Category: Stage Innovation

Sosman & Landis: Shaping the Landscape of American Theatre. Employee No. 32 – Charles H. Ritter

Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Charles H. Ritter worked at Sosman & Landis sporadically throughout the 1880s and 1890s. Like most of the artists on staff, he was also affiliated with other theaters and even ran his own business during this time. He was part of the Sosman & Landis labor pool that produced a massive amount of scenery during this time. Although a definitive start date remains unknown, he was working for the firm in 1885 and moved into the new studio in 1886.

On Feb. 28, 1886, Ritter’s portrait was included with those of  David A. Strong, John H. Young, Walter W. Burridge, Thomas G. Moses, and Henry C. Tryon in the “Inter Ocean” Newspaper. All were featured in an article entitled “Up in the Clouds” (page 9).  The article included “Brief Sketches of Chicagoans Prominent in Difficult and Exacting Art.”  All of the scenic artists featured in the article were associated with the Sosman & Landis studio at the time.

Portrait of Charles Ritter that accompanied the article.

Under Ritter’s portrait was the caption:

 “Chas. H. Ritter who is a present engaged at Hooley’s stand’s deservedly high in the profession, and has painted scenes at that house for the past five years. He was born in New York and studied with Richard Marston at the Union Square Theater for a period of eight years during the management of Shook and Palmer. He is the inventor of a foreground for the cylindrical panoramas, which adds much to the illusion by rendering the line between the foreground of properties as now used and the painted distance without possible detection.”

One month before the article appeared in the “Inter Ocean,” the new Sosman & Landis studio opened on South Clinton Street.  Costing over $50,000, the new building remained the permanent home for firm until 1923.  Moses and Strong were the first employees to work in the space during 1886; their project, a panorama.  Of this new studio, Moses wrote, “Our new studio on Clinton Street was now ready for us and Mr. Strong and I started on a very interesting panorama of Grant’s trip around the world.  We were alone in the big studio for some time before the whole force came over.  We enjoyed painting the panorama as it was continuous. There was some careful blending to be done.” Ritter was part of that force and had recently patented a structure for panoramas and dioramas.

Many of the scenic artists at Sosman & Landis were familiar with the painting and mechanics for both moving and stationary panoramas.  Ritter applied for a patent for “Dioramic or Panoramic Structure” on September 19, 1885. His patent was filed on March 16, 1886. Here is the link, https://patents.google.com/patent/US337869A/en?q=panorama&before=priority:18870101&after=priority:18860101

Patent by Charles H. Ritter

This was a little difficult to track down as the recognition software erroneously translates his last name as Bitter, not Ritter.

The mid-1880s were an exciting time for scenic artists in Chicago. The first exhibition of watercolor paintings by American Scenic Artists were the feature for “The Scene Painters’ Show during the fall of 1885. During the spring of that year their exhibit was planned. On August 1, 1885, the “Inter Ocean” reported, “The scenic artists of this city held a meeting this week at Parker Galleries and determined to hold an exhibition and sale of works in distemper at those galleries early in September. Among the artists present were Ernest Albert, John Mezzovico, Walter Burridge, David A. Strong, John Howard Rogers, Henry Tryon, George Dayton, Thomas Moses, John Howell Wilson, H. E. Bucky, Charles Ritter, and others” (page 4).  

Well-known scenic artists from all over the country descended on the Windy City and stayed. Sosman & Landis was able to hire the best and advertised this fact in their catalogues. By 1894, the firm advertised, “Our artists are selected with reference to their special abilities. Some excel in designing and painting drop curtains, others in landscapes, and others in interior scenes; so we divide out work that each is given what he can do best.” They streamlined the process by working toward the strengths of each employee. Ritter was especially well known for his exterior painting abilities.

Ritter was born in New York in approximately 1845. He was first listed as an artist in New York by 1867, residing at 128 Eldridge.

He first studied with Richard Marston at Shook & Palmer’s Union-Square Theater in 1871. Subsequent listing from 1875 to 1880 in the New York Directory continued to included Ritter at 69 Fourth Av. and then 202 B 16th. He remained at the Union Square Theare for eight years before moving west to Chicago where he became associated with Hooley’s Theatre, the Grand Opera House and Sosman & Landis.  By 1888, Ritter was prominently listed in the Chicago Directory as Hooley’s scenic artist, boarding at the Southern Hotel. His affiliation with Sosman & Landis was still mentioned when Ritter painted scenery in Indianapolis a decade later.  The firm placed Ritter at the Grand in Indianapolis at the same time they placed Fred McGruder at the Pike Theatre in Cincinnati, Ohio. This was after the establishment of Sosman, Landis and Hunt, a theatrical management firm. They staffed their new theaters with some of their best scenic artists to paint scenery and other shows for the season. This was brilliant, as it also provided regional offices to efficiently produce scenery.

On November 2, 1898, the “Indianapolis Journal” reported,

“The man who had a prominent hand in the beautiful stage settings seen at the Grand during the past three weeks and who has, up to this time, been unknown here, C. H. Ritter. Mr. Ritter came from the studio of Sosman & Landis, at Chicago, six weeks ago, and will remain all winter at the Grand, getting up scenery for each production. While, of course, he has been furnished every week with an outline of just what is needed for the coming week’s play, the artistic portion of the painting is altogether his own. He has given ideas here and there, but, in the main, the beautiful scenery, which affords so much pleasure each week to the eye, can be credited to his brush. Mr. Ritter is said to be one of the best scenic artists in the country. For nine years he was the artist at the Union Square Theatre, New York, and for seven years was engaged in a similar capacity at Hooley’s Theatre, Chicago. He painted all of the stock scenery of the Grand Opera House, Chicago, and his more notable achievements for stars and road companies include all of the settings for Richard Mansfield’s production of “The First Violin,” Modjeska’s plays, Roland Reed’s plays, “The Devil’s Island” and the last act of “The Moth and the Flame,” which was seen at English’s last week. Sosman & Landis regard Mr. Ritter as one of the most capable scenic artists ever in their studio, and they selected him for the Indianapolis work with a view to giving this city the best possible results in the scenic line. Mr. Ritter, with the help of one assistant, gets up all the scenery for the stock company’s production” (page 5).

As with McGruder in Cincinnati, the artistic process was described in detail for an upcoming production. It was a brilliant marketing move. On March 29, 1899, the “Indianapolis News” reported:

“GRAND’S SCENE PAINTER.

A Visit to His Workshop in the Theater.

A Network of Ropes and Much Apparent Rubbish Turn Out to be Parts of an Ordinary System of Scenic Arrangement.

The beautiful scenery used at the Grand Opera House, which has become so much a feature of every play, Is the work of Charles H. Ritter, head of the scene-painting department of the stock company. To reach Mr. Ritter’s workshop, a long, narrow, rickety flight of stairs must be mounted. The place looks like a neglected attic, with rubbish scattered about In apparent confusion. A network of heavy ropes confuses the senses. The piles of “rubbish” are soon seen, however, to be articles useful in decorating a stage or portions of scenes, while the network of ropes become an orderly, systematic arrangement of “stays” and “guys” by which pieces of scenery are raised or lowered.  Immediately behind this mass of cordage Is a platform, about five feet wide, supported by large cables at either end. On this narrow, swinging base, the men who paint the scenery that pleases comfortably-seated audiences nightly, are obliged to stand while they work. On each side of this platform Is a “paint-frame.” which Is also suspended by guide-ropes. One of these paint-frames is twenty feet high and forty feet long, while the other is twenty-six feet in bight and forty feet In length. These frames are the supporting background for canvas, while it Is being transformed, by the artist’s strokes. Into interior and exterior scenes of greater or less beauty, as the exigencies of the play demand. Bold relief and strong coloring being required for scenic effects, there is considerable difference between the Implements employed by a scene painter and those found in the studio of a landscape or portrait artist. Mr. Ritter and his two assistants, when seen at work, were laying on colors with brushes that resembled those used by house painters. When work on a scene Is first begun, the effect is as though the coloring were being literally daubed on the canvas, but in a short time a realistic picture takes form. The first step In painting a scene of any description is to “lay on” the background. After this is done, the details of the scene are blocked out, to be filled In later.

Illustration that accompanied the article.

Works by a “Plot.”

Mr. Ritter receives a “plot” each week of how the completed scene should appear, from Stage Manager Bellows, telling whether the scene is to be an Interior or an exterior, and, If an Interior effect, the locations of the various walls, doors, etc. In the “plot” reproduced, which is the scene shown in act 2 of “The Charity Ball,” a drop curtain at the rear of the stage Is called for, in which, through the windows of the room represented on the stage, the audience can see a street or park In winter— a street, housetops being shown. Having received this “plot,” Mr. Ritter then devises some form of “Interior” or “exterior.” If he Is to paint a room, he must get up appropriate designs to represent wallpaper and celling decorations. Understanding that he is to paint a winter scene for the background. he is left to choose what kind of scene it shall be. For interior settings he finds the sample-books issued by wallpaper manufacturers, for use by their traveling salesmen, very helpful in choosing designs for mural decorations. He also picks up Ideas from his dally observations. For example, he frequently sees an arch over the front of a private house that suggests to him a valuable Idea for a similar piece ml decorative work to be used on the stage.

Liquid paint is not used by scene painters. The coloring employed by them comes In the form of powder, contained In large paper sacks. When used this powder is mixed with “sizing” or glue, which performs the function of holding the color firmly to the canvas, and thus a quickly mixed liquid paint Is obtained.

Mr. Ritter’s Career.

Charles H. Ritter has been in the scene painting business all of his working life. He obtained his first Instruction at Shook & Palmer’s Union-Square Theater In 1871 from Richard Marston, one of the greatest scenic artists of that period. After remaining at the Union Square for nine years. Mr. Ritter went to Hooley, of Chicago. He remained there seven years, when the rapid development of traveling companies made unnecessary the employment of a local scenic artist. Mr. Ritter then opened a studio in the Grand Opera House at Chicago. While thus engaged, he did work for prominent people in the theatrical world, and assisted In the production of many plays. Rice and Dixey engaged him to paint the scenery for their “Adonis.” Robson and Crane had him furnish the settings for “The Two Dromio’s.” Mr. Ritter cherishes a commendatory letter which he received from Stuart Robson, In regard to the scenes painted for this play. Richard Mansfield drew on Mr. Ritter for some of the scenery in “The First Violin.” Perhaps the most recent notable work Mr. Ritter has executed previous to his engagement with the Grand stock company, was the scenery employed by James H. Wallhick In producing “Devil’s Island,” which was seen at English’s Opera House recently” (page 11). 

By 1910, Ritter was living in New York.  The 1910 Census still listed Ritter as an artist in the painting industry, now 65 yrs. old. The report clearly lists him as divorced (“D”), and living with fellow artist James Wilson on West 24th Street. James Howell Wilson had also worked in Chicago and participated in the planning of the 1885 Scene Painters show.  Their participation was mention by John Moran in his article about the Scene Painter’s Show for “Art Union, a Monthly Magazine of Art” in 1885 (Vol. 2, No. 4,p. 85): “Other works deserving of notice are Messrs. George Dayton, Sr., George Dayton, Jr., the late L. Masha, C. Better, Chas. Ritter, H. Buhler and John Howell Wilson, whose “Country Road ‘76” is especially fresh, verdurous and bright. It is to be hoped that this is only the forerunner of many like exhibitions and it marks a decided growth in the national art spirit.”

I have yet to find any specifics concerning Ritter’s birth, marriage or death. There were many men named Charles H. Ritter who lived at this time; the majority remained farmers their entire lives.

Clipping of Charles H. Ritter pasted in the scrapbook of Thomas G. Moses.

To be continued…

Travels of A Scenic Artist and Scholar: ‘Gene Field and the Tabor Opera House

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

I continue to explore the history of the earliest scenery painted for the Tabor Opera House between 1879 and 1882.  Evelyn E. Livingston  Furman was integral to the preservation of the scenery at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. She was a good steward, one who safeguarded many stage artifacts throughout the building. Furman’s publication, “The Tabor Opera House, a Captivating History,” pieces together many loose ends regarding the early stage and stories about the Tabors. I have repeatedly returned to her work for the past few years, searching for additional clues. Gretchen Scanlon also explored the history of the Tabor Opera House in “A History of Leadville Theatres.” It is an insightful and entertaining publication about popular entertainment and a variety of performance venues in this rough mining town.

In my own writings about the Tabor Opera House, I try to rely on historic newspaper articles, understanding that there is always a margin of error with the retelling of any story. It is easy to jump to conclusions about history, trying to piece it together in a tidy progression of events. When I catch one of my own mistakes, I often go back to correct the error and update my writing; that is the beauty of a digital format, it becomes a living document. For today’s post, I followed a trail of breadcrumbs to Eugene Field, the son of attorney Roswell Field, best known for representing Dred Scott. ‘Gene Field became part of the Tabor story early on and was recently credited with painting the Royal Gorge drop.  Spoiler alert: He was a writer and not a scene painter.

Eugene Field (1850-1895). Denver Public Library.
There is a wonderful history about Field (1850-1895) on the Denver Public Library site.  Here is the link: https://history.denverlibrary.org/colorado-biographies/eugene-field-1850-1895

In regard to the earliest scenery installed at the Tabor Opera House, it is clear that both Furman and Scanlon relied on the same historic newspaper articles for sources. I have now located many of the same sources, as well as a few more. Unfortunately, neither Furman nor Scanlon cite specific sources in their works. This presents a challenge for others to further substantiate their claims. 

In my continuing examination of early Tabor Opera House scenery, here is a recap. The original scenery, stage machinery and drop curtains were delivered by James E. Lamphere, scenic artist, and Mr. Barber, stage carpenter, in 1879. By August 1882, the building and stage were renovated. On August 23, 1882, the “Leadville Daily Herald” reported, “there will be a change for the better in regard to scenery, scene shifting and drop curtains. Those ridiculous hitches in scene shifting that have heretofore occurred on one or two occasions will no longer take place.” If the stage arrangements were bad enough to be changed  within two years, it is unlikely that those responsible for the original arrangements were rehired. In fact , H. C. Sprague is credited as the stage carpenter for new arrangements. I have yet to locate any mention of a scenic artist, however, keep in my that many talented stage carpenters during this period could also paint, and paint well. The theatre industry was not as compartmentalized as it is now.

Furman also writes that the original roll curtain from the Leadville Tabor Opera House was taken to Denver for the premiere of “Silver Dollar.”  In a later chapter Furman describes the original drop curtain’s composition but does not cite any source.  Her description of the first drop curtain by Lamphere is identical to a similar description published in the “Leadville Weekly Herald” on Nov. 15, 1879: “The drop curtain is a masterpiece from the brush of Mr. Lamphere, and represents a glorious mountain scene, at the base of which is a fine old castle, with a stream running at the foot; alongside of the water is a rugged road, which ends in the winding of  canyon” (page 3). Scanlon describes this same scene for the original drop curtain. It is improbable, however, that this curtain survived beyond the 1882 renovation; it was likely repainted or replaced well before the Elks purchased the building in 1901.

Furthermore, Scanlon writes that a second drop curtain that was delivered to the Tabor Opera House a few years after the venue opened; this timing would coincide with the 1882 renovation. Scanlon credits Gene Field with painting the second drop curtain that replaced the original, writing “A few years later, Tabor contracted to have a new drop curtain painted by Gene Field” (page 132).  Scanlon goes onto explains that Field’s drop curtain depicted  Royal Gorge, and it was still being used when the Elks enlarged the stage in 1902. Furman also writes about the Royal Gorge composition, but not as a replacement for the first drop curtain, just as another roll drop with a hefty price tag of $1,000. Furman includes the Royal Gorge drop as part of the original scenery painted by Lamphere. This is where it would have been extremely helpful if either author had cited any source in regard to the $1,000 expense or Gene Field as the scenic artist.

Of the Royal Gorge drop Scanlon continues: “It was taken down, and there was a great deal of debate over what should happen to it. Some thought that it should be hung in the Carnegie Library or donated to the Leadville Pioneers for safekeeping; others thought that the main part should be cut out, framed and hung in the opera house. The curtain stayed in the opera house. In 1932, it was lent to the Denver Theater for the premiere of the movie Silver Dollar, starring Edward G. Robinson, based on Tabor’s life. What happened to the curtain after that remains a mystery.”

Gene Field wasn’t an artist, he was a writer who wrote for various newspapers. In 1883, the “Larimer County Independent” reported, “Without Gene Field and the Tabor Opera House, Denver would be a barren waste” (Fort Collins, Colorado, 24 May 1883, page 2). Decades later, newspapers would reminisce about the relationship between Field and Tabor: “That the reputation of the Tabor Grand spread in ever widening circles during the early years of its history was due, in certain measure to the theater itself, but more, it is believed, to the stories about its personnel and players, written in the Denver Tribune between 1881 and 1883 by Eugene Field, who was earlier associated with the Kansas City Times, then in his twenties Field glorified in lampooning prominent people, particularly the newly rich. Mr. Tabor, his son Maxey and William Bush, first manager of the theaters, were his eternal targets. Copies of the tribune were demanded even in Mexico, London and Canada. So the Tabor Grand acquired far renown” (Springfield Leader and Press, Springfield, Missouri, 5 June 1921, page 8).

I located the source that connects Field with the Tabor Opera House drop curtain, but he was not noted as the scenic artist. On Jan. 1, 1903, the “Herald Democrat” reported, “There is a story about Tabor and this curtain which may or may not be true, but it is worth repeating. Gene Field was originally responsible for it.”  Field was not responsible for the painting of the drop, but the telling of the story about Tabor and the drop. The 1903 article continues to share the story, as originally told by Field:

“It is said that when Tabor got the curtain, the artist had painted a portrait of the late William Shakespeare for a centerpiece. Shakespeare, the artist thought, was a proper person to pose for a picture symbolical of the thespian art to which the building was to be devoted. When Tabor saw the picture he is said to have asked whose picture that was. “Why, that’s Shakespeare,” said the artist. “Who the — is Shakespeare?” roared Tabor. “Take his face out of that if you want to make a portrait gallery of the curtain, put my picture there.”

Five years earlier, “The Saint Paul Globe” shared a similar on January 23, 1898:

“It was when the building had been completed and the artist was painting the drop curtain that Tabor came in. As he watched the progress of the work, he asked the artist: “Whose picture is that which you are painting in the center of the curtain?”

“Shakespeare,” replied the artist.

“Who is Shakspeer?” asked the future senator.

“Why,” said the artist, “he is a great man who has written the greatest plays – the Bard of Avon, you know.”

“Shakspeer?” said Tabor. “Seems to me I’ve heard the name somewhere. But what in thunder has Shakspeer done for Leadville!”

“Nothing that I know of,” said the artist.

“Then paint that picture out and put me in.” And that is the way Tabor’s picture came to be in the drop curtain.”

Here is an earlier version from 1890  that appeared in the “Norfolk Virginian” (12 Nov. 1890, page 8) and the “Pittsburgh Press (9 Nov. 1890, page 12). The heading for the article in the “Norfolk Virginian” was “Not Acquainted with Shakespeare.” The heading for the article in the “Pittsburgh Press” was “Senator Tabor’s Drop Curtain.” The story for each was identical:

“When the building was completed he hired an artist to paint some suitable designs on the drop curtain. The artist did so. While the finishing touches were being put on, the Governor and Senator ambled into the building and inquired:

“Who’s picter’s that?”
Shakespeare’s,” meekly replied the successor of Raphael.

“Who’s Shakespeer?”

“Why, he’s the standard author of tragedy and drama – the Bard of Avon you know.”

“Shakespeer, Shakespeer’ seems to me I’ve heerd the name summer, but what in thunder has he done for Leadville?”

“Nothing that I know of.”

“Then paint the picter out and put mine in.”

And it was done, and Tabor’s picture remains there to this day.”

The story was again repeated at the time of Tabor’s passing in 1899, but Tabor’s portrait was no longer on the drop curtain. His portrait was painted on the proscenium arch; this is what I have proposed in past posts, as Tabor’s portrait would remain visible throughout a performance, whereas a drop curtain scene is raised at beginning of a production.  The following article was originally published in the “New Orleans Times-Democrat,” but quickly spread all across the country and appeared in many other newspapers. Here is the article in the “Sacramento Bee” from May 13, 1899:

“Soon after the late Senator H. A. W. Tabor, of Colorado, made his first million,” said a former resident of the Silver State, “he built an opera house at Leadville. It was a very fine building for the day and place, and with characteristic liberality he determined to spare nothing in its appointments. Among other experts he engaged an extremely competent New York artist named De Moro to do the decorations and gave him absolute carte blanch. This greatly pleased the painters, and he did a remarkably fine piece of work. When the job was completed he sent for Tabor to inspect it, and the latter was delighted with everything until he looked at the proscenium arch, in the center of which was a superb medallion portrait of Shakespeare. “Who is that fellow, anyhow?” asked the new millionaire, frowning ominously. “That is William Shakespeare,” replied De Moro, in surprise. ‘Well, he didn’t have a blamed thing to do with building this theater,’ said Tabor, sternly. ‘Rub him out and put me in.’ The artist was furious and adopted a unique method of getting even. Tabor wore an enormous purple-black moustache, which always had the appearance of being imperfectly dyed, and De Moro proceeded to duplicate the weird armament on the upper lip of the bard of Avon. He then painted in a standing collar and red cravat, labeled the ghastly composite ‘Hon. H. A. W. Tabor,’ and went back to New York, cursing everything in Colorado. The De Moro portrait stood  unchanged for many years and was regarded by frontier art critics as a speaking likeness.

‘Up to middle age Tabor’s life was one of great hardship,’ continued the Westerner, “and when he suddenly became fabulously rich he plunged into luxuries like a starving man wading into a banquet. One of his early freaks was the purchase of several magnificent lace nightgowns, which cost $1000 apiece and which he kept locked up in a safe during the day. Eugene Field was editor of the Denver Tribune at the time, and those lace nightgowns made him simply hysterical. He wrote columns upon columns about them, describing the garments in detail, with numerous diagrams depicting sections fore and aft. The diagrams were hideous affairs, which Field carved out himself with a penknife on the back of old wood type. He used to describe how Tabor would forget the combination of the safe and sit up, shivering and naked, half the night trying to remember the right figures. Although he kept Denver in a roar for weeks, and made Tabor so wild that one day he rushed into his office, snatched the unfortunate nightgowns out of their compartment and tore them to thread. “There, now!” he exclaimed, wiping his forehead and kicking the tattered fragments into a corner. ‘I hope than cussed fool will be satisfied. I’ll be hanged if I ain’t going to get a gunny sack,’ he continued, ‘cut some holes in the end for my head and arms, and then sleep in it for the rest of my life!”

“When Tabor was appointed to the Senate to fill an unexpired term of exactly twenty-nine days, Field broke loose again and had all kinds of fun with the old man. He declared that Tabor opposed the tariff bill on the ground that it encouraged lawlessness in the West. ‘I don’t know this Tariff Bill,’ he reported the Senator as saying in a speech, ‘but we have entirely too many of ‘em out where I live. There’s Wild Bill and Buffalo Bill and Pecos Bill and Billy the Kid – all no good. If you let Tariff Bill have anything to do with the Custom House he’s liable to steal the Atlantic Ocean.’ Many of the honest folk took these flights of fancy seriously, and drove Tabor nearly distracted by long letters of remonstrance, urging him to read up and get posted, so as to not disgrace the State. At the expiration of the Senator’s brief term he circulated an autograph album among his fellow-members and the incident tickled Filed immensely. He gave what purported to be a copy of the ‘sentiment’ inscribed in the volume by the different statesman – such things as ‘When you see this remembers me. Roscoe Conkling.’ And ‘Sure as the moss grows ‘round a stump you are my darling sugar lump – I mean chump – Geo F. Hoar,’ and similar nonsense, all of which maddened his victim. I think Gene Field was the only man Tabor never forgave, for in spit of his gaunt, forbidding exterior, the miner magnate was as tender-hearted as a girl. He was really full of sterling qualities, and in his proper sphere he would have been anything but grotesque. One thing is sure – if every fellow he helped in secret would have joined his funeral procession the other day he would have gone to his grave like an Emperor of old.”

To be continued…

Travels of A Scenic Artist and Scholar: The Tabor Opera House and J. C. Alexander (1843-1908)

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

One of the projects that I am working on right now is establishing artist provenance for each piece of scenery at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. This means creating a biography for scenic artists and stage mechanics who manufactured scenery and stage machinery for the Tabor Opera House and Tabor Grand Opera House. When possible, I link a specific creator with an extant artifact. This week, the focus of my search was J. C. Alexander, a well-known stage carpenter in Colorado from 1883-1908. The story of his life and career took shape as I read dozens of articles about his projects in relation to the Tabor Grand Opera House and the Colorado Circuit.

I doubt that H. A. W. Tabor understood much about theatre stages when Tabor Opera House was built in 1879. The architects and contractors failed to include experienced theatre professionals in the early planning; always a crucial and costly mistake. Although Tabor hired a very skilled fresco artist (J. E. Lamphere) and a capable carpenter (Mr. Barber), their stage arrangements failed upon repeated use. This did not mean that Lamphere of Barber were unskilled, they simply did not specialize in scenic illusion, stage machinery and stage transformations.

By 1882, the Tabor Opera House auditorium and stage underwent a pretty substantial rebuild. The roof was lifted up for acoustics and the stage appointments completely redone. Of the stage work, the “Leadville Daily Herald” reported, “there will be a change for the better in regard to scenery, scene shifting and drop curtains. Those ridiculous hitches in scene shifting that have heretofore occurred on one or two occasions will no longer take place. An experienced stage man has been secured in the person of Mr. H. C. Sprague, who has had extensive experience in the east” (August 23, 1882). H. C. Sprague became the stage carpenter for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, and J. C. Alexander became the stage carpenter for the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver. Of the two, Alexander became integral in helping mechanically prepare venues for inclusion in the Colorado Circuit.

At some point between 1879 and 1882, Tabor realized that the key to securing touring shows was the backstage appointments. A specific set of stage accommodations attracted touring shows; you can’t put on a successful production without the necessary equipment. Regardless of the extravagance spent on front of house accommodations, it was the backstage area that mattered and attributed to securing popular productions.

Getting class acts to Denver, let alone to Leadville, was expensive. The only way to increase profits was to have the same production tour several venues in the area, or stop on their way to another location. This meant that the traveling costs were divided among the various theaters, reducing the overall expense for each house. Ultimately, western theatrical circuits saved money by sheer volume of venues. Simply offering multiple stops on a tour, however, was not enough to engage a touring company. The stage accommodations had to technically support each show.

For example, when the Grand Central theatre opened in Leadville only a month after the Tabor Opera House, it became quickly apparent that the Grand Central had a far superior stage.  The only way for the Tabor Opera House to overcome this deficiency was to connect with a larger metropolitan venue and become part of a circuit – the Tabor circuit. When Denver’s Tabor Grand Opera House opened in 1881, it became the life blood for Tabor’s much smaller venue in Leadville. Without the connection to the Tabor Grand, I doubt that the Tabor opera house would have weathered any of its Leadville competition. Even with featuring the same touring productions as the Tabor Grand, the Tabor opera house had to improve their scenic appointments, hence, the 1882 renovation. The improvements necessitated the involvement of a stage carpenter and scenic artist intimately familiar with the demands of touring companies. Enter Henry E. Burcky, J. C. Alexander and H. C. Sprague. Keep in mind that “stage carpenter” is interchangeable with stage mechanic and stage manager at this time.

After the 1882 renovation of Leadville’s Tabor Opera House, the Tabor Grand Opera House began to hire out the services of their stage carpenter and scenic artist (Burkey and Alexander). This was an attempt to improve regional stages, thus establishing appropriate stops on a western circuit – the Colorado Circuit.  In 1885, Alexander and Burcky transformed DeRemer’s rink into the new DeRemer Opera House. One article published in the “Colorado Weekly Chieftain” on Dec. 29, 1885, interviewed Alexander about a possible stage renovation.

John Charles Alexander

The renovation would allow Pueblo to host the same touring shows featured at the Tabor Grand Opera House. There was incentive for both of Tabor’s theaters, as well as the Pueblo community. Here is the 1885 article in its entirety:

“On Sunday, Mr. J. C. Alexander, the stage manager and master mechanic of the Tabor Grand opera house, Denver arrived in the city for the purpose of taking a look at DeRemer’s rink and giving an unbiased opinion as to what could be done towards converting it into an opera house. Mr. Alexander was astonished and greatly pleased at the building, it was so much superior in every way to what he expected to see. The building is both longer and wider than the Tabor Grand, and all it lacks to make room equal to the Tabor Grand auditorium in every way is height. Desiring to get Mr. Alexander’s unbiased opinion regarding the proposed scheme, a Chieftan reporter tackled him yesterday afternoon. We inquired if he thought the rink could be converted into a first class opera house.

“Certainly, sir,” said Mr. Alexander, “It can be converted into an opera house second only to the Tabor Grand in Colorado. I have studied this hall thoroughly that last few hours, and I can tell you it can be made into a splendid theater – a theater where any company visiting Colorado can play and show all of their scenery. “Here,” said he, “you will see we have a working stage of 40×76 feet between walls, with the same width of proscenium opening as the Denver stage. It can be and will be furnished with five sets of working grooves, same as the Tabor, to fold back the fly galleries and give a clear working space in width of 48 feet. We also have a clear working height to the rigging loft of 26 feet, five sets of border lights and the footlights complete the same as we have at the Tabor. To start in with Mr. DeRemer proposes to put in eleven sets of complete scenery, besides a beautiful drop curtain. The eleven sets of scenery, as the house progresses towards completeness, can be painted on the reverse side, thus giving twenty-two sets of beautiful scenery. Here also we will have ample space for scene room, property room and eight dressing rooms. With these improvements any special bit of scenery painted for the production of a special play at the Tabor Grand, will be sent over the Colorado circuit, the completion of this improvement making it possible to set the Tabor scenes at Colorado Springs, Pueblo and Leadville, but Pueblo to the greater advantage that elsewhere on the circuit, because here you will have the largest and best appointed theater on the circuit, and be possessed of every facility to produce attractions as they should be produced. The people of Pueblo will never have such an opportunity to get a good opera house again. I will tell you why. They are only asked to make a temporary loan of $3,000 towards making all these improvements. Now the fact is the improvements contemplated will cost nearer $6,000 than $3,000, yet I understood Mr. DeRemer to say that if the people put up the $3,000 asked for the improvements will be made as contemplated regardless of the extra cost. He further tells me that he will expend every dollar of surplus earnings of the house in making improvements in the building. The fact is that people ought to advance $6,000 at once instead of $3,000.

“How many people can be seated in this building as now planned.” Asked the reporter.

“About 900,” replied Mr. Alexander, “or nearly 200 more than can be seated on the first floor of the Tabor Opera House. The seats will all be elevated and nicely arranged provided the project can be carried out, and there will not be a bad seat in the house. The height of the stage will be three feet ten inches from the floor and everything will be permanent about the stage, it can be dug out underneath after it is started and the pit and traps put in. In the same way the roof can be raised at any time, and these things I am assured will be done as fast as possible. If this scheme goes through the Tabor Grand has agreed to play all its attractions here permanently. That is why I am here and taking such an active interest in the way the work of improvement is to be done.

“Could a building about 130×52 feet be converted into a first class or even possibly good opera house, Mr. Alexander,” inquired the reporter.

“No, sir,” said Mr. Alexander; “it could not, and for the very obvious reason that such a building would lack one of the great things which a theater mush have – and width, What kind of a stage you put within fifty-two feet? What kind of scenery could you put up? Such a structure would be an abortion, so far as using it for theatrical purposes is concerned. The only way to convert a building fifty feet wide into a theater would be to tear down the structure, rebuild it and add about thirty feet more to its width.

Leaving Mr. Alexander the reporter hunted up Mr. J. R. DeRemer and Mr. George M. Haight, to find out what truth, if any, there was in the statement that the improvements to be made in the rink would cost $6,000.

“Yes,” said Mr. Haight, “Mr. Alexander thinks the improvement will cost much but if the people put up the three thousand dollars asked we will make the improvements at once.

“Yes,” said Mr. DeRemer, “and you can just tell the people that whatever Mr. George M. Haight says about this matter goes. He represents me in this matter fully and I will carry out whatever he agrees to do. It is estimated these improvements will cost $6,000, but we have only asked for $3,000, and as soon as that sum is subscribed we will commence this work with a vim. I will say further that every surplus cent of earnings of this house will be used to improve and beautify the structure until Pueblo has a first class opera house. I don’t think I can say any more, It now remains to be seen whether the people want an opera house. The people, however, are asked for but  $3,000, as a temporary loan. The only feasible plan to secure an opera house is to make up this $3,000 fund at once. All other propositions are chimerical and impossible. If we can’t raise the sum asked by DeRemer we can’t raise anything for an opera house, but we believe this sum can be raised, and we hope to announce it has been subscribed before the week is out, Of the sum asked there only remains $1,000 to be raised. Now don’t refuse to put your name down when called upon. We can all afford to help this project along liberally and it is our duty as good citizens, with the prosperity of the town in view, to do so cheerfully and promptly.”

On January 7, 1886, the “Colorado Daily Chieftain” announced. “If the people of Pueblo want a first class opera house, let them wait on Mr. J. R. DeRemer or Mr. George M. Haight to-day and subscribe a loan of $525 towards the DeRemer opera house project, and our word for it, work will be commenced tomorrow. It this is not done very few of the Tabor Grand attractions will visit Pueblo in the future.” That almost sounded like a threat, but the money was soon raised and on February 3, 1886, DeRemer’s Opera House opened to the public. The “Colorado Daily Chieftain” reported, “During the past few weeks many people, of course, have visited what was formerly known as the finest skating rink in the west and watched the transformation in progress, but for all that there were few people present at the opening last night who were not surprised and astonished at the beautiful appearance of the interior of the new theaters…the stage is the largest in the state beside the Tabor Grand at Denver. It is furnished with all the scenery paraphernalia required in all first class opera houses. This work has all been done under the personal supervision of Mr. Maynard, assistant stage manager at the Tabor Grand…Pueblo is now accredited with the best equipped and largest opera house outside of Denver and in the state…Pueblo ought to be proud of DeRemer’s opera house; it is a first class place of amusement now, and in time we feel certain it will be excelled by few in style and finish.”

There were many more changes to go, including the raising of the roof to make it three stories high, but the house was open. Once the roof was raised, the seating would be divided into a parquet, dress circle, balcony and gallery. 

Tomorrow, I will continue to explore the life and career of John C. Alexander.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1109 – Similarities between the Salt Lake Theatre and Tabor Grand Opera House, 1883

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

“The Salt Lake Theatre in the Early Days” was included in George D. Pyper’s 1937 publication, “The Romance of an Old Playhouse.”

Manager W. S. Morse discussed Henry C. Tryon’s work for the Tabor Grand Opera House and Salt Lake Theatre with a “Salt Lake Herald” reporter in 1883. He was asked about his thoughts on the new Salt Lake Theatre and stock scenery. Morse noted similarities of the two houses and celebrated Tryon’s artistry. Here is the article in its entirety:

“A FINE STRUCTURE

What Denver Manager Thinks of the Salt Lake Theatre.

A Compliment for the Theatre and a Puff for Tryon.

W. S. Morse, Esq., manager of the Tabor Grand Opera House, of Denver, has been in Salt Lake for a couple of days on a visit, the object of which was rest and entertainment. Being a theatrical man himself, he naturally takes an interest in the Temple of Thespis wherever found and of whatever character. Consequently, he visited, among other places, the Salt Lake Theatre, which is now undergoing repairs. A HERALD commissioner ran across him there, and naturally put some questions to the gentleman, which may prove of interest to the public. Here is the result of a series of profound inquiries and equally erudite responses.

Reporter – Mr. Morse, what do you think of the Salt Lake Theatre anyhow?

Mr. Morse – When completed according to the plans of management it will be one of the finest theatres in the country.

Rep.- In what respect?

Mr. M. – The auditorium is elegantly proportioned, the acoustic properties are wonderful, while the lines of light are so well arranged that in no portion of the house does the audience fail to get a good view of the stage. All that the audience requires is to be richly and tastefully decorated and then, with the elegant proscenium opening, this part of the theatre will be superb. Judging from appearances, there has been a marvelous change in the entire arrangement of the stage mechanism. The depth of the stage is greater than that of the Tabor Opera House, while the width is about the same. We have about ten feet more height to our rigging loft, but there is ample height here for all theatrical purposes. The whole arrangement seems to have been modelled after that of the Tabor Grand Opera House; and that structure, having been built in accordance with the latest knowledge and experience that could be secured, it necessarily follows that practically everything which could be done to make a perfect place, is found in the Tabor Opera House. The similarity between the two houses (though it may seem immodest for me to make the comparison) is decidedly to the credit of this theatre. There are very few theatres as thoroughly stocked with characteristic and elegant scenery as I see yours is. The artist, Mr. H. C. Tryon, was with us in Denver for about eight months and during that time painted a large portion of our stock scenery. The first scene he did for us was a “Mining Camp in Colorado,” which was greeted with spontaneous and hearty applause. The good opinion of our patrons, so early won, was continued during his entire engagement, so much so that we parted with him with reluctance.

The artwork which I noticed he has already done here, is calculated to give the Theatre a really metropolitan aspect. The changes which have already been made and are now making – as I understand it – at his suggestion, will greatly enhance this impression; and when these alterations are completed, I will venture the assertion that nowhere in the country will there be a better sticked theatre for scenery, nor one which will enjoy a greater number of the modern theatrical appliances and conveniences. I would have you understand that we think a great deal of Tryon in our selection, where he enjoys as a great reputation for oil painting as he does for scene painting. He enjoys a reputation all over the country and has been employed by the best managers and in the best theatres in the country. In every place, even where the art taste is old, cultivated and generally developed, the same appreciation of his work is manifested as it is here and in Denver, Tryon’s success is due to the fact that he has made of scene painting art in the highest sense; besides there is freshness of idea, richness of color, and originality of design. All these things have combined to give Tryon the reputation he enjoys. My admiration for Tryon may lead me to say some very flattering things of him, but I am sure all that I can say in his favor will be borne out by artist generally and by those who have had the acquaintance of years with him. It was really a fortunate – not to say wise – movement on the part of the management of the Theatre to secure the services of so talented an artist. I am equally confident that the nerve displayed by the management of the Salt Lake Theatre in undertaking such a heavy expenditure in restocking the Theatre, in remodeling the stage, and in making the auditorium more attractive, will not only be rewarded by liberal patronage consequent upon the satisfactory presentation of all pieces so far as stage mounting and settings are concerned, but it will be a source of pride and satisfaction alike to them and the public, to known that they have as handsome, as attractive and as well-appointed a theatre as the largest American cities can boast.

Mr. Morse seemed relieved after he had delivered the concluding peroration, and the reporter decided that to worry that gentleman further would be cruelty and beat a hasty retreat” (Salt Lake Herald, 31 May 1883, page 10).

The “Deseret News” published gave a little background about the venue and its renovation in an earlier article entitled “Stage Transformation” (21 Feb. 1883, page 2). The article reported:

“The Salt Lake Theatre, built twenty years ago, when much that entered into its construction had to be transported across the plains with ox teams, will be, in 1883, up to the very latest date. To sum up, we are soon to have one of the few really grand and perfect theatres in the United States.” The article explained, “The tearing away of old timbers and the introduction of various improvements has made a new rigging loft fifteen feet higher than the old one. In fact, there is a compete stage transformation in progress in the ‘old Drury.’ The result will be that the scenery hereafter will, with the increased height of ‘drops’ and the immense ‘borders’ which traverse over the scenes, give all the grandeur of the very finest theatres.” The “ Deseret News” commented, “Now there is no rolling of drops, as they are simply raised or lowered directly by an ingenious and straight-forward arrangement” (26 May 1883, page 2).

Each piece of Tryon’s stock scenery was gradually unveiled to the public, selected to accompany a specific production at the Salt Lake Theatre. By the end of May 1883, the “Deseret News” reported “The forest scene, painted by Henry C. Tryon, introduced last night and this afternoon in ‘The Serf,’ is a masterpiece. The foliage borders transform the stage into the appearance of a dense wood with actual timber, over hanging and spreading branches and leaves. It is the nearest approach to nature in the department of scene painting we have ever seen” (May 26, 1883, page 5).

Lawrence Barret’s secured Tryon’s services while performing at the Salt Lake Theatre in 1883. Barrett specifically asked Tryon to produce special scenery after encountering his work at the Tabor Grand Opera House. The “Salt Lake Herald” reported, “Learning that Mr. Tryon was engaged here, Mr. Barrett was not a little delighted with the information, for the reason that it implied a presentation of his pieces, so far as scenic effects were concerned, on a scale of grandeur equal to anything he could have hoped for in the best equipped theatres of the country. It is but proper to state in justice to the artist that the first satisfactory exhibitions of his labors will be made during the coming engagement of Mr. Barrett. The commingling of the higher dramatic art, as represented by Mr. Barrett, and the perfection of scenic art, such as will be witnessed next week, will prove a treat of rare and unequalled excellence, and will enable the management of the Theatre to show fully and completely to the public the possibilities of the stage, since the completion of the extensive alterations instituted some time ago, and carried out at a cost far beyond original anticipations” (7 June 1883, page 8).

On June 14, 1883, the “Salt Lake City Herald” announced “Five Applause” (page 8). The article reported, “That all the HERALD promised is already realized in the two performance so far given, is beyond question, and to show how deeply Mr. Tryon’s labor is appreciated here, it is but needful to state that his scenes were five times applauded last night, the rise of the curtain in each act being a clue for applause by the audience; but the artist states that it is to-night he will take a little pride in the special work he has done, and referred to last nights as only of indifferent excellence. We shall see what he calls good when that is but indifferent.”  

Other scenes credited to Tryon were described in local newspapers and included an ancient street, fancy chamber, winter scene and “quiet landscape.”

To be continued…

Travels of A Scenic Artist and Scholar. Interior Settings for the Tabor Opera House by Henry E. Burcky, 1890


Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett


The Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, opened in 1879. Over the next two decades, wing and shutter scenery for the stage was repeatedly purchased, refurbished and repainted. The venue was later renamed the Elks Opera House when the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) purchased the building in 1901. Immediately after the purchase, the building was renovated, and a new stock scenery collection purchased. Part of the stage renovation included adding a fly loft, so that new scenery could be raised out of sight. Previously, the Tabor Opera House used wings, shutters, roll drops and borders. This scenery was tucked away in storage after the renovation where it waited for over a century.

The Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado


I lead a group of local volunteers to document both the scenery on the stage floor and that stored in the attic. On the back of one cut wing, was written: “W. J. Moon stage carpenter and H. E. Burpey [sic.] scenic artist, October 6, 1890. This penciled note identifying the creators places the eight cut wigs within the timeframe of Tabor Opera House history.

W. J. Moon listed as carpenter and Henry E. Burpey [sic] on the back of a cut wing at the Tabor Opera House


William J. Moon was a local resident, associated with the opera house for decades. Henry E. Burky was an itinerant scenic artist who began his career in Chicago and was working in Denver by 1884. “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” for the 1884-1885 season listed “Burckey, Tabor Opera, Denver” as the scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville; he was working for both of Tabor’s theaters. Burcky was still associated with the Tabor Opera House five years later.


On August 24, 1890, the “Herald Democrat” included an article on the new scenery painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado (age 5). The article reported, “Mr. Burkey, the efficient scenic artist from the Tabor Grand, Denver, is at present in Leadville, and at work on some new scenery for the Tabor in this city. There will be several new sets, particularly some much needed interior scenery. One set has been completed already and is very handsome” (page 5).

On September 3, 1890, the “Herald Democrat” included an article on the new scenery painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado (page 5): “Mr. Berkey, the scenic artist from the Tabor Grand, Denver, is getting along very well with the new scenery he is painting at the local theater. He has already completed three interiors, which are a decided improvement to the scenic portion of the theater. Mr. Berkey is a first-class scenic artist and does some decidedly commendable work.”

Baronial Hall interior side of double-painted shutter at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado
New England interior side of double-painted shutter at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado

After completing the scenery project in Leadville, the “Herald Democrat” reported his departure for Denver on October 16, 1890, noting “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.” In addition to the tropical-themed cut wings, I suspect one of Burcky’s double-painted interior settings remain. When he painted the three new settings noted in the newspaper, he likely repainted existing composition. When nineteenth-century scenery was repainted, it was simply scrubbed down with water and then repainted. In the case of the Burcky’s double-painted wings, the underlaying composition became a template. There was no need to scrub down and redraw and interior setting for each piece. Keep in mind that this would have been tricky, as the underlying colors would immediately lift. Scenery painted with dry pigment and diluted hide glue reactivates when it comes in contact with liquid.

Four double-painted wings painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in 1890
Painted detail from double-painted wing painted by Henry E. Burcky for the Tabor Opera House in 1890
A detail showing the underpainting from a previous composition.

Burcky’s interior set consists of wings that slide in grooves, as well as two shutters that formed a back wall. The back wall had an opening for double door in the center. What is interesting, however, is that only the shutters use flat sheaves (wheels). A pair of flat sheaves was secured to the bottom of each shutter for easy movement. Unfortunately, one of the shutters was so badly damaged that it was not lowered to the stage floor and thoroughly documented. This piece and its companion remain in the Tabor attic, until they can be repaired and safely lowered to the stage floor.

One of two shutters that formed the opening for a double door.
The two shutters still wait in the attic of the Tabor Opera House for repair
A flat sheave on the bottom of the interior shutter


The double-painted wings do not have flat sheaves on the bottom. They were shifted during scene changes without the benefit of wheels, indicating that the wings slid in wooden floor grooves. Sets of grooves were placed above and below the unit to stabilize each unit for the interior setting.Not all of the interior setting remains, as part was disassembled to create a massive barn setting during the late nineteenth-century. Painted remnants littered the attic, a testament to the original scope of Burcky’s project. I am in the process of slowly fitting these pieces back together.

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1101 – Henry C. Tryon and the Salt Lake Theatre Renovation, 1883

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

The Salt Lake Theatre renovated their stage in 1883, adding a fly loft. Henry C. Tryon left the Tabor Opera House in Denver and traveled south to Utah for this and other projects.

Salt Lake Theatre ticket from 1883. Utah Department of Heritage and Art, Theatre Programs Collection, 1866-1995.
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=549570

On Feb. 2, 1883, the “Deseret News” presented “important interior improvements” at the Salt Lake Theatre. (page 3). The article reported “Everything is being reconstructed in harmony with the latest and best metropolitan ideas. The immense stock of scenery is being duplicated on new materials. There will be painted 45 “pairs of flats,” 172 wings and set doors, 50 “borders” and “set Pieces ad infinitum. The mere matter of canvass alone will cost over $2,000 and the entire expense will be more than sufficient to build an ordinary theatre. A new “rigging loft” is now being built 15 feet higher than the [resent one, and as soon as it is finished the old one will be torn out and the entire height will be great enough to raise the new drop curtain bodily up without rolling. Everyone of the scenes put upon the stage will have a height of 15 feet greater, and apparently the difference will be still more.”

This was a monumental project and the article continued, “In order to arrange the mechanism and thus gain these advantages, much must be done, and in this case, owing to the necessity of rearranging all the girders, beams and supports of the roof, it requires some nice mechanical calculation, which the ordinary observer even would perceive were he to see the work in progress.” Local architect Henry Grow (1817-1891) was selected for the task, and assisted by William Ridd. He was a Latter-day Saint builder and civil engineer, responsible for the Salt Lake Tabernacle.

The managers of the theater were J. T. Caine, H. B. Clawson and David McKenzie. Of the renovation project, the article noted that Mr. Clawson was personally attending to the work. And, here is the interesting paragraphs to read… “Mr. Clawson is personally superintending all this work and, seeing clearly the result ahead, has entered into it with enthusiasm and vim. He is really the motive power in the affair, and it will be found to be only another example of the fact that he does not trouble himself about small matters, but carries important ones to their full and proper conclusion.” 

Three month later the “Salt Lake Herald” announced that Tryon “was given carte blanch to follow his own sweet inclinations,” in regard to the scenery and stage machinery renovation on stage (12 May 1883, page 8).  From January until May of 1883, Tryon transitioned from freelance scenic artist to the scenic artist on staff at the Salt Lake Theatre. While painting for the nearby Springvale Music Hall, the San Francisco Opera offered Tryon a scenic art position. Tryon shared this offer with the local newspapers, as well as the Salt Lake Theatre. Although Tryon had worked on new scenery for the Salt Lake Theatre since fall 1882, he had no official position at the venue: this changed in early 1883.

On May 12, 1883, the “Salt Lake Herald” reported:

“STAGE EFFECTS.

How the Stage of the Theatre has Been Metaphised.

Since the coming of Mr. Henry C. Tryon, to Salt Lake, the patrons of the theatre have enjoyed a series of the most agreeable and delightful surprises, which have crowded upon each other in rapid succession. These surprises being the many superb scenes from his masterly hand. But one portion, however, of Mr. Tryon’s labor and suggestions have been invisible to the public, until last night., when, the “snap” was given away, and the work which it has taken months to accomplish was displayed to the public. This at once became a matter of general conversation and all expressed their admiration of the marvelous change that had been wrought. A brief description, however, will be of as much interest to the public at large and afford the same pleasure it did to those who were present last night. It may be well to state right here, that this new feature makes the Salt Lake Theatre the equal to any building in the country for the production of scenic effects and magnificent displays.”

And here is the description of the renovation that is worth noting:

“The stage of the theatre in width and depth is one of the largest in the country, but a portion of this great space has heretofore been practically useless, owing to the fly gallery projecting more than was necessary, thus materials cutting off the width of the scenery. At the back of the stage was a wall partition with an opening in the centre and the space in the rear was used as a storage room for the storage of scenery not in use. These partitions have been torn down and the depth on the stage increased by twenty feet.”

“A serious defect under the old arrangement was that fact that fifteen feet in height (immeasurably important in scenic manipulation and effect) was rendered valueless by a plaster ceiling. This desirable space has been entirely lost to the stage and scenic equipment. By cutting out the ceiling referred to, a height of sixty feet from the stage has been obtained, which is not only sufficient to give room in which to take up the drop curtain (to be painted) bodily, without rolling, but affords ample room for any stage purpose whatever. If the audience sat at the theatre last night, who saw the enormous foliage borders which, starting from the tops of the wings, filled up the space visible through the lofty proscenium opening, will consider the height necessary to pull them up and out of sight, they can readily understand the value and necessity of a rigging loft. In building this there were some peculiar mechanical difficulties to overcome, owning to the fact that the roof, in great measure, was supported by beams from the former ceiling. These supports had t be entirely readjusted, and Mr. Henry Grow carried this part of the work to an entirely successful conclusion. To sum up there has been the entire change in the arrangement of everything connected with the stage, the management wisely concluding that everything had been wrong and nothing right; while now there is not a theatre in the land with features of any great importance not possessed by this.

“The same sweeping changes have been made in the scenery have been made and are now being made in the scenery and by the time the management call the house complete, not a foot of old scenery will remain, and the Salt Lake Theatre will be as thoroughly equipped in amount and in artistic quality as any other. The credit for pushing these improvements to so successful an issue is due to General H. B. Clawson, whose instructions to those employed have been to make everything as complete as the most perfect theatre can boast.

Of course we say nothing here of the improvements that are to be effected in the auditorium, as this will be palpable to the public from time to time as they progress. The management of the Theatre is to be complimented no less of the energy and liberality with which it has had the work here referred to prosecuted, than in the choice it has made of the person by whom these improvements have been brought. At the time Mr. Tryon came here the improvements were contemplated and already commenced, but he so thoroughly entered into the idea of the management and showed such consummate knowledge of stage machinery as well as scenic effects, that the task was immediately resigned into his hands and he was given carte blanche to follow his own sweet inclinations. How well Mr. Tryon has acquitted the task assigned him, every patron of the Theatre and every lover of art already knows. Such effects as have already been wrought by his brush have never been seen here, and rarely anywhere else. He is essentially a scenic artist – a genius in his line – an indeed he is an artist in the highest sense of the word, his superior taste and unerring judgement being recognized no less by his associates as the Theatre than by members of the art fraternity of this city.  It is not surprisingly therefore, that a man possessing his unusual talents, and having withal so large experience, should be capable of working such rapid changes, that the troupe now performing at the Theatre, which here about three weeks ago – expressed the utmost astonishment at the wonderful alterations that had been effected in the theatre during so brief a period. The delicate taste, the blending of colors, the peculiar character which belongs to each scene and which marks it from every other scene, all give evidence of the master hand and of the thoughtful artist; and cause his handwork to be admired by those who, unlearned in the details of the glorious art, are nevertheless sensible to its beauties, as well as by those cultivated taste and of experience.”

By the time Tryon’s drop curtain was unveiled, his notoriety had increased substantially throughout the western region. His drop curtain for the Salt lake Theatre was pictured in George D, Pyper’s 1937 book, “The Romance of an Old Playhouse.”

Henry C. Tryon’s drop curtain for the Salt Lake Theatre, included in Geo. D. Pyper’s book, “The Romance of an Old Playhouse.”

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar. The Scenic Art Career of Lemuel L. Graham, 1884 to 1914.

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday I examined the early life of Lemuel Laken Graham, a partnership with Thomas G. Moses in 1882, and his return to the Sosman & Landis Studio in 1883. By 1884, Graham left Chicago to start his own studio in Kansas City, Missouri. The 1885 Kansas City Directory lists Graham as a founder of the Kansas City scenic company studio known as Graham & Davis. At the time, Graham was residing at 637 Garfield Ave. His business partner, William Davis, was with the firm for less than only two years, and by 1886 studio was simply listed under Lemuel L. Graham.

Lem Graham, 1914 obituary notice.

In 1887, Graham was again listed in the Kansas City directory as a scenic artist with his studio at 525 Main, rooming at 517 E. Missouri ave. The 1888 Kansas City Directory lists “Lemuel L. Graham” as employer for other scenic artists in the city, such as Benjamin F. Dunn, future president of the Kansas City scenic Co. Two other bits of information in 1888 provide a little context for Graham’s career in Kansas City; the first is that Moses mentions stopping in Kansas City to visit Graham in his memoirs, writing, “He was doing well.” Indeed, Graham was doing very well, with a substantial staff of artists work in his studio. The second mention of Graham and his studio was included in the 1888 publication, “Industries of Kansas City: Historical, Descriptive, and Statistical.”

The section on Graham included the following listing:

L. L. Graham. Scenic Artist, Contractor for Stage Equipment, Theatre Hardware, Frame Work, Canvas, Traps, Bridges and Every Necessary Equipment of First Class Theatres, 525 & 527 Main Street.

There was an entire entry for Graham too:

“Mr. L. L. Graham is a prominent representative of the scenic art in Kansas City, having established this business here four years ago in conjunction with Mr. Davis, who withdrew from the firm some two years since. Mr. Graham is an adept in this line, having followed the business upwards of twenty-five years. His first experience in the school of art was had at McVickers’ Theater, Chicago, Ill. and subsequent training in San Francisco, Cleveland, Memphis and New Orleans. His establishment here is eligibly located at 525-527 Main Street, and consists of a studio and shops fitted up with every essential appliance and convenience for the correct and expeditious execution of the work, which comprises high art stage scenery and equipment, rich and elegant stage curtains, stage properties of every description, theatrical hardware, frame work, canvas, traps, bridges, etc. One special feature of Mr. Graham’s industry is his advertising drop curtain, which is richly draped on the top and sides with royal crimson and heavy bullion fringes and pendants gracefully falling on steps painted at bottom of curtain. In the center is a large and artistically painted picture in stucco frame, which is surrounded by a border of deep Prussian blue, divided into spaces for the insertion of business cards. The cards may be lettered in a becoming and artistic style in bright gold, the whole having a brilliant and pleasing effect. There are usually from eighteen to twenty of these spaces of varying sizes to suit the advertiser as to the amount he desires to pay. Full particulars concerning this feature will be furnished by mail, upon application, to theatre managers, hall proprietors and others interested as well as any other information appertaining to stage equipment and carpentry. Mr. Graham has executed stage work for some fifty or sixty houses in Nebraska, notably at Omaha and Lincoln, etc., and for forty five different houses in Kansas, including Winfield, Wichita and Anthony, and in St. Joe, Hannibal, Springfield and many others in Missouri. As many as thirty-six men in his employ upon an average weekly pay roll of $500.00, Mr. Graham giving his personal attention to every detail of this most intricate work. Contracts were made for Priests of Pallas and trades displays and pageants in Kansas.” Thirty-six men in Graham’s scenic studio is comparable to that of Sosman & Landis in Chicago at the same time. However, Graham did not remain in Kansas, heading east.”

This publication included an interesting commentary about scenic studios at the time: “Such industries as the one under special notice [L. L. Graham], are among the necessary concomitants of a rapidly developing metropolitan community, indicating that spirit of enterprise that caters to refined taste and social enjoyment.”

By 1896, Graham was listed as doing business with another scenic artist L. J. Couch (1838 – 1909). Little is known of their exact relationship or business, but it was an unsuccessful venture and makes me ponder Moses’ comment, “a good fellow and a hard worker, but altogether too close to please me.” Graham and Couch were listed in the “Boston Globe” under the heading “Business Troubles.” Of their scenic studio, the newspaper announced, “L. J. Couch and Lemuel L. Graham, doing business at 384 West 1st St, South Boston, under the firm of Levi Couch & Co., scenic painters, have been petitioned into insolvency by Edmund G. Pond, creditor” (The Boston Globe, 9 Jan. 1896, page 7). This is Graham’s third failed business venture in twelve years.

Couch was a scenic artist and inventor, specializing in stage hardware. Born in Milford, Connecticut, he was also a stage mechanic, with an extensive background as a general carpenter. This should have been the winning combination for Graham and Couch – both scenic artists, with one being a knowledgeable stage mechanic. Couch even applied for two patents that involved the operation of stage scenery. One was for a “wire rope clamp” (US Patent 756,158) and other for a “curtain block, drop” (US Patent 756,157). Here are the links to Couch’s two patents:

https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=00756157&IDKey=38593B643681%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D0756157.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F0756157%2526RS%3DPN%2F0756157

and

https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=00756158&IDKey=835F3B6405D6%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D0756158.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F0756158%2526RS%3DPN%2F0756158

Couch advertised his wire clamp in the “New England Business Directory and Gazetteer” (No. XXI, 1904).

Advertisement from the “New England Business Directory and Gazetteer,” No. XXI, 1904.

Couch’s background I fascinating, especially before he partnered with Graham. In 1890, Couch was working at the Bijou Theater in Boston, listed as stage carpenter in the city directory. He soon founded L. J. Couch & Co. and initially partnered with fellow scenic artist, David Richards from 1893-1895. As with Graham’s firm in Kansas City, L. J. Couch & Co. offered a wide range of theatrical goods ranging from painter scenery and theatrical hardware to general stage appliances.

After L. J. Couch & Company, Graham partnered with P. Todd Ackerman, another scenic artist. Their studio was initially located at the Broadway Theater in Brooklyn, New York. On Aug. 13, 1902, the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle” reported that Graham and P. D. Ackerman took a mortgage with John C. Sceneck at Bushwick Ave. for $3900 (Conveyances, page 14). In 1903, “The Standard Union” listed: BUSHWICK AVE, s w s 100 n w Eastern Parkway Extension, 50×29.5x-x56.3; Lemuel L. Graham to Philip D. Ackerman; ½ pt; all liens….nom” (22 July 1903, page 10). There Studio Building 1576 to 1580 Bushwick Ave, New York.

Graham later set up his own studio on Crosby Avenue in Brooklyn, calling it L. L. Graham and Son. This must have been Revard Graham. In 1905, the US Census lists Graham and his wife living in Manhattan with their three children: Rachel Elizabeth, Ethel, and Revard Parker, ages 21, 13 and 10. Graham would remain in Brooklyn, New York, until his passing in 1914, yet listed “Graham & Son,” now working with Revard Graham. There remains one drop credited to L. L. Graham & son at the Grange Hall in Denmark, Maine.

Drop curtain for the Grange Hall in Denmark, Maine, credited to L.L. Graham & Son, Brooklyn, NY.
Signature of “L. L. Graham & Son.” Drop curtain for the Grange Hall in Denmark, Maine, credited to L.L. Graham & Son, Brooklyn, NY.
Painted detail. Drop curtain for the Grange Hall in Denmark, Maine, credited to L.L. Graham & Son, Brooklyn, NY.
Painted detail. Drop curtain for the Grange Hall in Denmark, Maine, credited to L.L. Graham & Son, Brooklyn, NY.

Graham passed away after a brief illness on Sunday, Dec. 27, 1914, at the age of only 68. He died at his home, 3 Miller Ave, and was still working as a scenic artist (“The Standard Union,” 29 Dec. 1914, page 3). The Brooklyn Daily Eagle described Graham as “one of the best-known scenic artists of this country.” The article summarized, “[Graham] was known from coast to coast among theatrical men and had traveled through every State in the Union in his time, and his work was known in all of the principal cities.”

Here is Graham’s obituary in its entirety:

“L.L. Graham Artist, Dead.
Painted Many Scene and Curtains for Theatres. Had Studio Here. Curtain at Broadway Theatre His Creation. Lemuel Laken Graham, one of the country, died Sunday from heart failure after a long illness at his home. 3 Miller avenue, on the border line of Queens Borough, near Highland Park. Mr. Graham had a studio building on Crosby avenue, near his home, or ten years, funeral services will be held to-night with internment in Evergreens cemetery.

Mr. Graham was known from coast to coast among theatrical men and had traveled in every State in the Union in his time. His work was known in most of the principal cities. He was born in Ann Harbor, Mich., July 4, sixty-eight years ago, the son of the Rev. Daniel McBride Graham, a Baptiste clergyman and the president of Hillsdale College, Mich., and Ursula Graham. His father apprenticed him to the scene painting business in his youth and he early achieved fame in his chose calling.

He was associated with Sasman [sic.] and Landis of Chicago, for some years and painted the curtain for the Chicago Auditorium. Later he was a partner of L. J. Couch, of Boston, and in his studio there turned out some of the best known to stageland, While at Kansas City for a number of years, Mr. Graham was in charge of the great annual event there, the priest of Pallas parade, and created all of the floats and scenes used in the carnival. Mr. Graham and P. Todd [sic.] Ackerman did the decorations for the Broadway Theatre here, and he painted several curtains and numerous elaborate settings for Manhattan theatres.

Mr. Graham taught scene painting for years and some of the most skillful scenic artists in the country were his pupils. Of late years he confined his work to the creation of smaller scenes and he had a reputation for clever organizations. He leaves his wife, Elizabeth West Graham; a son Revard Parker Graham, a scenic artist, and a daughter, Mrs. Fermin Ferrer, of Laurelton, L. I.” (The Brooklyn Times, 29 Dec, 1914, age 12).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 806 – New York Studios and David H. Hunt, 1912

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Sosman left for the south on a vacation.  My work doubles.  We are doing a lot of work for the New York Studios – not much profit in it for us, as Hunt seems to think we should be satisfied with a small profit.  I have made a number of designs for him which I am pleased to do as long as we get the work.” 

David H. Hunt pictured in the “Detroit Free Press,” 21 May 1903, page 12.

Hunt was a long-term employee at Sosman & Landis, founder of the theatrical management firm Sosman, Landis & Hunt (est. 1894), and founder of New York Studios (est. 1910). New York Studios was considered an eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis. In 1905, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Went to Baraboo to see Ringling Bros.  Hunt went with me.  I don’t know why, as I had to do all the talking and make the sketching for ‘The Field of the Cloth of Gold.’ We got the contract for $3,500.00.” Moses did not get along well with David H. Hunt of New Yorks Studios and periodically mentions the discord in his diary.

By 1910, tensions were high between Moses and Hunt, escalating when Joseph S. Sosman leaves on a 15-week European tour. At the time, both Moses and Hunt were left in charge of the studio, with shops in both Chicago and New York. Hunt was the company secretary and treasure, whereas Moses was responsible for the design, construction and installation of all projects. Of this time, 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.” After Sosman returned and assessed the studio’s state of affairs, Moses wrote, “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.” It was around this time that Hunt officially established New York Studios. Smart move, as it was beginning to appear that Chicago was not big enough for both Moses and Hunt.

The establishment of New York Studios is the beginning to the eventual demise of Sosman & Landis. Sosman steps out of the daily running of the company, leaving it to others, while investing in new business ventures such as New York Studios, managed by friend and past employee Hunt. Keep in mind that Sosman was a scenic artist; Hunt was not. Hunt was also working on many other business endeavors that distracted him from solely focusing on any one company, whether it was Sosman & Landis, Sosman, Landis & Hunt, or New York Studios projects.  Based on Moses’ description of Hunt and newspaper articles. Hunt reminds me a bit of a salesman selling any pyramid scheme, hoping for maximum returns with minimal investments; it is all based on the underlings beneath him doing the work.

Over the years, Hunt had remained a thorn in Moses’ side for many reasons, including his poor treatment of good artists; prompting many to leave the studio. The exodus of scenic artists from Sosman & Landis included Moses’ good friend, John H. Young. Young went on to dominate the Broadway scene as a well-known designer.

Hunt had started with Sosman & Landis during the early 1890s, quickly worming his way into both Sosman & Landis’ confidence. Although I have yet to find an official start date for Hunt, I estimate that his initial hiring was connected with many Columbian Exposition projects. By 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 the Sosman & Landis studio staff from Chicago completed much of the necessary work. Moses’ diaries suggest that Hunt did not treat the artistic staff working for Sosman, Landis & Hunt well; scenic artists were swapped and directed to various projects like pawns on a chessboard, ready to be sacrificed at any point. Throughout this period Hunt had remained on the administrative end of the studio, always finding the public spotlight to share his great wisdom on a subject.

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, and only one Moses. In the 1919 Adelaide A. Hunt was still listed as president of New York Studios, with Edward Morange as Vice-President and David H. Hunt as treasurer, still supplying theatrical goods. Office locations varied from 29th to 39th to 95th Streets. Many scenic artists worked for New York Studios including John H. Young, William F. Hamilton, Victor Higgins, William Smart, Art Rider, and Al Dutheridge to name a few.

1927 New York Studios advertisement in the publication, “Scenic Artist.”

New Yorks Studios was listed as the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis, whereas Sosman & Landis were listed at the western offices of New York Studios. Studio stamps on the back of some designs at the University of Minnesota’s Performing Arts scenery collection list the New York Studios “Home Office” at 328 West 39th St. N.Y. There are other New York Studio designs that link designs to their  “Chicago Office.” The Chicago Office for New York Studios was located at 1022 Consumers Building, separate from the main offices of Sosman & Landis on Clinton St.

Sosman & Landis Studio and New York Studios were two very separate entities. Although they shared work and scenic artists, Moses hints that New York Studios always got more out of the relationship than Sosman & Landis, always taking advantage of the situation.

Studio stamp on the back of a design, now part of the Holak Collection in the University of Minnesota Performing Arts Archives.
New York Studios design, now part of the Holak Collection in the University of Minnesota Performing Arts Archives.
New York Studios stencil on the back of a folding wood wing purchased by Thalian Hall, Wilmington, NC.

Between 1910 and 1912, Hunt and New York Studios were repeatedly mentioned in several newspaper articles across the country. One particular article concerned an electrical apparatus that enabled one man to handle sixty-five drops. Hunt was part of a group interviewed about the innovation; again his being in the right place at the right time. Hunt was chumming around with Martin Beck (manager of the Orpheum Theatre), A. C. Carson (manager of the Denver Orpheum), and Fred W. Vincent (New York booking offices). Regardless of Moses’ complaints, Hunt was a genius at social networking and always falling in with the right crowd.

In regard to Hunt keeping company with Beck, Carson and Vincent in 1910, I am including a section of the group interview with a “Lincoln Star” reporter. On Dec. 18, 1910, the “Lincoln Star” quoted Beck, “‘I have just inspected the invention of Seth Bailey, stage manager of the Orpheum in Denver,’ said Mr. Beck. ‘He has devised an electrical appliance which makes it possible for one man to handle sixty-five drops. It operates everything from the stage curtain to the back, gives absolute fire protection and does the work of an average of twenty stagehands. One man can operate it. It looks good to me, and if further tests prove it as successful as the indications are here we will install in all the Orpheum Theatres. ‘The apparatus for handling drops, consisting of ropes and counterweights, has been the same for 200 years,’ said A. C. Carson, manager of the Denver Orpheum house. ‘Mr. Bailey has perfected, the first invention, bringing the stage mechanism up to date. It has been a field neglected by inventors.’

By 1911, newspapers reported, “Theatrical men and others in Denver have organized a $500,000 corporation to manufacture a mechanical device, which, it claimed, will reduce the number of stage hands needed in a theatre by three-fourths, at least. The new corporation is called the Bailey Fly Rail Machine Company. It is incorporated under the laws of Colorado. Seth Bailey, stage carpenter at the Denver Orpheum, is the inventor of the device. He worked on it several years before he announced that it was successful. About two months ago Martin Beck, M. Meyerfeld Jr., John W. Considine and other vaudeville managers, met in Denver and saw a demonstration of the apparatus. They appeared to be highly pleased with it. The names of A. C. Carson, manager of the Denver Orpheum; Fred W. Feldwich and Frank Bancroft appear at the prime movers in the matter of incorporation. Mr. Bancroft is an attorney. The device is operated by electricity (“Wilkes-Barre Times Leader,” 18 Feb 1911, page 11). Other than patents, the stage carpenter and company seem to have vanished into thin air, as did Hunt’s association with the endeavor.

What remains significant in terms of theatre history is that Hunt was there, part of the vaudeville managers who gathered to see Bailey’s invention. He was certainly a mover and shaker.  I will continue with David Hunt’s story tomorrow.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 733- Drop Curtains in Philadelphia, 1894 – Russell Smith and the Park Theatre

Another section of the article “Well-known Drop Curtain in Philadelphia Theatres” discusses the drop curtain painted by Russell Smith for the Park Theatre in 1889. The venue at 701-705 N. Broad Street near Fairmont Avenue opened that year. A description of Smith’s curtain was published in “The Philadelphia Inquirer on Dec. 18, 1894:

 “Another beautiful curtain from the brush of Russell Smith is the handsome “drop” at the Park Theatre. Painted in 1889. The scene is an ideal one, and represents the Water Palace of the Princess Agiroum, a remarkable character described by that celebrated traveler, Marco Polo. The lower border of the curtain is ornamented with seven medallions, representing personages and scenes taken from the plays of Shakespeare, while in the lower corners are square panels showing the masks of comedy and tragedy. The same bright coloring, fleecy clouds, glorious autumnal tints to foliage and trailing vines, exquisite flowers that seem to exhale a delicious fragrance all their own; the opalescent waters of the lake reflecting back the images of the gondolas that float on its placid bosom, beyond Moorish-looking palaces, back of which rise in majestic grandeur the craggy peaks of high mountains tinted with the richest of coloring. All of the decorations and furnishings within this popular playhouse are in keeping with the artistic taste displayed in the painting of the curtains and it is custom here, between the acts, for the ladies as well as gentlemen to leave their seats and wander about the beautiful lobby.”

Illustration of Russell Smith’s drop curtain created for the Park Theatre in 1889.

The building was designed by John Bailey McElfatrick. The architectural firm of J. B. McElfatrick & Son was chiefly known for its theater designs. By 1896, the company advertised that they were responsible for the design and construction of seventy-one theaters in New York, Washington, D.C., Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, Washington and Texas.  They also designed theaters in Canada. Started by John Bailey McElfatrick, his two sons soon joined the business. John Morgan McElfatrick (1853-1891) and William H. McElfatrick (1854-1922) became architects to establish J. B. McElfatrick & Sons.  John passed away in 1891, but his brother William continued as an architect throughout the remainder of his life, continuing the family business after his father passed away.

Postcard of the Park Theatre in Philadelphia

J. B. McElfatrick (1826-1906) is credited with designing over one hundred theaters over the course of his career, changing audience expectations of the physical structures. Born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he studied architecture and engineering with his own father Edward McElfatrick.  By 1851, J. B. soon started his own architecture business in Harrisburg, and then established his business in to Philadelphia.  From there, he continued to journey west, opening offices wherever he moved to on his journey – Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, and St. Louis.  He finally returned to New York where he ran the main firm. 

His focus on theater design began in approximately 1855.  It was a subject that would remain his specialty throughout the duration of his career. Architectural historians cite his innovations concerning auditorium seating and the implementation of ground-floor performance venues. In the 1917 publication, “Modern Theatre Construction,” Edward B. Kinsila wrote, “The greatest individual strides in American theatre construction have been effected through the personal endeavors of a single architect, Mr. J. B. McElfatrick of New York City, who should be revered as the Father of American theatres.”

Kinsila’s publication describes that in the 1880s American theaters were designed and constructed in a similar manner to their English prototypes; specifically, they shared a comparable subdivision of main floor seating.  The American use of “parquet” and “parquet circles” were the equivalent to the English use of “pit” and “stalls.” He notes that they both shared the “same lyre-shaped balcony, the same stage projection or apron, and the same extravagant and distracting ornamentation.” 

McElfatrick, is credited with improving the sight lines by arranging continuous front-to-back seating on the main floor, without, and balconies that were flatter and deeper.

He also greatly reduced the “projecting apron,” a common nineteenth-century stage feature at the forefront of the stage. In terms of another significant characteristic of McElfatrick’s theater designs is the placement of the theatre on the first floor of a building. His designs also included multiple exits, sprinkler systems, and improved dressing rooms.  For more information about McElfatrick, see past installment 333.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 686 – Meanwhile, in the Northern Jurisdiction

Part 686: Meanwhile, in the Northern Jurisdiction

I am in the midst of examining the progression of Scottish Rite stage construction in the Southern Jurisdiction, before I return to the life and times of Thomas G. Moses in 1909. 1908 to 1910 is when Sosman & Landis reach their peak production period of fraternal theater production and Brown’s special system. There is little documented evidence of degree productions in the Southern Jurisdiction before 1896, with the earliest stages being constructed in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Oakland, California, much flew under the official radar.

The major aspect to the evolution of theatrically interpreted degree work in the Southern Jurisdiction is a systematic marketing plan by a relatively small number of individuals that included Bestor G. Brown as the spokesman for the movement. Brown created demand for a particular product manufactured by Sosman & Landis studio. The development of Brown’s special system directly increased the amount of painted scenery that was able to be installed in a Scottish Rite theaters. Although Sosman & Landis scenic artists and stage carpenter David Austin Strong (1830-1911) was credited by Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934) as the “Daddy” of Masonic design, the theatrical staging of degree work had long been occurring in the Northern Jurisdiction for decades before the Southern Jurisdiction.

Before moving forward with the expansion of Scottish Rite stages throughout the Southern Jurisdiction, from 1896 onward, here’s a brief recap of what was already occurring in the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction (NMJ) of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Keep in mind that the NMJ is located east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River. At the time the geographical demarcations were established, the NMJ included many of the United States’ major metropolitan areas, including Boston, and Philadelphia. These were vibrant theatrical hubs during the mid-nineteenth century when the NMJ began staging portions of their degree work, not to mention the Masonic Opera Houses that were constructed during the time.

The Baldwin Building used by the Indianapolis Scottish Rite in 1873

The Indianapolis Scottish Rite remodeled a pork slaughterhouse to include two stages for degree work in 1882.

In the 1860s the Indianapolis Scottish Rite Bodies used movable scenery and a small stage in their 1863 space of the Yohn Building, before moving to the Baldwin Building in 1873. Increasingly elaborate stage productions of degrees continued until 1882 when the Indianapolis Scottish Rite purchased and remodeled an old pork slaughterhouse, installing two stages for degree work. Originally a five-story brick building, the back half was raised an additional story to accommodate a theatrical fly system. Theatre spaces occupied both the fourth and fifth floors and were of similar size, each including galleries on three sides with 450-seat capacities.   The fourth-floor and fifth-floor auditoriums measured approximately forty by eighty feet. The fourth-floor auditorium included a twenty-eight foot proscenium opening that was primarily used for scenic effects in connection with the conferring of degrees. The fifth-floor proscenium stage opening was twenty by thirty feet and included a forty-five-foot high fly loft.

Despite the popularity of Scottish Rite stages, the Southern Jurisdiction did not follow suit because of Grand Commander Pike. The same year that the Indianapolis Scottish Rite building was completed, Grand Pike addressed the dissimilarity of degree work in each jurisdiction in his 1882 Allocution, stating, “The Rite in this jurisdiction is a Rite of Instruction, and not of scenic pomp and stage-show. We do not indulge in melodrama or pantomime. It is the firm conviction of hundreds of our zealous workers that our books are well worth being studied, and that the Rite, as developed in our Degrees, is destined by God to be in our future one of the chief benefactors of humanity…I can not conceive of a more useless occupation than the arranging and performing of degrees, neither the effect nor the purpose of which is to make men wiser or better, but which are acted as melodramas, to gratify an æsthetic taste and please the imagination, like the pageantry of cardinals and orioles. It is not Masonry.”

The 1886 Cincinnati Scottish Rite stage with scenery painted by E. T. Harvey.

As in Indianapolis, Cincinnati also constructed a series of early stages before building a full Scottish Rite cathedral. Cincinnati’s first Scottish Rite cathedral was destroyed by fire during 1884. The New Scottish Rite Cathedral was described in the Masonic Column of Cincinnati’s Commercial Gazette on July 5, 1885. The article boasted, “When fully completed the Cathedral will constitute the most complete and elegantly fitted building devoted to any one branch of Masonry in the World.” It was competed by 1886 at a cost of $82,500. (Democratic and Chronicle, 16 May 1886, page 2). The Cincinnati Scottish Rite auditorium contained a three-tiered balcony and a thirty-two-foot proscenium opening. The entire scenic installation for their newly constructed Scottish Rite building was credited to E. T. Harvey. His scenery included a tomb, interior palace, palatial chamber, landscape, fiery underworld, ascension of Christ, and a cathedral interior to name a few. As an itinerant artist, Harvey worked at a variety of theatres throughout the region, including Heuck’s New Opera House where the Scottish Rite scenery had been painted. E. T. Harvey would create 18 new sets of scenery for the Cleveland Scottish Rite in 1901 too after they suffered the loss of a previous building to fire (Cincinnati Enquirer, 31, Oct 1901, page 3). Harvey (1843-1918) was an Englishman who immigrated to America in 1860 and worked extensively as a scenic artist in the east. He also worked at the Grand Opera in Cincinnati for 25 years. Harvey was a member of the Scottish Rite and Shrine, as many of the first scenic artists to create Masonic scenery,

Painted scene by E. T. Harvey for the Cincinnati Scottish Rite.

Painted scene by E. T. Harvey for the Cincinnati Scottish Rite.

Painted scene by E. T. Harvey for the Cincinnati Scottish Rite.

Painted scene by E. T. Harvey for the Cincinnati Scottish Rite.

Painted scene by E. T. Harvey for the Cincinnati Scottish Rite.

In 1886, the same year that the second Cincinnati Scottish Rite Cathedral was completed, another one was finished in Columbus, Ohio. The “Fort Wayne Daily Gazette” included an article “Gorgeous Quarters. The Magnificent Scottish Rite Cathedral at Columbus, Ohio” (5 Dec. 1886, page 8). The Third Street Universalist church was purchased and remodeled for $12,000. The renovation included a stage and property room. At the time, the newspapers proclaimed the building to be “one of the most complete in the country.” Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati were only a few examples of a wave sweeping through the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction a full decade before the first small Scottish Rite stages appeared in Little Rock and Oakland.

To be continued…