it had once held. Books were missing and the contents somewhat sparse. However, there were certainly some gems left; absolutely priceless publications that would contribute to my ongoing research about visual sources used by scenic studios to produce Scottish Rite scenery. My biggest surprise was a Cerneau book with many recognizable compositions that were later incorporated into the Scottish Rite scenic designs.
The first Scottish Rite Cathedral in Louisville was a the remodeled building during 1895- St. Paul’s Episcopal Church at Sixth and Walnut Streets. From this moment forward, the Masonic membership in Louisville continued to grow at a rapid rate. By 1919, the Scottish Rite candidate class size numbered 200, and the high membership numbers began exceeding the building’s capacity.
During the 67th annual spring reunion in 1919, the president of the “Victory Class “of Scottish Rite candidates introduced a resolution. Dr. T. H. Tuley urged “the Grand Consistory immediately to make plans for the erection of a Scottish Rite Cathedral in Louisville which will prove a credit to the Rite and to the city.” The Courier-Journal reported, the reading of the resolution was greeted with applause, and from the manner in which the proposition was received it seems possible some steps in this direction will be taken” (26 April 1919, page 4).
Previously, Courier-Journal published, “Largest Class in History of Consistory Attending Scottish Rite Meeting. 200 At First Dinner” (23 April 1919, page 9). The session opened at 10AM on April 22, with conferring the Lodge of Perfection degrees (4-14). The article noted, “For several months the Scottish Rite has been practically overwhelmed with applications for membership, every Masonic lodge in the State reporting unusually large numbers of initiates. The result has been that for the first time in many years it has been necessary to hold two spring Scottish Rite classes, the first one having completed work only about ten days ago.” Capt. John H. Cowles, sovereign grand inspector general of the Supreme Council of the Rite, was interviewed by the Courier-Times. They reported, “He says unusually large classes are being accepted into the rite in all consistories of the southern jurisdiction. He was highly pleased with the showing made by the Louisville lodge, especially in view of the fact that he received his degrees here and is a native of Kentucky, having lived for many years in Louisville.” In 1919, the Louisville Scottish Rite also premiered a four-page publication for attendees title “The Reunion News,” which was published every day during the reunion. This does not surprise me at all, as the Scottish Rite once met in the same building as the local newspaper, the Courier-Journal. What a great idea.
Scottish Rite membership was explosive during the 1920s and the influential power of the Freemasons was substantial. This is a moment in time when the Rite was very vocal about their activities and positions on both the political and social stage. From the late-nineteenth century to early twentieth century, is was not unusual to find detailed information pertaining to daily activities at Scottish Rite reunions, a list of members, and the history of the organization. The views of the Rite pertaining to public education and other social issues were published for all to read. When a potential candidate thought about joining, there was no question in his mind about what the organization was really about and if it was a good fit. This may be why the Scottish Rite continued to gain ground and dominate the fraternal landscape of America.
On May 11, 1923, the Courier-Journal published that “Scottish Rite Masons will begin a three-day campaign May 23, to raise the $300,000 necessary to complete their building fund for the proposed $750,000 cathedral at the southwest corner of Fourth and Breckinridge Streets. Ground for this structure will be broken in September, it was said. The cathedral will have four stories and basement, with an auditorium seating 1,350 persons. Solicitation will be from the 2,286 members in the State of which 1,200 are in Louisville, The campaign will be in charge if Benjamin S. Washer, Richard Priest Dietzman, Edward F. Metzner, Harvey White and Dr. E. L. Henderson” (page 18).
On June 27, 1923, the old Scottish Rite was sold, becoming the R. E. Jones Temple, Methodist Episcopal Church. On September 9, 1923, the Courier-Journal announced, “The contract for the construction at Fourth and Breckinridge Streets will be awarded shortly after bids are opened about October 15” (page 34).
The second Louisville Scottish Rite
There is one thing to consider about the second Scottish Rite stage. As a church took possession of the old Scottish Rite building, it is unlikely that any Masonic scenery or artifacts would have been left behind. This means that the old scenery would either have been enlarged for their new home, (as such was the case with the 1910 Guthrie scenery) or it would have been replaced with new scenery and sold to another Scottish Rite theater.
I have only encountered two references about a scenery orders delivered to the Louisville Scottish Rite during the twentieth century. The earliest was in 1910, when the Louisville Scottish Rite purchased scenery from Toomey & Volland. However, Toomey and Volland advertisements from 1912 do not list Louisville alongside fifteen other Scottish Rite Cathedral installations by that time, suggesting that they were only adding to a previous collection. Toomey & Volland may have only expanded the original 1895 scenery collection during 1910. It is unclear if E, A. Armstrong Manufacturing Co delivered the original scenery to Louisville either; meaning in was subcontracted to Sosman & Landis. The Louisville Scottish Rite is not included in a 1902 E. A. Armstrong advertisement that notes all the Consistories that they equipped since 1897. Granted, Louisville was two years earlier in 1895, but it leaves a question in my mind concerning who delivered the scenery. One other person comes to mind – E. T. Harvey. Harvey was the scenic artist who produced Scottish Rite scenery collections for Cincinnati in 1886 and Cleveland in 1901. It will be fun to see what I find on site.
Regardless, by the 1950s, Volland studio records a second scenery order from the Louisville Scottish Rite, but they do not specify exactly what was delivered. This means it the order could have ranged from one scene to an entire collection.
There are four things to consider when examining the development of Brown’s Special System – the Chicago Auditorium, the Beckwith Memorial Auditorium, the scenic studio of Albert, Grover & Burridge, and Sosman & Landis. There is no linear progression of events and Chicago is a melting pot of ingenuity.
I’ll start with what Rick Boychuk wrote in “Nobody Looks Up: The History of the Counterweight Rigging System,1500-1925.” Boychuk contends that Chicago Auditorium of 1889 is a game changer in the future of American counterweight rigging. Of the endeavor, he writes, “The first counterweight rigging system in American was state-of-the-art technology when it was installed in 1889 in the Auditorium Building in Chicago – commonly referred to as the Chicago Auditorium” (page 167). Boychuk explains how Ferdinand Peck, the visionary for the Chicago auditorium, traveled to Europe to examine opera houses, later joined by architect Dankmar Adler (Adler & Sullivan) and Chicago stage carpenter John Bairstow. Boychuk states, “Chicago borrowed the sheave design and configuration from Budapest and the balance of the counterweight system from Vienna” (page 172). Read his book.
Things to think about as we contemplate the evolution of Brown’s special system: the Chicago Auditorium stage carpenter, Bairstow, was one of the charter members who founded Chicago’s Theatrical Mechanics Association. In fact, he was the organization’s first president in Chicago. Bairstow was a member of TMA Chicago Lodge No. 4. David Austin Strong was also a Member of Chicago Lodge. No. 4. At the time they were both members in 1891, Strong was an employee of Sosman & Landis, and was also credited as being the “Daddy of Masonic Design.”
David Austin Strong, scenic artist and stage mechanic
This title was given to him by Thomas Gibbs Moses in his 1931 memoirs; Moses became the president of Sosman & Landis in 1915. Before Chicago, Strong enjoyed a successful career in New York as both a scenic artist and stage carpenter. Strong even provided one of the scenes for the 1866 production of “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s Garden Theatre. At this same time, the Theatrical Mechanics Association was founded in New York (1866). During the 1870s Strong relocated to Chicago, the hub of theatrical construction and activities after the great fire of 1871. Joseph S. Sosman moved to Chicago in 1874, with the Sosman & Landis studio being established by 1877. Sosman & Landis was the primary manufacturer and installer of Brown’s special system in Scottish Rite theaters across the country.
At Sosman & Landis, Strong, Moses, and another stage carpenter by the name of Charles S. King were part of a special group; this group could be considered scenic artists with a thorough understanding of stage machinery, or stage carpenters who paint extremely well. Each had a specific task that he gravitated toward, but their job title by no means limited their abilities and contributions to one task or a single skill. Others in this group included Walter Burridge and Ernest Albert. Albert and Burridge were two of three founders who established another Chicago scenic studio in 1891 – Albert, Grover, and Burridge. One of their largest projects would be the manufacture and delivery of scenery and stage machinery for the Beckwith Memorial Theatre in Dowagiac, Michigan. This theater is significant within the framework of American theatre history.
Ernest Albert
Walter Burridge
Oliver Dennett Grover
Here is a refresher of the Albert, Grover & Burridge before revisiting the Beckwith Memorial Theatre and its link to the Chicago Auditorium. Ernest Albert (1857-1946), Oliver Dennett Grover (1861-1927) and Walter Burridge (1857-1913) founded “Albert, Grover & Burridge.” Their studio was located at 3127-33 State Street, Chicago, covering an area of 100×125 feet. Two of the founders had a significant tie to stage carpenter Bairstow: Albert worked as a scenic artist for the Chicago Auditorium and Chicago Opera House, while Walter Burridge was the scenic artist for both the Grand Opera House and McVicker’s. Keep in mind that John Bairstow worked as a stage carpenter at McVickers, the Grand Opera and the Chicago Auditorium. Grover was an art instructor at the Chicago Art Institute and linked to the planning of the Columbian Exposition. Albert and Burridge both worked with Thomas G. Moses at Sosman & Landis during the 1880s. Each would have known the long-time Sosman & Landis stage carpenter, Charles S. King. King is also a possible contender for the conception and development of Brown’s special system.
Advertisement for Albert, Grover & Burridge
The scenic studio of Albert, Grover & Burridge is described in “Chicago and its Resources Twenty Years After, 1871-1891: A Commercial History Showing the Progress and Growth of Two Decades from the Great Fire to the Present Time.” The studio was mentioned as implementing advancements in the methods of mounting and presentation of stage plays. Albert, Grover & Burridge leased the old Casino building on State Street, just south of 31st street, and renovated it. Their space included 12,000 square feet of working area, and another 2,500 square feet devoted to storage and sewing room. There were twenty paint frames, ranging from 56 by 35 feet to 30 by 20 feet. This was a sizable complex.
The studio of Albert, Grover & Burridge
A unique feature implemented by Albert, Grover & Burridge was that it included a staging area for scenic effects and innovations. The abovementioned publication reports, “The studio is so large that it permits the artists to introduce a novel feature in the art of painting scenery, which has been in their thoughts for some years. That is after a scene is painted, it can be hung, set and lighted in an open space the full size of any stage in the country, so that a manager can not only inspect it as an entirety, and thus suggest alterations, but he can bring his company to the studio and rehearse with the new scenery.” This idea had already been partially implemented by the Hanlon brothers at their private theater and workspace in Cohasset, where their master mechanic William Knox Brown tested new stage machinery and effects. Albert, Grover & Burridge went beyond the manufacture of scenery – they were the visionaries who combined painted illusion, lighting innovations, and new stage machinery. They were no different from other scenic studios in Chicago, they just had the space to expand and add a staging area. Scenic studios, with their staff of stage carpenters and scenic artists remained at the forefront of technological advancements, integrating old techniques with new technology. Unfortunately for Albert, Grover & Burridge, their business venture went bankrupt in two years, so they were not around when E. A. Armstrong and Bestor G. Brown were looking for a scenic studio to subcontract for Scottish Rite work. Sosman & Landis were waiting in the wings. However, their contributions can not be discounted when looking at the circle of innovators who helped disseminate the new counterweight technology.
By 1901, a Minneapolis “Star Tribune” article notes new settings at the Bijou Theatre in the article “Experts Behind the Scenes” (January 13). This provides a little context into the shifting staging techniques for commercial theater productions: “The stage proper was divided by the old system of grooves, which were used to hold up the scenery into divisions, one, two, three and four, where the stage was extra deep, sometimes five and six. Grooves are a mechanical contrivance in which the scenes slide back and forth. This method of stage setting is very seldom employed at the present time, the more modern arrangements of setting scenes in a box shape, supporting them with braces and connecting them by lash lines, being more common use.” At the same time box sets became more standard leg drops and fly scenery replaced wings, shutters, and roll drops.
In 1899 the fly scenery at the Beckwith Memorial Theatre is examined in “W.A. Norton’s Directory of Dowagiac, Cassopolis and La Grange, Pokagon, Silver Creek and Wayne Townships” (1899). The publication reports, “The scenery is designed for the cyclorama effect which has been found so effective, and which was first used in the Auditorium in Chicago. By this arrangement a scene can be set as a street or garden by simply moving the scenes which are profiled on both sides and top, anywhere desired. Every set of scenery is a finished piece of art. It is, after the latest fashion, lashed together with ropes and is capable of being made into seventy-five distinct stage dressings” (page 159). Earlier newspapers described the thirty-six hanging drops that could be combined in various combinations for seventy-six set possibilities.
The Beckwith Memorial Theater
The Beckwith Memorial Theatre
Drop curtain by Albert, Grover, & Burridge for the Beckwith Memorial Theatre
The Dowagiac “Republican” from January 18, 1893 described the new building as “The finest theater in America,” elaborating on the painted scenery: “It is the fitting and arrangement of the stage in the Beckwith Memorial Theatre, that the greatest care has been exercised to obtain the best possible results, and a great degree of success has been obtained. To go into technicalities and the use of stage terms would not be perhaps intelligible to our readers generally, so we will note only the main points. The stage is fifty by thirty-eight feet. Up to the gridiron, from which is suspended by an elaborate system of lines and pulleys all of the stage settings it is possible to use in the form of drop curtains, is fifty feet, allowing ample room for hoisting out of sight a whole screen in a few seconds, and allowing rapid changing of scenes so necessary to the continuing of the action of a play and effects are made possible that were unknown in the old days of sliding flats. To those acquainted with and interested in things theatrical and matters pertaining to proper stage fitting we think it is sufficient guarantee of the success of the stage to say that Albert, Grover & Burridge, of Chicago, had the direction of the stage fittings and the wall decorations of the auditorium and the entire building. Ernest Albert, of A., G., & B., under whose direction the art glass, colorings, the selection of draperies, and the furnishings of the theater were made, had succeeded admirably in producing the most beautiful and harmonious whole.”
The Beckwith Memorial Theatre of Dowagiac, Michigan, was built in 1892 for the cost of one hundred thousand dollars. Albert, Grover & Burridge directed the plan and installation of all stage fittings, the wall decorations of the auditorium, and painted décor throughout the entire building. This was a major extravagance for a small town that numbered less than seven thousand people. For more information pertaining to this theater, see past installment 134.
A little more than a decade after Seth G. Bailey invented an electrical mechanism for handling hanging scenery, Victor H. Volland came up with another option to handle scenery. In 1930, the United States Patent Office published an application filed on August 23, 1926 for operating curtain drops.
Victor H. Volland filed a patent in 1926 to operate scenery. Here are the drawings.
Victor H. Volland filed a patent in 1926 to operate scenery. Here is a detail.
Victor H. Volland filed a patent in 1926 to operate scenery. Here is a detail.
Victor H. Volland of Clayton Missouri, assignor to Volland Scenic Studio, Inc. of St. Louis Missouri, a corporation of Missouri submitted an application for a patent pertaining to the “Operating Means of Curtain Drops.” Victor wrote, “My invention related to improvements in means for operating curtain drops, in which each curtain drop together with hoisting mechanism and other accessories are combined into a single unit.”
Victor H. Volland was Hugo R. Volland’s son. Hugo R. Volland (1866-1921) founded a scenic studio in St. Louis, Missouri with Patrick J. Toomey (1861-1922) called Toomey & Volland at the turn of the twentieth century. Here’s little background about the inventor of the patent’s family.
Hugo R. Volland was born on May 6, 1866 in Großenbach, Germany. He was first listed as a St. Louis resident in 1888, living with his brother Otto and advertising as a painter. He worked for Noxon & Toomey as a studio as a scenic artist and secretary for the firm in 1892. By 1901, Hugo R. became vice-president of Noxon & Toomey. In 1902, the firm’s name was changed to Toomey & Volland. Toomey remained president of the company until 1919 when he retired. Hugo R. then became president, with his youngest son being vice-president.
Hugo R. and his wife Laura had three children – Louis J. (1897-1973), Victor H. (1899-1964) and Rose M. daughter, Rose (married name was Rose du Mosch). We are going to focus on the sons for now.
Even though Victor H. was the youngest son, he would be the first successor of Hugo R after his passing in 1921. Victor H. joined the United states Army during July 1918 (Private, 332nd Battalion, Company A). He entered the Tank Corps and sailed Sept. 29, 1918, landing at Bordeaux where he was stationed at Langres, France.
He safely returned home from military service and married by 1920. Victor became the secretary for Toomey & Volland and continued in this position until his father’s death in 1921. At this point the company began to change, as Toomey had already retired three years prior to Victor taking the reign from his father. When Victor became president of the company, his older brother Louis became the vice-president. At this time there was a notable shift in the tenor of the company.
There was also a shift in studio locations. In 1900, Toomey & Volland studio was located at 2312-14-16 Market Street, just outside the downtown theatre district. This lot was owned by Toomey. In 1922, Toomey & Volland scenic studios moved to a new location at 3731-33-35-37 Cass Avenue. Hugo R. never saw the completion of the new building as he died of heart disease before its completion. His wife Laura also passed away from heart disease, just a few months later; she died in a theater.
Patrick Toomey died from a heart attack in 1922 only a year after Volland passing. His passing was the same month that the studio was anticipated to open – March. Toomey’s only son followed a different path in life and the scenic studio was under the complete control of the Volland family. To lose the two founders within a year, caused major changes in the company’s focus. The production of painted scenery at the studio began to take a back seat, and the manufacture theatrical equipment assumed a more dominant role. Furthermore, the name of Toomey was removed from the firm, beginning the age of Volland Scenic Studios, Inc.
Imagine my surprise yesterday evening, to see a detail photo of a fly rail with lights that looked like Volland’s drawing from his patent on FB Group Archiving Technical Theatre History. On February 7, 2019, Robert Bob Foreman posted a photograph with “Has anyone ever seen one of these? Mounted to the flyrail of the 1927 (Kalamazoo) State Theatre, it appears to be a series of cue lights, with switches operated by the cue-ee! System installer unknown.”
1927 State Theatre in Kalamazoo, Michigan
Drawing from Victor H. Volland’s patent, filed in 1926
In all appearances, it looked like a part of what Volland invented in 1926. Attached is the 1926 patent with images. Volland’s patent described, “Mounted in the guard box 18 is an incandescent lamp 19 provided with a switch 20, said guard box being secured to a forwardly projecting end of the top member 11. At a particular time during a theatrical performance the map 19 may be caused to light, indicating to an attendant that a certain curtain is wanted, and by opening the lock 12 and pulling the rope 7, the curtain is raised or lowered as desired. Prior to this invention such devices were without individual locking devices and signal lamps.”
