Scottish Rite Scenery – Page 16

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 498 – The Financing of Scottish Rite Theaters, 1905

Part 498: The Financing of Scottish Rite Theaters, 1905

In yesterday’s post, I talked about the financial incentive for Sovereign Grand Inspector General’s to increase the membership of 32^nd degree Masons in their Orient (State); a 1905 resolution allowed them to received $2.00 per incoming 32^nd degree Mason until its repeal in 1909. During that time, membership was skyrocketing. The situation was comparable to the goose that laid the golden egg. There was a belief that future dues from a continually increasing membership would support the construction and maintenance of ever-increasing Scottish Rite homes. The idea that membership would always increase was not a realistic scenario and no one anticipated any decline, stock market crash, or a world war. No one also realized that during times of plenty, many Masonic leaders would not invest the funds into the maintenance and repair of their buildings as they aged; deferred maintenance would become the norm and is now causing many insurmountable problems.

Laying the cornerstone for the Santa Fe Scottish Rite, completed in 1912. The Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe Scottish Rite has many images of the construction and opening of this Masonic building.

There was something else, however, that facilitated the growth of the Fraternity during this first “golden age” of Masonic construction – the financing!

While I was doing research at the University of Texas’ Harry Ransom Center during the fall of 2016, I came across an intriguing letter from the western sales representative of M. C. Lilley & Co. – Bestor G. Brown. Again, Brown was the Past Grand Master for the State of Kansas in 1903. Brown belonged to many other Masonic orders, and was known as the only “Masonic Stage Carpenter” in the country. He also was the stage director for the Scottish Rite in Wichita, Kansas. Brown moved to Kansas City in 1904 where the regional offices for M.C. Lilley were located and formed quite a financial enterprise. As I mentioned yesterday, for Scottish Rite scenery and stage machinery production, Brown – on behalf of M.C. Lilley – subcontracted all work to Sosman & Landis of Chicago. Brown’s employer, M. C. Lilley and Co. was an established business with deep pockets; they could wait a while for payment on goods. THAT is what was needed to push the Scottish Rite into outfitting their theaters, sometimes beyond their means, with state-of-the-art stage systems. Many Scottish Rite theaters rivaled any counterpart on Broadway, Chicago, or the West Coast. Everything was top of the line at the time.

In 1913, Brown was negotiating a sale of stage machinery and a used scenery collection with the Austin Scottish Rite Bodies. He used their standard financing formula, allowing the Austin Scottish Rite Bodies to purchase 64 of Guthrie’s drops for $1,650. The drops had been accepted on credit toward the purchase of a new scenery collection in Guthrie, their first scenery collection was only eleven years old. Here were the standard terms for the production of a painted scenery collection, the manufacture of props, construction of costumes, delivery of stage machinery, stage lighting and the completed installation- a third due upon installation (in cash), a third due the following year, and the final third due in two years.

This financing was standard for most Scottish Rite endeavors delivered by M.C. Lilley. I am unsure how many other scenic studios or regalia suppliers cold afford to carry the debt of Scottish Rites across the country at that time. Brown even wrote, “In fact, if we had not been able to carry the Bodies in the Southern Jurisdiction as we have, we believe that fully one half of the development of the past ten years would not have been possible.” It becomes understandable why M. C. Lilley and their subcontractors dominated the market. From 1900 to 1904 there were a total of seven Scottish Rite Theatres outfitted with scenery and stage machinery by Sosman & Landis. From 1905 to 1909, there were sixteen Scottish Rite Theatres outfitted with scenery and stage machinery by Sosman & Landis – almost double. Between 1910 and 1915, there were another eighteen Scottish Rite Theatres outfitted with scenery and stage machinery by Sosman & Landis. This was simply their share of the Masonic market and represented approximately one quarter of all incoming work.

I believe that the special financing for Scottish Rite Bodies was HUGE! It presents how Scottish Rites were able to purchase state-of-the-art scenery, props, lighting and costumes; they were buying everything on credit and only had to pay a third upon receipt of goods. To pay off the new building and theater simply meant increasing membership numbers to generate even more income. It appeared to be a win-win situation.

Was everyone on board with the construction of Scottish Rite theaters and the staging of degree work? No, for many it went against the teaching and guidance of long-time Grand Commander Pike who reigned over the Southern Jurisdiction from 1859 to 1891. Although the Supreme Council had other Grand Commanders, there was no longer a unified vision directing the Scottish Rite. There were those who understood Past Grand Commander Pike’s desire that all of the members should take their time with the degrees to fully understand the Masonic instruction. There were others who saw the massive infusion of wealth into the organization. In 1915 an argument was made for the use of staged degree work in “Transactions of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction” –

“The interpretation of a degree, either by picture or stage scenery or other adjuncts, and most frequently, is, allowable, because men may be taught through the eye and frequently with more ease and facility than through the ear” (page 84).

True, and the demographic had shifted over the past century to include those who were not the top intellectuals of the country. There were many farmers, ranchers, businessman, and others from the rising middle class of American Society. It was no longer a group of visionaries who supported public education, riding the crest of every social wave that washed over America.

The Fraternity had survived a period of anti-Masonic sentient during the nineteenth century. The few brilliant men who were prevalent in the order at the beginning of the 18^th century were replaced with hoards of “good men” by then end of the nineteenth century. There were still brilliant intellectuals, but they no longer dominated the organization. For some, the Scottish Rite became a social organization, with the great potential for networking their business; others held onto the message and potential to better mankind. Membership growth and massive candidate classes and increased activities blurred the divide. During the early nineteenth century, the enormous infusion of cash allowed some to place the construction of massive stone monuments ahead of the Fraternity’s mission. These large buildings were perceived as the Fraternity’s crowning glory – look what we achieved! In some cases it was a competition to see who could build the biggest and best in their Orient. Sometimes it became more about the building than the everyday message that the Fraternity offered to better the world.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 489 – It’s all a (Masonic) Circus

Part 489: It’s all a (Masonic) Circus

This illustration of the five Ringling Brothers appeared in The Arkansas Democrat, 2 Oct. 1891, page 8

In my last post, I explored staged spectacles depicting the reign of King Solomon, and their appeal to Freemasons. Today, I am examining the connection that linked the Ringling Brothers with Freemasonry. The Ringlings Masonic affiliation may have provided additional incentive to stage the grand circus spectacle “King Solomon” in 1914.

By 1914 dozens of Scottish Rite stages had been constructed and held massive scenery collections to stage Scottish Rite degree work. Masonic backdrops depicted the private apartments, throne room, courtyard and the Temple of King Solomon. Scottish Rite Bodies with scenery collections were located all across the country.

To look at the sixty-one scenery collections solely produced by Sosman & Landis (Chicago) and Toomey & Volland (St. Louis) from 1896-1914 puts it in perspective. These installations included painted scenery for Scottish Rite Theatres in Little Rock, Arkansas; Tucson, Arizona; San Francisco, Stockton and Los Angeles, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Springfield, E. St. Louis, Quincy and Bloomington, Illinois; Davenport and Dubuque Iowa; Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, and Evansville, Indiana; Fort Scott, Fort Leavenworth, Wichita, Kansas City, Lawrence and Salina, Kansas; Louisville and Covington, Kentucky; Portland, Maine; Bay City, Michigan; Duluth and Winona, Minnesota; St Louis and Joplin, Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; Butte and Helena, Montana; Clinton and Jersey City, New Jersey; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Rochester and Buffalo, New York; Charlotte and Asheville, North Carolina; Grand Forks, North Dakota; Toledo, Davenport, Youngstown and Canton, Ohio; McAlester and Guthrie, Oklahoma; Bloomsburg and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; Yankton, South Dakota; Memphis, Tennessee; Dallas, El Paso and Austin, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Danville, Virginia; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Wheeling, West Virginia; Tacoma, Washington; and Cheyenne, Wyoming. These are the collections that I have tracked, yet there were many, many more by 1914 and some Scottish Rite Valleys had purchased more than one collection by this point as membership dramatically increased during the first decade of the twentieth century.

Each of the seven Ringling brothers was a Scottish Rite Mason. They were members of the Scottish Rite Consistory in Milwaukee, a theater that boasted a Sosman & Landis scenery collection supervised by Thomas G. Moses during its production in 1913.

In fact, August Rüngeling and his seven sons all joined the Fraternity between January 1890 and August 1891. Each was raised in Baraboo Lodge No. 34 in Baraboo, Wisconsin, during that time. This is not unusual, when considering the percentage of men involved with some type of fraternity during the late 19^th century, and how the Freemasonry could become a “family affair” for fathers and sons. Alf T. could be called the “ringleader” of the group as he was the first to become a Mason. Here is when each man became a Master Mason: Alf T. (January 22, 1890), John (March 1, 1890), Al (March 29, 1890), Charles (April 9, 1890), Otto (April 9, 1890), Gus (Feb. 4, 1891), Henry (March 18, 1891), August Rüngeling (August 9, 1891). However, it was their combined roles as Masonic officers during 1891 that caught my eye. Their Masonic roles were noted in the minutes of a meeting on April 8, 1891: Alf T. Ringling was Worshipful Master; August “Gus” Ringling was Senior Warden; Al Ringling was Junior Warden; Charles Ringling was Senior Deacon; Otto Ringling was Junior Deacon; Henry Ringling was Senior Steward.

In 1900, “The Buffalo Courier” included the story of the Ringling family in a section called “Travelers Toward the East” (9 Dec. 1900, page 25). The article reported, “A Masonic journal says that the Ringling brothers are known all over the country as the proprietors of the Ringling Circus. Seven of these brothers are members of Baraboo Lodge No. 34 of Wisconsin jurisdiction, and after the seven were all members of the lodge the petition of the father was received. The Ringling brothers qualified themselves to confer the degrees were assigned to the several positions in the lodge, received the father into the lodge and conferred the degrees upon him.” The Baraboo Lodge rooms were above McGann’s Furniture in the building at the Northwest corner of Oak and Second Avenue, but a new building was in the making. The same month that their father was raised, the “Wisconsin State Journal” reported that the corner stone for the Baraboo Masonic Temple was “to be laid with great ceremony” that Thursday (25 August 1891, page 1). A formal procession was formed and consisted of the Baraboo lodges, Eastern Star Chapter, Royal Arch Masons, Knights Templar, members of the Grand Lodge, the members of the city council, and lead by the Baraboo military band.

The Baraboo lodge No. 34 received its charter from the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin on June 8, 1852 and early meetings took place in the Lodge Room of Purdy’s building over at the Post Office (Sauk County Standard, Baraboo, Wisconsin, 29 March 1854, page 4). Stated meetings were the first Wednesday, on or before the full moon in each month).

Baraboo Lodge No. 34 was almost four decades old by the time the Ringlings became members. Besides belonging to Baraboo Lodge No. 34, the seven brothers also belonged to Baraboo Valley Chapter No. 49, R.A.M (Royal Arch Masons); St. John Commandery No. 21 K.T. (Knight Templars) of Baraboo, and the A.A.S.R. (Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite) in Milwaukee.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 488 – The King Solomon Story

As I started to explore the Ringling Brothers’ grand spectacle, “King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba,” I could not help but think of the many stage settings for the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. The designs include a variety of images from King Solomon’s Temple, the Sanctum Sanctorum, palatial apartments and the throne room. The story of the construction of King Solomon’s Temple was a subject dramatically acted in both Blue Lodge rooms and in Scottish Rite stages as part of their degree work. It was also a rich and popular subject for a variety of nineteenth-century entertainment venues.

The construction of the Temple and the assassination of its chief architect Hiram, remain a prominent topic in Masonic degree work, especially as a morality play. This story acted in lodge rooms was expanded upon and theatrically staged for Scottish Rite degree work. Never exclusive to the Fraternity, the reign of King Solomon was a popular subject for a variety of visual spectacles throughout the nineteenth century.

Poster for the Ringing Brothers’ 1914 Grand Spectacle “King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba”

1901 Masonic setting for King Solomon’s Throne Room at the Scottish Rite in McAlester, Oklahoma.

Detail of setting by Sosman & Landis produced for the Scottish Rite in Little Rock at the turn of the twentieth century.

In past posts, I have covered the subject of King Solomon on both public and private stages, including two 1840s touring show that featured “Chemical Paintings,” also known as “Magic Pictures.” These small painted backdrops transitioned from day to night as the composition was alternatively lit from both the front and back (see past installment #320). Newspapers from the time reported, “by modifying the light upon the picture, exhibits two entirely distinct representations upon the same canvas” (The Times-Picayune, 20 Dec. 1842, page 3). The Inauguration of Solomon’s Temple was one of four scenes that toured with the show. For a more thorough understanding of the 1842 exhibition, here is the description of “The Inauguration of Solomon’s Temple” as published in “The Times-Picayune:” “This painting represents the magnificent Temple of Solomon, son of David, which he caused to be erected in Jerusalem. Seen in the daytime, it exhibits to the spectacular the richness and elegance of its exterior architecture. The same Painting soon after passes through all the modifications of light: then night comes on, (effects obtained by the decomposition of light, a new process of painting invented by Daguerre,) the Temple appears illuminated interiorly by degrees, reflecting a bright light exteriorly, which discovers a great multitude of people flocking to adore the Ark of the Covenant, which the High Priest has deposited in the Tabernacle” (New Orleans, December 29, 1842, page 3).

1842 advertisement for the visual spectacle called “chemical paintings” of the “Inauguration of Solomon’s Temple”

King Solomon’s Temple scene at the Scottish Rite in Cheyenne, Wyoming

Detail of painted setting for the Scottish Rite in Cheyenne, Wyoming

Now to understand the popularity and appeal of the subject to Freemasons, I want to contrast these two events. The 1842 scenic effects, exhibited at the end of a darkened room suggested the possibilities for dramatic effects during degree work. As a Mason who attended the 1842 exhibit, I might leave full of ideas that could make the degree work in my small lodge room better. In contrast, the Ringling Brothers’ spectacle of “King Solomon” was produced at a scale that the Fraternity could never achieve. By 1914, dozens of Blue Lodge and Scottish Rite stages were using painted scenes that depicted King Solomon’s Temple, palatial quarters and the nearby landscape. They all paled in comparison with the grand spectacle at the circus, yet the same scenic artists were painting the sets for each venue.

Tomorrow, I will and taking the day off and will examine the Masonic history of the Ringlings on Wednesday.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: CITT, August 17, 2018

Rick Boychuk and I ventured with a group to the Hamilton Scottish Rite in the morning. About 45 minutes away from St. Catharine, the group on the bus survived navigating some unexpected obstacles on the way to the theater. A television series was filming outside of the Scottish Rite, so it caused a bit of a delay at first.

King Solomon’s private apartments at the Hamilton Scottish Rite. Scenery produced by Toomey & Volland in 1921.

King Cyrus’ palace at the Hamilton Scottish Rite. Scenery produced by Toomey & Volland in 1921.

The Masonic scenery collection was produced by Toomey & Volland of St. Louis, Missouri, delivered to Canada in 1921. Like many drops, their were charcoal notations that listed the degree, description of the composition and delivery location. The delivery for this scenery did not note St. Catharine, just “Canada!” There were 23 scenes spread out over 84 lines with the drops measuring 24’ high by 37’-6” wide. Although the theater was hot an humid, volunteers jumped at the opportunity to operate the lines. It is always fun to see the delight of my colleagues experiencing Masonic stages for the first time, and yesterday was no exception! As a few of the scene painting students were also able to attend, it was especially satisfying to watch them see what we discussed up close. Every collection is unique and has some delightful characteristic. Unfortunately, this particular collection has had extensive repairs completed over the years, not all of which will contribute the the overall longevity of the collection.

We returned to the Meridian event center by noon for the membership luncheon and then enjoyed a variety of educational sessions in the afternoon. Rick presented about our latest discoveries in the world of stage machinery, including the development of two program documents that we are currently developing at Historic Stage Services. I also attended John Madill’s session “BOO! Part 3. Smoke & Mirrors: The Importance of Horror in the Development of Physical Staging in Modern Theatre.” This was a continuation for me as we chatted extensively about “Tippy” Cooke and vampire roles the day before during the expo. John would later receive the Dieter Penzhorn Memorial Award at the evening banquet. John and I were able to visit quite extensively this year as he took both the scene painting class and he has been following my blog. Another of the students from the CITT scene painting class at CITT also received an award; Esther Van Eek received the education achievement award. She is absolutely amazing!

Overall, it was a wonderful and informative day.

2018 CITT/ICTS Dieter Penzhorn Memorial Award recipient, John Madill

I simply learned more than I have the energy to write about this morning; I am sure a surprise to some!

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 475 – Brown’s Special Counterweighted System

Part 475: Brown’s Special Counterweighted System

Brown’s Special Counterweighted System at the Scottish Rite in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

M. C. Lilley’s western sales representative, Bestor G. Brown, subcontracted Sosman & Landis for the painted scenery, props, and stage machinery for their large Scottish Rite Theatre contracts. By 1912, many of the counterweight rigging systems installed in Scottish Rite theaters by Sosman & Landis were referred to as “Brown’s Special Counterweighted,” such as the one at the Santa Fe Scottish Rite.

Brown’s Special Counterweighted System at the Scottish Rite in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1912.

So what do we know of the system referred to as “Brown’s Special Counterweighted” style of installation and how many are left? There are still examples of Brown’s Special Counterweighted System, however, some are slowly being removed and replaced with other rigging system. I first came across the designation in a series of letters between Bestor G. Brown, and the Austin Scottish Rite representative of Austin William G. Bell. Brown used the Dallas Scottish Rite as one example.

Wooden arbor cage with counterweights. Brown’s Special Counterweighted System at the Scottish Rite in Pasadena, California. This system was originally manufactured for the Scottish Rite Little Rock, Arkansas, during 1901.

Let me provide a little context for why the counterweight system came up in their discussion. Brown was trying to explain the intricacies of the installation process to a client who was completely unfamiliar with theatre. The Austin Scottish Rite was in the process of purchasing some of the Guthrie Scottish Rite’s old drops. Guthrie had been returned the old drops for credit on the purchase of new scenery when their stage was enlarged in the first building. M. C. Lilley had approximately 70 used Guthrie drops on hand to sell to another venue; they measured 15 feet high by 30 feet wide. A $1400.00 credit was given for the return of their 1901 scenery. The scenery collection was originally purchased for $8,000; today’s monetary equivalent is approximately $250,000, a significant purchase at the time.

Looking up into the flies. Brown’s Special Counterweighted System at the Scottish Rite in Pasadena, California.

On January 23, 1913, Brown also reported, “The [used] scenery is in very good shape – infinitely better that the average theatrical scenery used on the road. The writer personally went over the scenery at the studio last week. While our contract does not contemplate it, we are touching up some of the scenery and if it be properly lighted, you will have a handsome set of scenery that we would not undertake to paint and install for less than, at least, $8,000.00.”

View from under the fly rail. Brown’s Special Counterweighted System at the Scottish Rite in Pasadena, California.

The Austin Scottish Rite was initially interested in purchasing fourteen of the used drops, but wanted a definitive price for installation before determining the final number. Reading several letters of correspondence between Brown and Bell, it is obvious that Brown’s patience was wearing very thin as he had to repeatedly explain the final installation cost was based on the number of drops purchased. The continued correspondence, however, provides a wealth of information pertaining to the manufacture and installation of Scottish Rite scenery.

Brown’s Special Counterweighted System at the Scottish Rite in Austin, Texas, 1914.

As Brown negotiated, the Valley of Austin was purchasing and renovating the old 1821 Turner Hall. Brown mailed a scene plat to the Austin Scottish Rite. This was to reference while determining the final arrangement of scenes. Of this process, Brown wrote, “The arrangement of drops is one of the most difficult things.” Brown further explained that they would arrange the used scenery so that it could be “properly adapted to the different Degrees and the sequence of Degrees.” However, he warned that even after careful preparation, some modifications would still need to occur once the scenery was hanging. This was all an art of the haggling between the Austin Scottish Rite and M. C. Lilley. Bell, representing Austin wanted to pay as little as possible for the used scenery. The process was taking longer than expected and Brown was trying to get the Austin Scottish Rite to contractually commit so that the project could be scheduled. Finally, the Austin Scottish Rite committed to the purchase, but wanted an unrealistic timeframe. At this time, a much larger project was driving M. C. Lilley’s installation schedule – the Santa Fe Scottish Rite. Santa Fe’s new building, stage and scenery were delaying all other installations, such as the Austin Scottish Rite

Part of the initial delay was caused by the Austin Scottish Rite, not M. C. Lilley; this concerned the ongoing negotiation pertaining to the estimated expenses of the final installation. The Austin Scottish Rite wanted M. C. Lilley to provide a firm number for the installation cost without specifying the number of drops that they were purchasing from M. C. Lilley. Brown explained that the final expense was directly tied to the number of drops purchased to be installed. The carpenter’s expense of transportation and maintenance were figured from the time he left home until he returned. So, if he were to install only fourteen drops, that part of the expense would be proportionately greater than if he were to install twice that number of drops. Brown also explained that there was a difference in transportation charges directly relating to number of drops purchased and installed, either a full carload of scenery or less than a carload lot. Brown also explained that M. C. Lilley could also furnish the hardware, such as pulley blocks and counterweight frames if the Scottish Rite wanted the installation done locally; this was the salesman trying to be accommodating.

Brown’s Special Counterweighted System at the Scottish Rite in Salina, Texas.

There was another complication; Brown noted that they had only one specific carpenter who was sent to direct a Scottish Rite installation which was why multiple installations could not simultaneously occur; this individual was actually a Sosman & Landis employee as they installed their scenery. Brown commented that the one who would be “superintending the installation” for the Austin project was currently occupied in Santa Fe at the Scottish Rite, installing an entirely new stage there. This necessitated that their expert stay on site for approximately three weeks. Shortly after Brown’s correspondence with Bell, Brown wrote that their superintendent and installation expert had died from an accident, causing another delay. Brown explained that this employee was the “only one thoroughly familiar with the special method of installing Scottish Rite scenery.” Brown wrote, “We do not mean that it is impossible to follow the same methods as heretofore, but it will take a longer time to do it because of a lack of familiarity with the work.” Thomas G. Moses also mentions the death of their head stage carpenter, writing, “Mr. Brown, our foreman carpenter” died very suddenly.

As Brown later explained, M.C. Lilley used only one employee who specialized in Scottish Rite scenery installation. I believe that this individual was the stage carpenter who Thomas G. Moses referred to in his memoirs – Brown. In 1892, the “Carlisle Weekly” reported that a “Stage Carpenter Brown” worked for the Metropolitan Opera House at the time it burned (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 1 Sept. 1892, page 4). This may have been the same individual before he became associated with Sosman & Landis, as this is the same time when additional staff was added to Sosman & Landis’ studio for Columbian Exposition and other large projects.

Stage carpenter Brown was likely the individual who developed the counterweight system, and that the salesman Brown was mistaken for the namesake of the design. Newspapers would therefore erroneously refer to Bestor G. Brown as a “Masonic stage Carpenter.” In 1903 one article noted that Brown “created and developed the application of modern scenic properties to the dramatic presentation of all Masonic degrees and in this work is almost invariably consulted everywhere throughout the United States.” My findings suggest that “Brown’s Special Counterweighted” was credited to the salesman of the product and not the actual designer; this is understandable if they both shared the same last name.

In the end, the Austin Scottish Rite Bodies purchased 64 drops, not 14, on February 25, 1913, from M. C. Lilley. Thomas G. Moses would list the Austin scenery as one of the collections that he supervised while working at Sosman & Landis. The price for these used drops and their later installation was $1,650. The contract specified that a third of the amount was due upon installation (cash), a third due the following year, and the final third due in two years. Surprisingly, this financing was standard for Scottish Rite Theaters. Brown wrote, “In fact, if we had not been able to carry the Bodies in the Southern Jurisdiction as we have, we believe that fully one half of the development of the past ten years would not have been possible.” This is big as it presents how Scottish Rites were able to purchase state-of-the-art scenery, props, lighting and costumes – they were buying everything on credit and only had to pay a third upon receipt of goods. To pay off the rest meant increasing membership numbers that would generate even more income.

Brown died in 1917 at the Battle Creek Sanitorium after a relapse following an operation for kidney complications. At the time Brown was 56 years old and survived by his daughter, Mrs. Dana L. Davis of Topeka. It is sad to think, that a mere 14 years earlier he was a soaring star in both the Fraternity and fraternal supply business. Change can come so quickly.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 474 – Grand Master Brown in 1903

Part 474: Grand Master Brown in 1903

Thomas G. Moses thought very highly of Bestor G. Brown and his contribution to the development of Scottish Rite Degree Productions. He commented in his 1931 memoirs that Brown was one of the three key individuals responsible for its rapid spread throughout the Southern Jurisdiction.

Photograph of Bestor G. Brown, Grand Master of Kansas, from the “Topeka Daily Capital,” 14 February 1904, page 6.

For the past two days, I have explored the life of Bestor G. Brown, his Masonic activities, and the promotion of theatrically staged degree work. While reading numerous newspaper articles published about Brown between 1903 and 1904, I came across a wonderful article in the “Topeka Daily Capital,” on 14 February 1904, page 6. As very little information is available about Brown, I am including this article in its entirety as it provides a wonderful summary of his life up to 1904:

“Bestor G. Brown, the present grand master, is one of the most prominent men in the Masonic order. He was born November 22, 1861, at Bluffton, the county seat of Wells county, Indiana, “on the banks of the Wabash.” On his father’s side he is of Scotch ancestry. They were Quakers, and came to this country with the William Penn colony. At the time of settlement at Philadelphia the head of the then generation of the Brown family was a personal friend of William Penn, and the secretary of the colony. His maternal ancestry is German, the immigration thereof having been to Maryland in the early part of the eighteenth century.

Bestor G. Brown was educated in the public schools of Topeka, and later attended Washburn college. In 1878, at the age of 16, he was given a position on the Topeka Daily Commonwealth as reporter, subsequently having charge of the city, or local department of that paper. In 1879 he decided to accept his father’s offer of a college education, and entered the University of Michigan; here he remained until 1882, when through the influence of Andrew D. White, then president of Cornell University, and other personal friends in Ithica, he was transferred to Cornell University. In both universities he was prominent in athletics, and held many positions of honor in the student world. He was an active and prominent member of the Psi Upsilon college fraternity, one of the oldest of these organizations.

In 1882 his father died, and his return to college was prevented. For a time he had charge of a special department of dramatic and literary matters on the Topeka Capital; later accepted a position with the First National bank of Topeka, with which institution he remained for seven years, progressing from the lowest to the highest clerical position in the bank. He left the bank to engage in a financial business for himself, which proved highly profitable, but met the fate of all such enterprises, in the depression of 1892, resulting in the loss of a comfortable fortune. He then became associated with a large manufacturing concern in Chicago, as its western representative, in which capacity he is now employed.

He was very prominently connected with social, dramatic and literary affairs of Topeka; was married in 1885 to Emma J. Kellam, a beautiful, accomplished and extremely popular young lady in Topeka Society. Three years later death severed the union, leaving one child, a girl. Probably no man has ever lived more devoted to Masonry, and had it not been for his untiring efforts, his great intellectual and physical strength, used so generously for the benefit of the cause, Kansas would not hold its present high position in the Masonic world. He is spoken of today as one of the best ritualists in the United States, and his opinion is sought by the most distinguished Masons of the country.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 473 – Staging the Third Degree

Part 473: Staging the Third Degree

Yesterday I began exploring the increased sales of Masonic regalia and paraphernalia across the country at the beginning of the twentieth century. Part of the development of theatrically staged Masonic degrees was establishing a need for elaborate stages, complete with painted settings, props, costumes and lighting systems. As the western sales representative for M. C. Lilley and Co., Brown increased the visibility of the fraternal supply company by not only joining numerous Masonic orders and fraternal organizations, but also by ascending to high offices in each order.

A key period becomes 1903 to 1904. By this time, M. C. Lilley had secured the theater contracts for several Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite stages, including Little Rock, Arkansas; Oakland, California; Wichita, Kansas; Salina, Kansas; McAlester, Oklahoma; Guthrie, Oklahoma; Portland, Oregon; Duluth, Minnesota and Fort Scott, Kansas. I am sure that there are more, but these are the ones that I have positively identified.

In 1903, Bestor G. Brown became Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Kansas, placing him in a regional spotlight. He was provided with a unique opportunity to market his vision, especially pertaining to the staging of degree work. This included staging the first three degrees of Freemasonry (Blue Lodge). The Topeka Daily Capital reported, “Good Program is Arranged. Masons will have great meeting tomorrow” (14 February 1904, page 6). Masons from all over Kansas gathered in Topeka for “the forty-eight annual communication of the most worshipful grand lodge of the A.F. and A.M., the thirty-ninth annual convocation of the most exalted grand chapter of the Royal Arch Masons and the thirty-sixth annual assembly of the most illustrious grand council of the Royal and Select Masters.” What this means is that 600 to 700 of the top Masons in Kansas, as well as other visiting dignitaries, would be gathered both for both public and Private meetings; many would be exposed to the theatrical interpretation of degree work for the first time.

Envelope from Bestor G. Brown of M. C. Lilley & Co.

If one were to pitch a new idea, this is the time and place to promote it. Here is what Brown did, he promoted his company and staged the third degree of Masonry in full costume. The “Topeka Daily Capital” reported that the Grand Officers, together with a team selected from the local lodges, would stage the third degree of Masonry “in full costume” in the Representative Hall. This space was fitted up to function like the early stages in Masonic Halls. Masonic Halls were the precursor to a formal Scottish Rite stage. A rectangular room, similar to a banquet hall, was slightly altered to include an elevated stage on one end of the room; sometimes the stages were temporality constructed for a specific event. Some even included a proscenium arch, front curtain, and a few roll drops to establish the appropriate environment. In cases were roll drops were not rigged for the performance, wings, shutters, book flats, or profile pieces were temporarily positioned to provide the painted backings for early degree productions.

Interestingly, at the end of this event, the Scottish Rite Masons of Topeka hosted a banquet and musical program for all visiting Masons in the Masonic Hall. There is something to be said about the visual impact of a staged scene. During the same event, a special assembly was held in the Masonic Hall to confer the high degrees of Royal, Select, and Super-Excellent Master. The article reported, “This council has not only a state, but a national reputation, and will present the beautiful degrees of Cryptic Masonry with its complete equipment and paraphernalia.”

Winding staircase for the second degree.

Winding staircase for theatrically staging the second degree.

A profile piece for the staged version of the third degree. This depicts the slain assassins who murdered King Solomon’s the chief architect Hiram.

Detail of profile piece for the staged version of the third degree depicting the slain assassins who murdered King Solomon’s the chief architect Hiram

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: Ample Opportunities, July 17

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: Ample Opportunities, July 17

One of our Austin adventures included another trip to the Scottish Rite. We wanted to further explore the effects of electric lighting on the backdrops and brought a few people along. It is delightful to watch people see the magical transformation of light on painted scenery for the first time.

The appearance of light on dry pigment backdrops (also known as distemper painting) is partially created with the specific combination of colors selected by the scenic artist. A blue seascape was not created with pure blue paint from a can, or it would appear flat. A purple shadow was not created with purple paint from a can, or it will appear unnatural. Each backdrop color was a combination of both warm and cool pigments. In college, I was taught to “knock down” the brilliancy of a pure color from the can, adding a complimentary color. Part of this reasoning is to make the painting appear more natural, and not too vibrant as when it comes straight out of the can. Another reason is that both the warm and cool colors uniquely reflect light – it is all about optics.

When making a lovely purple shadow that defines a nineteenth-century forest composition, or some architectural detail, the historical combination of complimentary colors may be ultramarine blue and French mineral orange. This is just one example. There is both a warmth and coolness represented in this color combination throughout the composition.

During two conversations with historic theater owners, I was able to watch their complete comprehension of a historical aesthetic; the facial expressions said everything as they processed the information. That being said, not all people understand color. Not all people understand the variables in painting techniques throughout the 19^th and 20^th century. I encountered two people today who understood both – this is remarkable

Both understood exactly what I was talking about in terms of color palette as we watched the drop’s magical transition under different lighting effects. It was some of the most exciting exchange of information that I have ever had with a potential client. I recorded the scenic illusions in both still photography and videography, capturing the effects of various lighting effects on historical drops. These images were shared with many colleagues at the conference, as well as theatre owners. All were astounded at how the stage composition shifted in appearance and overall composition. At one point, he exclaimed, “I can’t believe how it looks like an entirely different setting now. It’s the lights!” It IS a big deal to present the possibilities to a historic theater owner. This is one of the reasons that early 20^th century scenic studios used electrified models to display the scenery; you have to see it to believe it. There are so many possibilities for the stage, with minimal investment.

After our Scottish Rite adventure, we accompanied our friend Frank Cortez to the Long Center. Cortez runs the backstage area at the Long center as well as taking care of the aging counterweight system at the Austin Scottish Rite. He is an amazing and very talented professional. It is wonderful to see a space through the eyes of someone who has worked in a performance venue for years; there is both the presentation of the flaws and advantages of the venue. What a lovely space. I absorbed much information about the current counterweight system like a sponge; I love the mechanics of the entire system and wish that I had studied the intricacies of theatrical rigging just a tad more while in college. After a long day, we returned to our lodging and later met with a dear friend, Karen Maness. We exchanged stories about scenic art, the Press, and the future of our industry.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: The Austin Scottish Rite, a theatre within a theatre

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: The Austin Scottish Rite, a theatre within a theatre

Rick Boychuk and I met at the Austin Airport on Friday, June 13, 2018, for the League of Historic American Theatres national conference that would begin on Sunday, July 15. By that evening, Boychuk was streaming live on Facebook from the flies of the Austin Scottish Rite theater. He was accompanied by FB friend and local IATSE stagehand, another history buff who occasionally works for the Austin Scottish Rite – Frank Cortez. Braving excessive heat, the two navigated three galleries above the stage, two of which date from 1871. Fortunately, I wore completely inappropriate footwear and had to stay on stage level, conversing with the director of the space and looking for hidden treasures.

Frank Cortez and Rick Boychuk at the Austin Scottish Rite theatre

The Austin Scottish Rite was originally constructed in 1871 and opened in 1872 as a Turner Hall for the German social organization Turn Verein (pronounced toorn –fair – ine). This group was similar to the SOKOL halls in America for the Czech-Slovaks; each organization provided a home for immigrants to socialize and celebrate old world traditions. The Turner Hall members congregated to study the German language, celebrate exercise and carry on a variety of revered German customs that included musical performances and theatrical productions.

The Scottish Rite in Austin has a very convoluted history that is intermingled with the Ben Hur Temple of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine; too complex to discuss at this time. What is significant about the Austin Scottish Rite theater is that in 1914 the Masons retrofitted the 1871 Turner Hall for their degrees productions. This was a common practice for Scottish Rite Masons throughout the late nineteenth century as the renovated cathedrals, synagogues, and even a previous pork slaughter house, included theatrical stages, auditoriums, dressing rooms, properties areas and other performance spaces to produce Masonic degree work. This historical practice of the Fraternity is covered in many of my past installments.

I previously visited the Austin Scottish Rite during the fall of 2016, after the photo shoot for the Santa Fe book. My desire to have Boychuk look at this particular venue was due to the artistic provenance and my understanding of used stage scenery in Masonic theaters. My research suggested that a portion of the Austin scenery collection, and possibly the accompanying stage machinery, was purchased used from Guthrie, Oklahoma, and installed in Austin during 1914 or 1915. However, early communications between a theatrical manufacturer and two Austin Scottish Rite Bodies commenced in 1912. So, lets look at some of the facts that surround the transformation of a German social space into a Masonic performance space.

In 1910, the Guthrie Scottish Rite bodies began enlarging their Scottish Rite stage in the original building. This is not the massive complex that is a popular travel destination today. The enlargement of an existing stage occurred in a variety of Southern Jurisdiction Valleys, including Little Rock, Arkansas; Wichita, Kansas; and McAlester, Oklahoma. The original 15’ x 30’ scenery for the Guthrie Scottish Rite was replaced with new scenery measuring 19’ x 36’ in 1911.

Although enlarging scenery was a commonplace practice for growing Scottish Rite Valleys, the regalia and paraphernalia supplier (M. C. Lilley) did not recommend an alteration of the original scenery due to the amount of fabric and labor needed to enlarge the entire collection. This was solely a sales tactic to sell new merchandise, as I own a Scottish Rite collection that was enlarged from 14’ x 28’ to 20’ x 40’; it was certainly possible to do without making it noticeable from the audience.

Going back to the Austin Scottish Rite story. The Guthrie Bodies acquired their 1900 Scottish Rite scenery collection for approximately $7,500. This same scenery was returned in 1910 to the same company that sold it to them – M. C. Lilley – for a $1,400 credit on their purchase of new scenery. Around this same time, negotiations with the Austin Scottish Rite began, even thought the final purchase of used Scottish Rite scenery would not occur for a few years. This is the same year that the Santa Fe Scottish Rite was being completed. Both projects were contracted by M. C. Lilley & Co. of Columbus, Ohio, and all scenery and stage machinery subcontracted to Sosman & Landis. This was a very solid partnership with the western sales representative for M. C. Lilley, Bestor G. Brown, and the president of Sosman & Landis, Joseph S. Sosman, being well-known Scottish Rite Masons.

Many of the technical specifications for the new Santa Fe Scottish Rite lighting system were recommended for the Austin Scottish Rite, carefully described in a series of letters exchanged between the Valley of Austin and M. C. Lilley. Tensions were high as the Valley of Austin did not understand the complexity or the skill required to produce and install a Scottish Rite scenery collection, complete with an entire counterweight rigging system. The negotiations for the used scenery and the communications with the architects could be a book in itself – or a fabulous doctoral dissertation.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: The Joplin Scottish Rite, July 3

The Joplin Scottish Rite, July 3

We returned to Minnesota on July 2 at midnight after the long drive from Joplin, Missouri. Over the course of eighteen days, we visited ten historic theaters and I was able to document historic scenery at seven. The trip was intended not only for research, but also for the marketing of our new company Historic Stage Services, LLC (www.historicstageservices.com)

In addition to the book release event at the Santa Fe Scottish Rite theater, I photographed and catalogued entire Scottish Rite scenery collections in Omaha, Nebraska; Hastings, Nebraska; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Salina, Kansas; and Joplin, Missouri. I also photographed historic scenery at the Atlas Theatre in Cheyenne and the Tabor Theatre in Leadville, Colorado. The Tabor was especially exciting as I dug through wings, borders and roll drops that had been stored since the turn of the twentieth century.

As we drove home, I began the laborious task of labeling thousands of photographs. It is at this point that I am able to identify defining characteristics of specific collections, especially when examining images of painted details. Then I go through each historic venue and construct the current inventory and how it has been altered, added to, or shifted over the past decades. As I went through my pictures, I was able compare compositional layout, painting techniques, color palettes, and drop construction for a variety of scenic studios. My trip provided me with the opportunity to closely examine the work of competing studios over the course of decades in a very short period of time. This allows the visual aesthetic and construction information to remain fresh in my mind.

I am in the depths of examining the Fabric Studio of Chicago and its link to Toomey & Volland of St. Louis, Sosman & Landis of Chicago, Kansas City Scenic Co., and the Great Western Stage Equipment Co. of Kansas City. My last stop at the Joplin Scottish Rite confirmed a few of my suspicions in regard to a shift in scenic studio practices and art during the 1920s. A younger generation took over the innovation in stage design and technology. Men, and in some cases women, ascended to the top of their profession and eclipsed the previous generation of scenic artists. This does not mean that they were better or worse, just different. A shift was occurring in the field of scenic art. Seasoned artists left their positions with the “old guard” of scenic studios and began to create their own new studios, causing old alliances to crumble. This also market the collapse of a unifying aesthetic for the stage. Gentlemanly agreements between studios during the first two decades of twentieth century ceased and new fabrics were introduced as an alternative for the common cotton sheeting of backdrops.

Painted detail at the Joplin Scottish Rite created by an older scenic artist in the traditional style.

Another example of a setting created in the traditional style of scenic art for the Joplin Scottish Rite.

At the Joplin Scottish Rite, it is apparent that some of the drops were created by an older scenic artist still working in the traditional style of scene painting, but the color palette shifts to the predominance of brighter colors. The use of horizontal seams for drop construction, jute webbing at the top and pipe pockets at the bottom began to appear across the country. This method of fabrication followed the construction of fabric draperies for the same venues.

In terms of netting, the individual drops of glue on knotted intersections were replaced with swathes of glue brushed along entire edges, forming a crusty perimeter that greatly reduced the necessary labor to create a cut drop. Similarly the painstaking placement of foils that allowed a scene to sparkle, or suggest a fiery reflection, begin to be replaced with a layer of metallic flakes and glitter-like product. This again saved the amount of later needed to create a similar effect.

Cut drop and backdrop at the Joplin Scottish Rite for the 18th degree.

Detail of the Hades cut drop in Joplin, Missouri. Note that foil strips are no longer used to suggest the fiery reflections of the underworld.

Paper-backed foil strips were attached to backdrops during the nineteenth and early-twentieth century to simulate fiery reflection and make the scene sparkle.

The Scottish Rite scenery in Joplin also depicts the use of spatter for a painted composition. Bright blue, mineral orange and other colors are spattered across the final painting. In some cases, the use of spatter subdues an earlier application of colors that are too bright to begin with, so another layer of paint must help recede into the background. In some of the Joplin scenery, spatter almost obliterates the detail, yet enforces depth in the painting.

A partial view of the leg drop and backdrop for the catacombs scene at the Joplin Scottish Rite. This scene is also titled “The Crypt” in some areas.

Detail of painted spatter on a backdrop at the Scottish Rite in Joplin, Missouri.

I regard these modern painting techniques that eventually shifted the evolution of scenic art with some bias; I prefer the older style. I associate traditional scenic art techniques with that of the Dusseldorf and Hudson River schools. There is a soft, but dramatic atmosphere that visually envelopes the painted composition. Although there are subtle differences in paint techniques, such as glazing or the opaque application of colors as I have previously examined, there is a uniformity of brush stroke and final aesthetic. The modern school of scenic art takes a subtle departure from this aesthetic. Not always visible from the audience, it becomes apparent as one approaches the scene. Both the traditional and modern fall apart into areas of separate color, as the painting should, there is a distinct difference to the educated eye.

Similar composition in painting by Thomas Kincaid, but distinctly different from the overall aesthetic of the Hudson River School artists

Here is the best parallel that I can think of, and it pertains to the work of fine art. If you take a landscape painting produced by a Hudson River School artist and compare it with the paintings of Thomas Kincaid (Painter of Light), you can see the shift. There is romanticism in each composition, an attempt to relay atmospheric conditions, a sense of beauty and an attention to detail. However, Kincaid’s paintings are distinctly contemporary. For me, they are slightly “off” and don’t capture what the nineteenth century artist conveyed to their audience.

This is what I see happening in the scenic studios during the 1920s, an approach that has its foundation in some traditional scenic art techniques, but the final product is slightly “off.” The modern scenic art compositions evolve in two distinct directions. One way is a final product that is too clean, crisp, and carefully blended; this is the direction of Hollywood and the creation of scenery for film settings. Beautiful techniques and lovely compositions, but a distinct departure from traditional stage painting. After all, it is creating scenic illusion for a new art form – one that needs greater detail for the camera and close-ups. The second direction is much less controlled. The technique isn’t quite there, so the composition is altered with layers of spatter over high contrast areas in order to unify the entire composition. This is not meant to say that either of these approaches is a lesser art form, but they are a distinct departure from a previous stage aesthetic.

Over the next week, I will start to compare various painting techniques and their characteristics before returning to the life and times of Thomas G. Moses in 1903. This helps me as I approach examining the “first golden age” of Scottish Rite scenery production. This is the surge that takes place just prior to WWI. The 1920s then usher in the “second golden age” of Scottish Rite scenery production before everything begins a slow descent.

To be continued…