Stage Innovation – Page 2

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 670 – A Melting Pot of Ingenuity

Part 670: A Melting Pot of Ingenuity

There are four things to consider when examining the development of Brown’s Special System – the Chicago Auditorium, the Beckwith Memorial Auditorium, the scenic studio of Albert, Grover & Burridge, and Sosman & Landis. There is no linear progression of events and Chicago is a melting pot of ingenuity.

I’ll start with what Rick Boychuk wrote in “Nobody Looks Up: The History of the Counterweight Rigging System,1500-1925.” Boychuk contends that Chicago Auditorium of 1889 is a game changer in the future of American counterweight rigging. Of the endeavor, he writes, “The first counterweight rigging system in American was state-of-the-art technology when it was installed in 1889 in the Auditorium Building in Chicago – commonly referred to as the Chicago Auditorium” (page 167). Boychuk explains how Ferdinand Peck, the visionary for the Chicago auditorium, traveled to Europe to examine opera houses, later joined by architect Dankmar Adler (Adler & Sullivan) and Chicago stage carpenter John Bairstow. Boychuk states, “Chicago borrowed the sheave design and configuration from Budapest and the balance of the counterweight system from Vienna” (page 172). Read his book.

Things to think about as we contemplate the evolution of Brown’s special system: the Chicago Auditorium stage carpenter, Bairstow, was one of the charter members who founded Chicago’s Theatrical Mechanics Association. In fact, he was the organization’s first president in Chicago. Bairstow was a member of TMA Chicago Lodge No. 4. David Austin Strong was also a Member of Chicago Lodge. No. 4. At the time they were both members in 1891, Strong was an employee of Sosman & Landis, and was also credited as being the “Daddy of Masonic Design.”

David Austin Strong, scenic artist and stage mechanic

This title was given to him by Thomas Gibbs Moses in his 1931 memoirs; Moses became the president of Sosman & Landis in 1915. Before Chicago, Strong enjoyed a successful career in New York as both a scenic artist and stage carpenter. Strong even provided one of the scenes for the 1866 production of “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s Garden Theatre. At this same time, the Theatrical Mechanics Association was founded in New York (1866). During the 1870s Strong relocated to Chicago, the hub of theatrical construction and activities after the great fire of 1871. Joseph S. Sosman moved to Chicago in 1874, with the Sosman & Landis studio being established by 1877. Sosman & Landis was the primary manufacturer and installer of Brown’s special system in Scottish Rite theaters across the country.

At Sosman & Landis, Strong, Moses, and another stage carpenter by the name of Charles S. King were part of a special group; this group could be considered scenic artists with a thorough understanding of stage machinery, or stage carpenters who paint extremely well. Each had a specific task that he gravitated toward, but their job title by no means limited their abilities and contributions to one task or a single skill. Others in this group included Walter Burridge and Ernest Albert. Albert and Burridge were two of three founders who established another Chicago scenic studio in 1891 – Albert, Grover, and Burridge. One of their largest projects would be the manufacture and delivery of scenery and stage machinery for the Beckwith Memorial Theatre in Dowagiac, Michigan. This theater is significant within the framework of American theatre history.

Here is a refresher of the Albert, Grover & Burridge before revisiting the Beckwith Memorial Theatre and its link to the Chicago Auditorium. Ernest Albert (1857-1946), Oliver Dennett Grover (1861-1927) and Walter Burridge (1857-1913) founded “Albert, Grover & Burridge.” Their studio was located at 3127-33 State Street, Chicago, covering an area of 100×125 feet. Two of the founders had a significant tie to stage carpenter Bairstow: Albert worked as a scenic artist for the Chicago Auditorium and Chicago Opera House, while Walter Burridge was the scenic artist for both the Grand Opera House and McVicker’s. Keep in mind that John Bairstow worked as a stage carpenter at McVickers, the Grand Opera and the Chicago Auditorium. Grover was an art instructor at the Chicago Art Institute and linked to the planning of the Columbian Exposition. Albert and Burridge both worked with Thomas G. Moses at Sosman & Landis during the 1880s. Each would have known the long-time Sosman & Landis stage carpenter, Charles S. King. King is also a possible contender for the conception and development of Brown’s special system.

Advertisement for Albert, Grover & Burridge

The scenic studio of Albert, Grover & Burridge is described in “Chicago and its Resources Twenty Years After, 1871-1891: A Commercial History Showing the Progress and Growth of Two Decades from the Great Fire to the Present Time.” The studio was mentioned as implementing advancements in the methods of mounting and presentation of stage plays. Albert, Grover & Burridge leased the old Casino building on State Street, just south of 31^st street, and renovated it. Their space included 12,000 square feet of working area, and another 2,500 square feet devoted to storage and sewing room. There were twenty paint frames, ranging from 56 by 35 feet to 30 by 20 feet. This was a sizable complex.

A unique feature implemented by Albert, Grover & Burridge was that it included a staging area for scenic effects and innovations. The abovementioned publication reports, “The studio is so large that it permits the artists to introduce a novel feature in the art of painting scenery, which has been in their thoughts for some years. That is after a scene is painted, it can be hung, set and lighted in an open space the full size of any stage in the country, so that a manager can not only inspect it as an entirety, and thus suggest alterations, but he can bring his company to the studio and rehearse with the new scenery.” This idea had already been partially implemented by the Hanlon brothers at their private theater and workspace in Cohasset, where their master mechanic William Knox Brown tested new stage machinery and effects. Albert, Grover & Burridge went beyond the manufacture of scenery – they were the visionaries who combined painted illusion, lighting innovations, and new stage machinery. They were no different from other scenic studios in Chicago, they just had the space to expand and add a staging area. Scenic studios, with their staff of stage carpenters and scenic artists remained at the forefront of technological advancements, integrating old techniques with new technology. Unfortunately for Albert, Grover & Burridge, their business venture went bankrupt in two years, so they were not around when E. A. Armstrong and Bestor G. Brown were looking for a scenic studio to subcontract for Scottish Rite work. Sosman & Landis were waiting in the wings. However, their contributions can not be discounted when looking at the circle of innovators who helped disseminate the new counterweight technology.

By 1901, a Minneapolis “Star Tribune” article notes new settings at the Bijou Theatre in the article “Experts Behind the Scenes” (January 13). This provides a little context into the shifting staging techniques for commercial theater productions: “The stage proper was divided by the old system of grooves, which were used to hold up the scenery into divisions, one, two, three and four, where the stage was extra deep, sometimes five and six. Grooves are a mechanical contrivance in which the scenes slide back and forth. This method of stage setting is very seldom employed at the present time, the more modern arrangements of setting scenes in a box shape, supporting them with braces and connecting them by lash lines, being more common use.” At the same time box sets became more standard leg drops and fly scenery replaced wings, shutters, and roll drops.

In 1899 the fly scenery at the Beckwith Memorial Theatre is examined in “W.A. Norton’s Directory of Dowagiac, Cassopolis and La Grange, Pokagon, Silver Creek and Wayne Townships” (1899). The publication reports, “The scenery is designed for the cyclorama effect which has been found so effective, and which was first used in the Auditorium in Chicago. By this arrangement a scene can be set as a street or garden by simply moving the scenes which are profiled on both sides and top, anywhere desired. Every set of scenery is a finished piece of art. It is, after the latest fashion, lashed together with ropes and is capable of being made into seventy-five distinct stage dressings” (page 159). Earlier newspapers described the thirty-six hanging drops that could be combined in various combinations for seventy-six set possibilities.

Drop curtain by Albert, Grover, & Burridge for the Beckwith Memorial Theatre

The Dowagiac “Republican” from January 18, 1893 described the new building as “The finest theater in America,” elaborating on the painted scenery: “It is the fitting and arrangement of the stage in the Beckwith Memorial Theatre, that the greatest care has been exercised to obtain the best possible results, and a great degree of success has been obtained. To go into technicalities and the use of stage terms would not be perhaps intelligible to our readers generally, so we will note only the main points. The stage is fifty by thirty-eight feet. Up to the gridiron, from which is suspended by an elaborate system of lines and pulleys all of the stage settings it is possible to use in the form of drop curtains, is fifty feet, allowing ample room for hoisting out of sight a whole screen in a few seconds, and allowing rapid changing of scenes so necessary to the continuing of the action of a play and effects are made possible that were unknown in the old days of sliding flats. To those acquainted with and interested in things theatrical and matters pertaining to proper stage fitting we think it is sufficient guarantee of the success of the stage to say that Albert, Grover & Burridge, of Chicago, had the direction of the stage fittings and the wall decorations of the auditorium and the entire building. Ernest Albert, of A., G., & B., under whose direction the art glass, colorings, the selection of draperies, and the furnishings of the theater were made, had succeeded admirably in producing the most beautiful and harmonious whole.”

The Beckwith Memorial Theatre of Dowagiac, Michigan, was built in 1892 for the cost of one hundred thousand dollars. Albert, Grover & Burridge directed the plan and installation of all stage fittings, the wall decorations of the auditorium, and painted décor throughout the entire building. This was a major extravagance for a small town that numbered less than seven thousand people. For more information pertaining to this theater, see past installment 134.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 639 – Operating Means for Curtain Drops, Victor H. Volland in 1926

A little more than a decade after Seth G. Bailey invented an electrical mechanism for handling hanging scenery, Victor H. Volland came up with another option to handle scenery. In 1930, the United States Patent Office published an application filed on August 23, 1926 for operating curtain drops.

*Victor H. Volland filed a patent in 1926 to operate scenery. Here are the drawings.*

*Victor H. Volland filed a patent in 1926 to operate scenery. Here is a detail.*

Victor H. Volland of Clayton Missouri, assignor to Volland Scenic Studio, Inc. of St. Louis Missouri, a corporation of Missouri submitted an application for a patent pertaining to the “Operating Means of Curtain Drops.” Victor wrote, “My invention related to improvements in means for operating curtain drops, in which each curtain drop together with hoisting mechanism and other accessories are combined into a single unit.”

Victor H. Volland was Hugo R. Volland’s son. Hugo R. Volland (1866-1921) founded a scenic studio in St. Louis, Missouri with Patrick J. Toomey (1861-1922) called Toomey & Volland at the turn of the twentieth century. Here’s little background about the inventor of the patent’s family.

Hugo R. Volland was born on May 6, 1866 in Großenbach, Germany. He was first listed as a St. Louis resident in 1888, living with his brother Otto and advertising as a painter. He worked for Noxon & Toomey as a studio as a scenic artist and secretary for the firm in 1892. By 1901, Hugo R. became vice-president of Noxon & Toomey. In 1902, the firm’s name was changed to Toomey & Volland. Toomey remained president of the company until 1919 when he retired. Hugo R. then became president, with his youngest son being vice-president.

Hugo R. and his wife Laura had three children – Louis J. (1897-1973), Victor H. (1899-1964) and Rose M. daughter, Rose (married name was Rose du Mosch). We are going to focus on the sons for now.

Even though Victor H. was the youngest son, he would be the first successor of Hugo R after his passing in 1921. Victor H. joined the United states Army during July 1918 (Private, 332nd Battalion, Company A). He entered the Tank Corps and sailed Sept. 29, 1918, landing at Bordeaux where he was stationed at Langres, France.

He safely returned home from military service and married by 1920. Victor became the secretary for Toomey & Volland and continued in this position until his father’s death in 1921. At this point the company began to change, as Toomey had already retired three years prior to Victor taking the reign from his father. When Victor became president of the company, his older brother Louis became the vice-president. At this time there was a notable shift in the tenor of the company.

There was also a shift in studio locations. In 1900, Toomey & Volland studio was located at 2312-14-16 Market Street, just outside the downtown theatre district. This lot was owned by Toomey. In 1922, Toomey & Volland scenic studios moved to a new location at 3731-33-35-37 Cass Avenue. Hugo R. never saw the completion of the new building as he died of heart disease before its completion. His wife Laura also passed away from heart disease, just a few months later; she died in a theater.

Patrick Toomey died from a heart attack in 1922 only a year after Volland passing. His passing was the same month that the studio was anticipated to open – March. Toomey’s only son followed a different path in life and the scenic studio was under the complete control of the Volland family. To lose the two founders within a year, caused major changes in the company’s focus. The production of painted scenery at the studio began to take a back seat, and the manufacture theatrical equipment assumed a more dominant role. Furthermore, the name of Toomey was removed from the firm, beginning the age of Volland Scenic Studios, Inc.

Imagine my surprise yesterday evening, to see a detail photo of a fly rail with lights that looked like Volland’s drawing from his patent on FB Group Archiving Technical Theatre History. On February 7, 2019, Robert Bob Foreman posted a photograph with “Has anyone ever seen one of these? Mounted to the flyrail of the 1927 (Kalamazoo) State Theatre, it appears to be a series of cue lights, with switches operated by the cue-ee! System installer unknown.”

*1927 State Theatre in Kalamazoo, Michigan*

*Drawing from Victor H. Volland’s patent, filed in 1926*

In all appearances, it looked like a part of what Volland invented in 1926. Attached is the 1926 patent with images. Volland’s patent described, “Mounted in the guard box 18 is an incandescent lamp 19 provided with a switch 20, said guard box being secured to a forwardly projecting end of the top member 11. At a particular time during a theatrical performance the map 19 may be caused to light, indicating to an attendant that a certain curtain is wanted, and by opening the lock 12 and pulling the rope 7, the curtain is raised or lowered as desired. Prior to this invention such devices were without individual locking devices and signal lamps.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 638 – Electrical Mechanism for Handling Hanging Scenery, 1910

Part 638: Electrical Mechanism for Handling Hanging Scenery, 1910

The best and worst part about writing my blog is I can go off on little tangents. There is no looming deadline, direction, or moment when all research needs to cease and I aim for a publication date. I try very hard not to get lost in the details, staying on track with a specific year in the life and times of Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934). However, the beauty of slowly meandering through history is that I get to fix incorrect information that I previously stated, or expand on something from an earlier post. Occasionally, I find a newspaper article and tuck it away for a specific year. Such is the case for the subject of today’s post, as it connects to the development of stage machinery during the first decade of the twentieth century. It aims at a stage improvement for operating scenery, similar to the idea that prompted the development of Brown’s special system. Electrical appliances to handle scenery was cutting-edge innovation in 1910.

I approach this information as a scenic artist and designer with some knowledge of stage machinery. I am not an expert in theater rigging or the history of counterweight systems. Luckily I have friends who are the experts in this field. It is wonderful to be able to throw out an idea without fear, or any thought that I may be reprimanded for my lack of knowledge. I may hear, “Didn’t you read my book?” or “I don’t think so.” But occasionally there will be a “That’s a remarkable discovery,” and “I hadn’t thought about that.” It reminds me of brainstorming for any project. It is only through continued discussions about discoveries with experts that new information comes to light. They bring additional information to the table, information that only can come through age and experience.

Here is a mind blowing article that I stumbled across well over a year ago. It was published in the “Lincoln Star” on Dec. 18, 1910. Keep that date in mind – 1910. I came across the article while I was looking for information pertaining to David H. Hunt, the Sosman & Landis salesman who was a founder of New York Studios, a scenic firm) and Sosman, Landis, & Hunt, a theatrical management company. New York Studios was advertised as the eastern affiliate of the Sosman & Landis, similar to many regional offices established by scenic studios during this time.

Here is the article in its entirety:

“A bas the stage hands,” exclaimed Mr. Martin Beck, general manager of the Orpheum circuit, today, says the Denver Times. Mr. Beck came to Denver to meet M. Meyerfield, Jr., president of the Orpheum circuit company. Together they are going to Oklahoma City to arrange for the building of an Orpheum theatre there, but that isn’t the cause of Mr. Beck’s breaking into French regarding the stage hands.

When confronted by an interviewer, Mr. Beck, with David H. Hunt of Chicago, a theatrical producer, and Frank W. Vincent of the New York booking offices were standing in front of the Orpheum theater. Mr. Beck was doing a juggling act with three solver dollars and Mr. Vincent was picking the currency out of the gutter, for Mr. Beck didn’t have the act down pat.

“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 stage hands. 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.”

“It is currently reported that you are now the kingpin in vaudeville controlling the entire situation,” was a suggestion o Mr. Beck.

The general manager of the Orpheum circuit gravely pocketed the dollars which were props in his juggling act. “That’s what they say?” he said, “but I am a modest man.”

“This is your first adventure into the southwest in the way of building theaters?” Mr. Beck was asked.

“Yes, but it will not be the last,” he replied. “We have no theatres in Pueblo or Colorado Springs.” “Are you going to build in either of those towns?”

“That would be telling,” smiled Mr. Beck, giving his interviewer a friendly tap with the ornate head of his ebony cane.”

A year later in 1912, 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 (Wiles-Barre Times Leader, 18 Feb 1911, page 11). Other than patents, the stage carpenter and company never appear to depart from print. Here is information about the patents that were registered by Bailey at a little later.

Bailey obtained patent 1.027.027 Mechanism for Handling Hanging Scenery in Theater. Seth G. Bailey, Denver, Colo., assignor of one-forth to Martin Beck, New York, New York, and one fourth to Andrew C. Carson, Denver, Colo., Filed Nov. 28, 1910, Serial No. 594.466.

A second patent by Bailey was filed on Dec. 2, 1911. In the Official Gazette o the United States Patent Office, Vol. 200, published on Dec. 31, 1914, we find the following:

“Seth G. Bailey, assignor to The Bailey Theater Fly-Rail Machine Company, Denver, Colo. Scenery handling apparatus. No. 1,091,109; March 24; Gaz. Vol. 200, p. 958.”

One of two patents for the stage by Seth G. Bailey, stage carpenter

The second of two patents for the stage by Seth G. Bailey, stage carpenter

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 439 – Thomas G. Moses and “Winchester“

Part 439: Thomas G. Moses and “Winchester“

Thomas G. Moses recorded creating scenery for Edward McWade’s play “Winchester.” McWade was the author of this early Civil War drama. The five-act play premiered in 1897 and was an immediate success. The Buffalo Courier advertised “Winchester “ as the “best of all war plays” with “beautiful and realistic scenes” (22 Dec. 1901, page 22).

The play was about a romance, set in Winchester, Virginia during 1863. Virginia Randolph nurses a wounded Northern officer, Major Frank Kearney, back to health in her home. While there, Frank teaches Virginia telegraphy, unintentionally teaching her to intercept Union messages and send them to her brother, a Confederate captain. Although discovered, Franks’ romantic rival, Col. Dayton, and a Northern spy, Phillip Allen, accuse Kearney of treachery. Frank is court-martialed and scheduled to be executed at dawn. Virginia confesses her guilt to the commanding general, and then mounts her horse and rides down the moonlit roads with Frank’s reprieve in hand. This scene was popularized as “the race for life.” Advertisements for the show included a quote from the New York Morning Telegraph, “The second scene of the fifth act of “Winchester” would carry it; the heroine is shown in a wild ride with a reprieve for her lover, who is to be shot.” Virginia is pursued by the villainous Allen, whom she is forced to shoot from his horse during her dangerous ride. She reaches the firing squad just in the nick of time!

Advertisement of “Winchester,” from the Buffalo Courier, 22 Dec. 1901, page 21.

The show toured with treadmills for the horses and a moving panorama for this exciting scene. “Winchester” is also a significant production when examining the earliest uses of the moving pictures for stage-and-screen hybrid presentations. For a few productions, instead of using a moving panorama, a moving projection appeared in the upstage area to simulate the moving panorama. The consistent use of this scenic effect remains unclear, nor its overall success. There must have been the novelty of a new media incorporated into the stage, but could it really meet audience expectations for a moving panorama and onstage horse race? There would be a simple lack of color and atmosphere; a stage aesthetic that an early black and white film could never convey.

In 1901 McWade organized a new and ambitious production in New York at the American Theatre, hiring Margaret May Fish, a western actress and his future wife, to appear with her jumping horse Mazeppa. The show was to again use the racing machines popularized in earlier productions, such as “The County Fair.” This was the production that Moses worked on while living in New York. The new “Winchester” was to include 100 men and 25 horses for a full run of the show (The Saint Paul Globe, 28 Jan. 1902, page 6). Advertisements of the new touring production promised, “The same powerful cast, the same complete scenic equipment, the same thoroughbred racehorses, the same calcium lights exactly as used during the New York run. Guaranteed to be the best war play ever seen” (The Public Ledger, 16 February 1903, page 3).

The Public Ledger reported, “A carload of special scenery, properties and electrical effects are utilized scenically and mechanically, and two thoroughbred race horses are carried to vividly portray the thrilling ride” (17 February 1903, page 1).

Edward McWade (1865-1945) was an actor and writer who transitioned from the stage to film. He appeared in more than 132 films. His father and brother were also notable stage personalities, Robert McWade, Sr. (1835-1913) and Robert McWade, Jr. (1872-1938). Both McWade brothers went from Broadway to Hollywood, continuing successful acting careers. Edward McWade and his wife Margaret May performed in a number of stage and film productions together.

Margaret McWade and Louis Calhern in “The Blot” from 1921.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 405 – “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, fourth section

Part 405: “Scenery and Scene-Painters” 1871, fourth section

E. L. Blanchard wrote the article “Scenery and Scene-Painters” in 1871 for “The Era Almanack.” Here is the fourth of five sections.

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

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

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

De Loutherbourg, who for some time delighted and astonished the town by his interesting dioramic exhibition, which he called “The Eidophusikon,” was the first to increase the effect of scenery by lighting from above the proscenium, and using colored glasses for the lamps.

De Loutherbourg’s “Eidophusikon.” Image from http://picturegoing.com/?p=4354

The key to De Loutherbourg’s “Eidophusikon, or Moving Diorama of Venice” from https://www.rc.umd.edu/gallery/key-eidophusikon-or-moving-diorama-venice

Philip-Jacques de Loutherbourg, R.A. (1740 – 1812), became known for his large naval works, scenic designs, and mechanical theatre called the “Eidophusikon.”

“An Avalanche in the Alps,” 1803, Philip James De Loutherbourg (1740-1812). Presented by the Friends of the Tate Gallery, 1965. Image at http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/philip-james-de-loutherbourg-145

Many ingenious devices, now familiar, in their effects at least, to a playgoing public, owe their adoption to the dashing, vigorous Flemish battle-painter, whose appearance was as martial as his pictures, and who Jack Bannister nicknamed “Field-Marshal Leatherbags.”

Another distinguished artist of the period was Mr. Greenwood, the grandfather of Mr. T. L. Greenwood, so long associated with the management of Sadler’s Wells Theatre. For many years the scenery of the Royal Circus (now the Surrey Theatre) was painted by Mr. Greenwood, who invested the ballets and serious musical spectacles brought out there by Mr. J. C. Cross with remarkable scenic attractions, and, when the artist was transferred to Drury Lane, he became even more prominent. Byron, in his “English Bards and Scottish Reviewers,” speaks of “Greenwood’s gay designs” as being then the chief support of the Drama of that period.

When John Kemble became Manager of Covent Garden Theatre, the accuracy of scenery and costume became more studied. One of the most eminent scene-painters of this period was William Capon, who died in September, 1827. He was born in 1757, and studied under Novosielski, the architect of the Italian Opera House, during which time he designed the Theatre and other buildings at Ranelagh Gardens, and painted several scenes for the Opera.

On the completion of New Drury, in 1794, Kemble engaged Capon for the scenic department, by which means the Manager was greatly assisted in his reformation of the stage. The artist had a private painting room, to which Kemble used to invite his friends to witness the progress of this scenic reform. Among these specimens were a Chapel of the pointed style of architecture, which occupied the whole stage, and was used for the performance of oratorios; six chamber wings of the same order, for general use on our old English plays, and very elaborately studio from actual remains; a View of New Palace Yard, Westminster, as it was in 1793, forty-one feet wide, with corresponding wings; the Ancient Palace of Westminster, as it was three hundred years back, carefully painted from authorities, and forty-two feet wide and thirty-four feet to the top of the scene; six wings representing ancient English streets; the Tower of London, restored to its earlier state for the play of Richard the Third; and for Jane Shore was painted the Council Chamber of Crosby House. All these scenes were spoken as the time as historical curiosities. Capon painted for John Kemble two magnificent interior views of Drury Lane and Covent Garden, for which he received about two hundred guineas. Unfortunately all his scenes were destroyed by the fire at Drury Lane in 1809, but he afterwards painted many scenes for Covent Garden which for several years must have completely satisfied the more critical eye of even a later generation, for several needed only a little re-touching to serve the Managements which preceded that of Mr. Macready.

In Elliston’s time Marinari and Stanton painted a beautiful drop scene for Drury Lane which was substituted for the green curtain. It was a fine composition of Grecian ruins, and figures within a splendidly-wrought frame, heightened with gold ornamentation. The figures were by Stanton, and the cost of the scene was nearly 700L.

In 1828 the principal scene-painters of Drury Lane were Stanfield, Andrews, and Marinari. Stanfield’s panoramas, at this period introduced into each successive pantomime, were triumphs of pictoral art. The two drop scenes then used between the acts were much admired. One, including the Coliseum, with other remains of classic architecture, was painted by Stanton; the other, from a picture by Claude, was from Stanfield’s pencil. The weight of each of these drops, with the roller and necessary adjuncts, was about 800lbs. In marine scenery Clarkston Stanfield had never been surpassed. Born at Sunderland in 1798, he had commenced life as a sailor, and he had well profited by his early experience of the lights and shadows of the seas. For many years Stanfield taught the pit and gallery to admire landscape art, and the occupants of the boxes to become connoisseurs. He decorated Drury Lane Theatre with works so beautiful that the public annually regretted the frail material of which they were composed, and the necessity for “new and gorgeous effects,” which caused this fine artist’s work to be successively obliterated. He create, and afterwards painted out with his own brush, more scenic masterpieces than any man, and in his time Clown and Pantaloon tumbled over and belabored one another in front of the most beautifully dazzling pictures which were ever presented to the eye of the playgoer.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 400 – “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters,” 1866, fourth section

Part 400: “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters,” 1866, fourth section

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

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

When John Kemble became Manager of Covent-garden Theatre the accuracy of scenery and costume became more studied. One of the most eminent scene-painters of this period was Mr. William Capon, who died in September, 1827. He was born in 1757, and studied under Novosielski, the architect of the Italian Opera House, during which time he designed the Theatre and other buildings at Ranelagh Gardens, and painted several scenes for the Opera. On the completion of New Drury, in 1794, Kemble engaged Mr. Capon for the scenic department, by which means the Manager was greatly assisted in his reformation of the stage. The artist had a private painting room, to which Kemble used to invite his friends to witness the progress of this scenic reform. Among these specimens were a Chapel of the pointed style of architecture, which occupied the whole stage, and was used for the performance of oratorios; six chamber wings of the same order, for general use in our old English plays, and very elaborately studied from actual remains; a View of New Palace Yard, Westminster, as it was in 1793, forty-one feet wide, with corresponding wings; the Ancient Palace of Westminster, as it was three hundred years back, carefully painted from authorities, and forty-two feet wide and thirty-four feet to the top of the scene; six wings representing ancient English streets; the Tower of London, restored to its earlier state for the play of Richard the Third; and for Jane Shore was painted the Council Chamber of Crosby House. All these scenes were spoken of at the time as historical curiosities.

William Capon prints available at: https://www.magnoliabox.com/products/houses-on-the-corner-of-chancery-lane-and-fleet-street-city-of-london-1619094

Capon painted for John Kemble two magnificent interior views of Drury-lane and Covent-garden, for which he received about two hundred guineas. Unfortunately all his scenes were destroyed by the fire at Drury-lane in 1809, but he afterwards painted many scenes for Covent-garden which for several years must have completely satisfied the more critical eye of even a later generation, for several needed only a little re-touching to serve the Managements which preceded that of Mr. Macready.

In Elliston’s time Marinari and Stanton painted a beautiful drop scene for Drury-lane, which was substituted for the green curtain. It was a fine composition of Grecian ruins and figures within a splendidly-wrought frame, heightened with gold ornamentation. The figures were by Stanton, and the cost of the scene was nearly ‘£700.

In 1828 the principal scene-painters of Drury-lane were Stanfield, Andrews, and Marinari. Stanfield’s panoramas, at this period introduced into each successive Pantomime, were triumphs of pictorial art. The two drop scene’s then used between the acts were much admired. One including the Coliseum, with other remains of classic architecture, was painted by Stanton. The other from a picture by Claude, was from Stanfield’s pencil. The Weight of each of these drops, with the roller and necessary adjuncts, was about 8001bs.

In marine scenery Clarkson Stanfield had never been surpassed. Born at Sunderland in 1798, he had commenced life as a sailor, and he had well profited by his early experience of the lights and shadows of the sea. For many years Mr. Stanfield taught the pit and gallery to admire landscape art, and the occupants of the boxes to become connoisseurs. He decorated Drury-lane Theatre with works so beautiful that the public annually regretted the frail material of which they were composed, and the necessity for new and gorgeous effects, which caused this fine artist’s works to be successively obliterated. He created, and afterwards painted out with his own brush, more scenic masterpieces than any man, and in his time Clown and Pantaloon tumbled over and belaboured one another in front of the most beautiful and dazzling pictures which were ever presented to the eye of the play-goer.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 398 – “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters,” 1866, second section

Part 398: “A Gossip about Scenery and Scene-Painters,” 1866, second section

While researching the English scene painting families, I came across an interesting article from 1866. It seems an appropriate time as we are preparing for a Masonic Symposium this weekend, allowing me to reunite with some of my favorite people in the world. My evenings will be occupied with other activities instead of preparing a post.

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

“Classical scholars will readily understand the various opportunities for scenic effect afforded by the old Greek dramatists, and there is some reason for believing the illusions of the ancient stage were much more perfect than has been generally supposed. There were three entries in front, and two on the sides. The middle entry was always that of the principal actor; thus, in tragedy, it was commonly the gate of a palace. Those on the right and left were destined to the second-rate actors; and the two others on the sides, one to people from the country, the other to those from the harbour, or any other public place.

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

That the scene-painter’s accommodation has been, down to very recent times, completely lost sight of by those who have had the arrangement of our Theatres may be mentioned in curious contrast with the reliance now placed on the result of the artist’s powers.

According to Malone, moveable scenes were not in use in England till 1605, when three plays were performed at Oxford, before James I., thus described by a contemporary writer: “The stage was built at the upper end of the hall, as it seemed at the first sight, but, indeed, it was but a false wall, faire painted; which pillars would turn about, by reason whereof, with other painted clothes, the stage did vary three times in one tragedy.” It will be observed the writer was not acquainted with the word scene, but used “painted clothes” in that usage.

In the early part of Shakespeare’s time, as is well known, the want of scenery was supplied by writing the names of’ the different places of action on the boards, which were so placed as to be visible to the audience. Thus Davenant, in the introduction to The Siege of Rhodes, 1656, says, “In the middle of the freeze was a compartment wherein was written Rhodes.”

[George] Jameson, called the Scottish Vandyke, designed the scenery for the private theatricals at Holyrood House for his patron, King James VI. This monarch, when celled to the English throne, elected Inigo Jones, his renowned architect, to design the scenery for his Theatre at the palace of Whitehall. His successor, Charles I, and his tasteful Queen, Henrietta, during their happier days, gave a new character to the stage.

George Jameson (1589/1590-1644) was known as the Scottish Van Dyke. Here is a link to the image: https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/2866/george-jamesone-1589-1590-1644-portrait-painter-self-portrait

All was elegance at their youthful Court. There Ben Jonson presented his Masques, and Inigo Jones was still retained as scene painter and Machinist. Charles spared no expense in the decorations for these romantic pieces, in which himself and his Queen and the young lords and Ladies of the Court took an active part in the performance. The skill and ingenuity displayed in these scenic contrivances seem to have been remarkable. Streater, a painter of eminence and who sketched many views of old buildings for his royal patron, Charles II., designed the scenes for Dorset Gardens Theatre and the Phoenix. When this house fell under the management of Fleetwood he employed his gay friend, Frank Hayman, as principal scene-painter to the Theatre.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 368 – The Machinery of the Grand Opera, 1897 (first section)

Part 368: The Machinery of the Grand Opera, 1897 (first section)

A few months back, I stumbled across an 1897 article, “The Machinery of the Grand Opera” by E. F. Keller. It provides a little more context for life and times of Thomas G. Moses during 1897-1898. This article is also is a good follow-up to “How Scenery is Made,” as Jos. A. Physioc worked at the Metropolitan Opera during the beginning of his career. This is the first of three posts:

A photograph from “The Machinery of the Grand Opera” by E. F. Keller, 1897.

“The great throngs of diamond-bedecked women and dress-coated men who gather from night to night in the enormous auditorium of the Metropolitan Opera House have little realization of the machinery, by which the magnificent stage pictures which pass like a living panorama, full of light and color, before their eyes, are produced. They see perfect groupings, great ensembles, perfect processions, and constant changes of scenery and lights, but it is not possible for them to comprehend the enormous amount of attention to detail and knowledge of the handling of masses of people and quantities of stage paraphernalia required for the bringing forward of these results.

The Metropolitan Opera House stage is one of the greatest in the world, and is certainly the most modern, in all its parts, of any of the big structures of its kind in Europe. When the building was partly destroyed by fire several years ago, it became necessary, among other things, to erect an entirely new stage, and this was done upon all the latest lines of invention.

The area occupied by the stage is one hundred and one feet in width and eighty-seven feet deep. The proscenium arch, which is fifty-five feet square, really gives but little indication of the great amount of space at the disposal of the scene shifters, carpenters, mechanics, electricians, scene painters, and property men who form the portion of the equipment of the establishment never appearing in sight of the audience.

In addition to the room at both sides of the visible stage, there is a great deal of space above and below which is constantly utilized. It is ninety feet from the level of the stage to the rigging loft – which is sometimes called the gridiron in the language of the theatre. There is the clear limit to which scenes may be hoisted without interference when they are pulled above the line of sight of the occupants of the audience room. Below the stage surface there is clear depth of twenty-eight feet to the base of the sub-cellar. By this double arrangement, above and below, sets of scenery and other articles may be either lifted up or lowered down, as the exigencies of the case may require.

Surrounding the stage, at the height of thirty-six feet, is the first fly gallery, upon which the men who handle the scenery are stationed. In the Metropolitan there are two other fly galleries above this one. Here the ropes are coiled or fastened, as may be necessary, and a great many of the changes of scenery are carried out.

The half of the stage nearest the audience is made in sections – some times called traps – that are easily removed for the production of scenic effects. The rear half of the stage is built in bridges, eight or ten feet broad, and crossing the entire width. These are supported by steel trusses readily hoisted by counter-weights to any desired height up to twenty-three feet above the floor level.

They are a great improvement over the old system, partly on account of the readiness with which they are lifted and fastened at any desired point, and partly for the reason that they are as firm and secure as the stage itself.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 354: The First Little Rock Scottish Rite Scenery Collection – 1896, 1899 and 1902

Part 354: The First Little Rock Scottish Rite Scenery Collection: 1896, 1899 and 1902

The first three times that Scottish Rite scenery was manufactured by Sosman & Landis for Little Rock, Arkansas, were 1896, 1899 and 1902. They were likely three expansions to the same collection that found a permanent home in the 1902 Albert Pike Consistory building. An entirely new scenery collection replaced this combination in 1924; it was also produced by Sosman & Landis and created for the Albert Pike Memorial Temple.

The first Scottish Rite scenery collection was delivered in 1896 to the Albert Pike Cathedral; this scenery was for the Little Rock Scottish Rite on Center Street. A Jewish synagogue was remodeled and equipped for $12,000. The 1896 collection was expanded in 1899 when additional scenery was purchased for the same space. The Scottish Rite remained in the converted synagogue until September 1902 when the Scottish Rite Consistory was completed. As with many Valleys, the dramatic increase in membership demanded a larger home, so a second building was constructed, moving the Scottish Rite from Center Street to the northwest corner of 8^th and Scott. This new building was remodeled and enlarged by 1913; the expansion incorporated the 1902 building into the complex, but added a projecting front bay and triangular pediment supported by four fluted Ionic columns.

Picture from 1925 Souvenir program depicting the 1902 Albert Pike Consistory and its remodel in 1913.

There was a fire on August, 27, 1919, that burned down a Masonic building in Little Rock, but it was not the Albert Pike Consistory; it was the Masonic Temple building. Fire destroyed the seven-story Masonic Temple complex where the Grand Lodge of Arkansas and the York Bodies were located at 5^th and Main. However, the destruction of the Grand Lodge and York Rite spaces partially instigated the planning and construction of a new Masonic complex in Little Rock – the 1924 Albert Pike Memorial Temple. This new building would house all of the Masonic Bodies in Little Rock, including the Scottish Rite. Ground was broken for this new structure on December 3, 1921; the cornerstone laid on May 11, 1922, and the building dedicated by May 12, 1924. The cost of the 1924 three-story building was $1.5 million dollars.

The 1924 Albert Pike Memorial building in Little Rock, Arkansas, pictured in a 1925 Souvenir program.

Thomas G. Moses’ resumé lists the scenery for Little Rock’s 1896 and 1902 installations, but not the 1899 scenic additions. That year Moses was primarily out of the studio, traveling and contemplating another departure from Sosman & Landis. By 1900, Moses left Sosman & Landis to form a new partnership with Will Hamilton in New York City until 1904 (Moses & Hamilton). His taking credit for the 1902 scenery collection suggests that it was the same 1896/1899 scenery, or another expansion of the original scenery collection. Even the 1904 “New Age Magazine” article describing in detail the Albert Pike Consistory did not suggest the purchase of a brand new scenery collection for the building.

Here is an excerpt from the article, written by SGIG Charles E. Rosenbaum. This article really established Little Rock degree productions as the gold standard for degree work in the Southern Jurisdiction:

“It is claimed, and we do not doubt that it is true, that the stage equipment in Little Rock is the most perfect in America – not only for Masonic purposes, for which it is used exclusively, but from any point of view. It is said by theatrical experts that nowhere else in America, with the possible exception of one theater in New York, and one in Chicago, it is possible to produce either the scenic or electric effects that can be produced on this stage. There are over one hundred drops all so perfectly counterweighted that the heaviest as well as the lightest in weight moves easier than a well-balanced window sash in a private residence. In addition to the drops, there are nearly one hundred set pieces of various sizes, to make the scenic equipment complete, and with the elaborate incidental property the scenic equipment is one of great magnitude.

The electric equipment is perhaps more elaborate, and of greater magnitude, if such a thing can be possible, and some ideas of its capacity may be gathered when it is known that with the numerous border rows, ground rows, strips, bunch lights, arc projectors, lens boxes and spot lights, there is a capacity of more than six thousand sixteen-candle-power lights on the stage alone. All these are handled with great effect and with the precision of beauty through the medium of a specially designed switch board, the creation of Brother Bestor G. Brown, who has given much thought and labor to stage and electric equipment, and is a recognized authority on the subject. It must be understood that a Scottish Rite stage is not to be conceived as a theatrical stage, for when so considered much of its effective use is destroyed, but when used as a combination with the floor of the auditorium, giving to the initiate a beautiful picture for the eye, while at the same time he is lending an attentive ear to the lessons that are being taught, the use of such a stage will be understood and correspondingly valued.”

Notice at this point that Rosenbaum is really walking a very fine line, knowing that Pike had condemned melodramatic productions for degree work. He is defending the implementation and use of degree productions.

The article continues: “The Bodies of Little Rock were pioneers in the use of a stage in the Southern Jurisdiction. It was to be expected that when they constructed their present magnificent and perfectly equipped building, the experience gained not only through their own efforts but through those of others who, in the meantime, had adopted the use of the Scottish Rite purposes, would give them just what, in fact, they have, the most perfect one in the land. Our experience was of great value in designing and equipping this building, which would we think, be credit to even the largest city in the United States. For this reason, it is particularly noticeable and a source of admiration of the part of all who visit it. Many Brethren of distinction have come from great distances on committees, or as the representatives of Bodies located elsewhere, for the purpose of observing its excellent arrangement and equipment and utilizing them in other buildings.”

The 1902 scenery for the Albert Pike Consistory is still used, just by another Scottish Rite Valley – Pasadena, California. In an interesting turn of events, I depart for Pasadena this afternoon to repair one of their scenes. I will take a break from my blog for the next few days to cover my project for the Pasadena Scottish Rite.

Original shipping label on bottom batten for the Scottish Rite scenery. This scene is now used at the Scottish Rite in Pasadena, California.

The backside of a scene in Pasadena, California, that depicts the original label and size of the scene for Little Rock Arkansas measuring 16 x 30. The fabric extensions were previously painted panels that were sewn on to the Little Rock drop.

Camp scene consisting of two leg drops and a backdrop for the 1902 Albert Pike Consistory Building. The backdrop and second leg drop for this scene are now used at the Pasadena Scottish Rite.

The original backdrop created for the 1902 Albert Pike Cathedral, now hanging in the Pasadena Scottish Rite. The first leg drop was not included in the scenery purchase from Little Rock negotiated by Thomas G. Moses in 1923.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 333 – J. B. McElfatrick & Sons, Theatre Architects

Part 333: J. B. McElfatrick & Sons, Theatre Architects

The architectural firm of J. B. McElfatrick & Sons 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, Indiana, 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.

Advertisement for J. B. McElfatrick & Son, Architects, from Julius Cahn’s Official Theatre Guide, 1896.

J. B. McElfatrick (1826-1906) is credited with designing over one hundred theaters throughout the course of his career, changing the 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 Philadelphia. From there, he continued to journey west, opening offices wherever he moved – Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, and St. Louis. He finally returned to New York where he ran the main firm.

He focus on theater design began in approximately 1855. It was a subject that would remain his specialty throughout 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 also credited with improving the sight lines by arranging continuous front-to-back seating on the main floor, without aisles. He also designed balconies that were flatter and deeper. I am fascinated with his front-of-house innovations, but curious about how his designs affected the backstage areas. We only catch a glimpse of his alteration to the front of the stage.

He greatly reduced the “projecting apron,” a common nineteenth-century stage feature. The projecting apron was at the forefront of the stage, and from a time when much of the scenery remained primarily decorative, placed behind the actors to suggest locale. This was part of the wing and shutter system that also incorporated roll drops. Once the painted shutters were opened to reveal a scene, the actors moved forward (downstage) to play the scene, allowing the background to change behind them while they continued the performance. For me, this is interesting timing. That I would get to this point in my blog as the wing/shutter/roll drop system has been part of my weekly, and sometimes daily, discussions with Rick Boychuk since last November after we examined the 1906 Matthews Opera House. 1906 was also the same year that J. B. McElfatrick passed away in New York.

The projecting apron was at the forefront of the stage, and from a time when much of the scenery remained primarily decorative, placed behind the actors to suggest locale. This was part of the wing and shutter system that also incorporated roll drops. Once the painted shutters were opened to reveal a scene, the actors moved forward (downstage) to play the scene, allowing the background to change behind them while they continued the performance. For me, this is interesting timing. That I would get to this point in my blog as the wing/shutter/roll drop system has been part of my weekly, and sometimes daily, discussions with Rick Boychuk since last November after we examined the 1906 Matthews Opera House. 1906 was also the same year that J. B. McElfatrick passed away in New York.

In terms of another significant characteristic of McElfatrick’s theater designs was the placement of the theatre on the first floor. Often his renovated or newly constructed theaters were the first in an area to place the entertainment venue on the ground level. He also included multiple exits, sprinkler systems, and improved dressing rooms. As I surveyed newspaper reviews of his buildings, I noticed that many of his theatre designs lowered the stage floor and constructed a raked floor for the auditorium seating. Furthermore, a secondary floor to place over stationary auditorium seating was also another feature that McElfatrick used. This transformed the space into one long banquet hall that extended the entire length of the room that continued onto the stage.

William H. McElfatrick, of the architectural firm J. B. McElfatrick & Son

William McElfatrick initially studied architecture in his father’s office, but moved to Chicago after the 1871 fire. There he joined the firm of W. W. Boyington, as work was so plentiful and presented great opportunities for a young architect to make his mark. He returned to New York in the 1880s and began working with his father again. From the mid-1880s until his father’s passing in 1906, the firm was incredibly productive. In Canada, William H. McElfatrick and his father designed theatre buildings in Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec.

What I found fascinating in looking at various articles during the mid-1890s, is that many of the new theaters credited to the firm were remodels. For example, the Lowell Opera House, the Avenue Theatre in Pittsburg, and the Howard Auditorium in Baltimore were three examples; all remodeled during 1894-1895. In each case the stage was enlarged, necessitating the purchase of a new drop curtain and scenery. Thomas G. Moses was there to create the stock scenery. Just as Moses had travelled throughout the west in the 1880s, painting scenery for new theaters that replaced burned predecessors, he was now following the theatre renovation parade.

And there was also a fraternal connection for both J. B. and his son William. William was a member of the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.). He was a member in the Brooklyn Lodge at Atlantic City (The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 11 July 1895, page 1). I have not been able to find a Masonic connection, but his father was a Freemason and it was unlikely that William would not follow in his footsteps. J. B. McElfatrick’s obituary published, “He was a Mason, was widely known to theatrical people all over the country, and was in active charge of his business to the last” (New York Times, 7 June 1906, page 7).

So here is where my two worlds intersect; McElfatrick was an architect who renovated dozens of existing buildings to include a stage and was also an active Freemason. His work was well known in Indianapolis, Columbus and Cincinnati, all cities that implemented some of the earliest stages for Scottish Rite degree productions in renovated buildings. What are the possibilities that McElfatrick was involved in the transformation of degree work that shifted the historical reenactments from the lodger room floor to the elevated stage?

To be continued…