[* Please note that in its hard-copy version, endnotes were not connected to specific references within the article]
Kathleen Fraser
This article discusses the two Grand Opera Houses in London, Ontario during the period 1881 to 1914 by surveying the development of four generations of theatre buildings beginning with the early garrison theatre. The second Opera House is London's current Grand Theatre. The relationship of civic pride and business interest in the theatre, encompassing the development of theatre as a business itself, is also considered.
Cet article suit, à commencer par l'époque du théâtre de garrison à London (Ontario), et à travers quatre générations de bâtiments théâtraux dans cette ville, le fonctionnement des deux "Grand Opera Houses" durant la période 1881-1914. (Le second de ces deux théâtres existe actuellement comme le Grand Théâtre de London.) Sont discutés aussi les rapports entre l'esprit civique local et l'intérêt commercial soulévé par l'activité théâtrale.
When Captain Horton Rhys and his actress-companion Lucille came to London, Ontario, during his famous 'trip for a wager' in 1859, they had colds and did not like 'the aspect of "things" in general' and they 'dropped the professional for a while, and dined at seven o'clock, and ate cheese and vegetables, and walked about without being stared at, the same as other people.' (189) Much earlier, Anna Jameson, a more reliable source, had similarly disparaging things to say about London: 'There is, I fear, a good deal of drunkenness and profligacy; for though the people have work and wealth, they have neither education nor amusements.' (2: 146) These comments from British visitors, the first, culturally aware theatre people, and the second, a very sophisticated writer, are not at one with the sentiments of people who lived here, loyalists and British immigrants. London was not as culturally-deprived as either traveller depicted. As an introduction to the appended microfiche calendar, this paper will examine the first four generations of theatre buildings in London, concentrating on the two Grand Opera Houses during the period of the calendar. Entertainers, repertoire, and the formal touring circuit in the London area have been expertly discussed elsewhere by Mary Brown, so this discussion will focus on the playing spaces themselves and on the business practices of the times.
There has been abundant theatrical activity in London for more than 150 years, and the Grand, in its two incarnations, has been a focal point in the city's social and cultural life for more than a century. Early local inhabitants again were both Loyalists and British immigrants and their ties were to America and Britain. Culture was a way of preserving ties between the countries, of reassuring links while these people were developing and defending a far from hospitable land. In theatrical terms, there was certainly a reciprocal relationship between large centres - New York, London (England), and Toronto - and London, Ontario; internationally-known artists of the last century from London, Ontario include Graves Simcoe Lee, George Primrose, and Richard B Harrison. Trends in architecture also tend toward this link; it is a connection through emulation. Architecture is literally a structure for survival. Theatrically-minded Londoners of the last century were self-conscious in their emulation and in their theatre criticism. In a framework of metropolitanism, theatre can be seen as another line of communication from the metropolis: theatre is a medium. It involves the transmission of, among other items, ideas, politics, current events, fashion, taste, and music. It is a mutually desired influence from the point of view of large and small centres.
London is still known for its conservatism, its lack of interest in innovation. Part of its conservative nature comes from its patterning or emulating in the last century. Conservatism and metropolitanism are responsible for the derivative nature of plays but they are also responsible for making Londoners part of a larger world. Theatrically and in other ways, London was pulled two ways, to New York and to the other London, partly because of historical ties and partly because of geography. An example of these ties comes from this London's First Family; Amelia Harris and/or her offspring travelled readily and frequently to Britain and New York. To view at home the plays of New York and London in buildings akin to theatres in larger centres was a comforting thing indeed.
The 1837 rebellion brought a garrison to London. Sir Daniel Lysons, 2nd Battalion, First Royals, later Constable of the Tower, was one of many men garrisoned in London in the 1840s who participated very actively in theatre. Like many others, he sketched the area and published his memoirs. As a young man, he was exposed to theatre, ballet and opera in London, Bath and Milan. When still 'a smooth-faced boy,' his first roles in Quebec were female. He was involved in then popular tableaux vivants, including a successful imitation of West's 'Death of Wolfe.' (62) In addition, while stationed in London, Ontario, he progressed to scene painting. (161) Theatre for Lysons was an extremely important avocation, a very creative pastime. He had sound knowledge of and background in contemporary theatre practices. Scene painting and tableaux vivants certainly suggest a relatively high degree of sophistication. His work was much admired by fellow contemporary Sir James Alexander, who refers to the existence of a garrison theatre (140) (actually the Theatre Royal discussed below), a physical space mentioned in connection with a gymnasium and a racquet court. The garrison had a "'ryghte merrie" set of young men.'(152) Not simply enthusiasm and boredom, however, induced these men to turn to theatre. There were social urges certainly but also a desire to remind themselves of their connection to the nurturing mother country. Within a decade, theatre in London, Ontario, would be connected more formally to Toronto, London or New York. London, at the forks of the river Thames, originally designated by Simcoe as the capital of Canada West, is sometimes referred to even today as London-in-the-Bush. In the 1840s it was connected closely to the other London. 'What's in a name?' The name of the town, London, indicates the pull of this imperial connection for its early inhabitants. The name Theatre Royal is a further illustration of this link. The programmes were very good imitations of those from larger centres, showing a degree of knowledge and sophistication. Note Mrs Sam Cowell's delight and perhaps amusement in 1860: 'Returned to London. "London on the Thames! - with Cheapside, and Blackfriar's Bridge and Westminster Bridge," etc.' (Disher 190) The garrison players were imaginative and resourceful but there is also a sense that the players of this generation were part of a coterie theatre as the following description of paratheatrical activity suggests. The young officers of the Sleigh Club held a carnival on Shrove Tuesday; the costumes were fantastic-looking and this 'grotesque cavalcade' drove about 'much to their own amusement and the wonder of the peaceable inhabitants.' (Alexander 238) Undoubtedly a similar amount of resourcefulness and imagination went into the garrison's theatricals. Officers were generally of aristocratic or merchant background and brought with them from Britain a level of education necessary to the success of theatricals. Although civilians, many of them retired army personnel, started a rival and longer-lasting theatrical tradition, the garrison must be given credit for the initial activity.
The garrison's Theatre Royal (1840) was inadvertently connected to the Methodist Church. Situated near the barracks on the comer of Queen's Avenue and Wellington Street, the building was originally designed as a New Connexion Methodist Church. The structure was abandoned by the Methodists when funds ran out and an officer named Raynor approached Colonel Talbot, purveyor of government lands in the area. According to London historian Orlo Miller, Talbot's dislike for 'Damned Cold water drinking societies' extended to their authors and principal supporters, the Methodists, made him amenable to the officer's request: Talbot transferred ownership to Raynor by erasing the name of the Wesleyan group and adding Raynor's name. (Miller 2; Hamil 188) Talbot was notorious for this method of land re-distribution (Hamil 162-63). The interior of the theatre is described by Mrs Gilbert Porte, a pioneer resident: 'Standing trees supported the board roof and stumps, sawed off pretty evenly, supported the rough board seats. We went in a dark passageway by a door on North Street.' (Miller 2) This then was the first generation of theatre building, an edifice occupied by amateur players with classics like Hamlet and contemporary plays like Douglas, or the Scotch Shepherd in their repertoire. Admission was 3/9 for a box and 2/ for the pit. (London Inquirer, 24 February 1843) The term 'pit' implies a degree of architectural sophistication not found in Mrs Porte's recollections prior to 1841. Dick Butler, a Free Press employee, recalls, 'It was an old former frame barn [sic] that held an audience of about two hundred, seated with benches in the pit and with an attempt of style in the box departments.' (Miller 3) Also part of this first generation of theatre building and a longer lasting building was the Mechanics' Institute (1841). The latter was established in London in 1835 to provide education and diversion for working and middle-class townspeople.
The second generation of theatre building was professional as transportation links between centres in Upper Canada became more extensive and more efficient. Touring companies and acts started in the late forties and early fifties. There was another surge of immigration which decreased the importance of the Loyalist element in the area. This generation includes the second manifestation of the Mechanics' Institute (1855), Brunton's Varieties (1855), City Hall (1855), and the Music Hall (8 May 1866 - renamed the Holman Opera House in 1873). This generation had an important influence on the next, especially in terms of building structure. The playing spaces were part of a larger building. Businessmen included these theatres in their building plans almost incidentally. Some wished to improve the quality of social and cultural life; others wished to make extra money out of the second storey of their building. All, though, wished to emulate larger centres. This was an early form of subsidy to the arts. The Mechanics' Institute can also be seen as a patron: its interests were part business and part civic consciousness. The Music Hall/Saloon began as a garrison racquet court but was purchased by Ellis Hyman, one of London's leading businessmen, and moved to the north-west comer of York and Richmond Streets. The Music Hall occupied the second storey of a block of stores and is representative of the second phase. The architecture was neoclassical (Tausky 240) with a low roof, pediment, pedimented and arched windows, entablature and pilasters in keeping with contemporary architectural trends; the second storey was designed to draw attention away from the functional first storey. This building provides a contrast with the rough-and-ready nature of the Theatre Royal. With a capacity of 580, it had gasoliers on either side of the stage, 'the only illuminating arrangements of the kind in any Music Hall or theatre in Canada.' (London Free Press, 7 April and 9 May 1866) True or not, one can note the tone of civic pride. Another contemporary writer was less kind, writing disparagingly of the Hall as 'one of those upstairs theatres with a clumsy curtain rolled up and down by means of ropes and log of wood.' (London News, 23 February 1977) The Music Hall, as one can note in the illustration, was also a very popular drinking spot, McAuliffe's Saloon. The stage was 21 feet wide by 16 feet deep and there were two dressing rooms left of the stage. In 1873 George Holman, a theatre man with a North America-wide reputation, purchased and renovated the Music Hall. Seating capacity was increased to 620, the stage was extended forward seven feet, private boxes were added on either side of the stage, and two more dressing rooms were added. (Hines 74-76) All these renovations point to increasing popularity and use of the Holman Opera House. They also point to the need for a more elaborate and larger-capacity theatre. In addition to comic operas by the Holman family troupe, London had the privilege of viewing Maurice Barrymore and the Drews. Amelia Harris, matriarch of London's First Family, notes with pride the two occasions when her son Edward attended readings by Mrs Scott-Siddons (2 January 1873 and 7 January 1876). Londoners must have had a feeling of pride, but clearly a suitable venue was needed for performers of international calibre.
Between the 1840s and 1881, then, there was much theatre both amateur and professional. The background here provided on first- and second-generation theatre buildings illustrates a degree of enthusiasm and sophistication prior to the building of the Grand Opera House in 1881. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, railroads quickened the pulse of an established urban commerce in Ontario; part of this commerce was theatre. London was on the Grand Trunk Line which had connections "south" to Port Huron, Detroit, and Buffalo as well as to major Canadian cities in Ontario and Quebec. As elsewhere, theatrical touring began in earnest at this time. The Grand Opera House was designed to fill a need. The population had expanded; the business citizenry wished to link itself to the urbane sophistication of London and New York. Theatre again was a medium and the railroad circuit/theatre circuit was an important link to other centres. Play texts, to misquote Hamlet slightly, are 'the brief and abstract chronicles of the time' and if we view performances in these terms, we can think of them as objects akin to newspapers, telegraph wires, telephones, railroads - a link to the outside world in terms of fashion, music, drama, manners, and many other things. Plays and playing spaces are mirrors of the society of which they are part. To view a play from a large centre is to feel part of that large centre. The size and quality of a town's theatre were indices to its prosperity. A building appropriate to the aspirations of highly-successful London businessmen was desired, and so tenders were made by the Masonic Brethren for a new temple which would include stores and an opera house. London had experienced a depression in the seventies but a boom had begun by the end of the decade. Businessmen wanted to celebrate this in a big way and what better than to make a cultural link with larger centres? This sort of structure was in keeping with past practices in London and elsewhere in Ontario; the opera house was to occupy the back portion of the upper floors of the building. The architectural style would reflect desired links with Britain, still the largest source of immigration to the area.
In June 1880, contracts were let for the Masonic Temple which would contain a grand opera house. The lessee and manager of the first Grand was to be Col. C. J. Whitney of Detroit who in 1881 controlled eight theatres; the London Grand was his first holding in Ontario. In the previous decade, he had managed the Holman Opera House and thus knew London audiences very well. The architectural contract went to the firm of Tracy and Durand. The firm, in various incarnations, gave south-western Ontario its most impressive architecture. The plans for the Masonic Temple show that it was to be an ambitious building, in keeping with the enthusiastic optimism of London businessmen. As with the second generation of theatre building there was a clear link between business interests and culture; it was a mutually beneficial arrangement. if theatres were not built directly by businessmen, they were built indirectly through the influence of Masons (Temples) or of Civic officials (Court Houses and City Halls). This was not an elitist or coterie theatre and what subsidy existed was of a practical nature. Masons were (and remain) a major force in the business world; the architects of the new temple were Masons, and Whitney, from Detroit, originally in the musical instrument business, was also a Brother. The Masonic Temple with its majestic mansard roof was a significant landmark in the downtown streetscape. The Temple was built in a flamboyant High Victorian style; it was the architectural firm's largest project to that point. Durand's lively, assertive, lavish style was appropriate to a spirited, restless era which had the money to back up its desires. (Tausky 277) Contemporary newspaper accounts described the new Temple as being in a 'Renaissance' or 'French Renaissance' style; this is now called 'Second Empire' (244) in part because of the high mansard roofs. 'Renaissance' is a free interpretation of the classical tradition; for example, the facades of the Temple had classical elements such as pilasters and pedimented windows. The plans show a highly eclectic architecture with rich colours, varied textures, and much adornment. It is clear from photographs, etchings, and the architectural drawings that the architectural firm gave much thought to appropriate visual representation in this and in other projects. The street exterior consists of two facades, each reflecting different aspects of the building. The Richmond St facade, the Masonic Temple, is ordered, symmetrical and dignified whereas the King Street aspect, the Opera House, is far less harmonious. The Opera House occupied the western end of the building behind the King Street facade. The Temple facade has at its centre an imposing central tower, much larger than the central tower on the opera house side. The Opera House side of the building 'possesses a movement and fluidity that contrasts with the more static regularity of the main facade ... there is a fascinating sense of shifting and rearranging patterns here that accords with the dramatic asymmetry of the balcony.' (Tausky 266) The Opera House was naturally of secondary importance for the Masons; for whatever reasons, they were firmly opposed to rebuilding the opera house immediately after the fire. The design of the facades demonstrated on the surface the relationship of the opera house to the temple while also gracing the opera house with an appropriately imaginative design, a design which makes the eyes and imagination work. The visual imbalance can be seen in the opera house balcony on the first floor, the placement of opera house doors on the ground floor, and the lack of vertical alignment of window groupings. The two entrances were 'thoughtfully arranged' so that 'those going to the galleries will not come in contact with the ladies and gentlemen who take seats on the lower floor.' (London Free Press, 9 May 1881) The asymmetry, however, is kept in balance by the winged muse, a pulchritudinous Victorian maiden, 'hovering lightly on the pommel of the central tower.' (Tausky 266) The eye is drawn to the muse and she, with lyre and flowers, is an imposing emblem repeated not only inside with the musical nymphs on the balconies' railings but also on the programme covers until the late 1890s.
If the exterior was in keeping with the aspirations of the civic-minded Masons, the interior was enough to warm the heart of any contemporary theatregoer. Details of the playing space can be seen in Kahn's Theatrical Guide. Both audience comfort and safety were addressed by the architects. Attention was paid to fire hazards, the ultimate downfall of this and other theatres. An example of this is the detailed description of the sheet metal inside the footlight trough. Steps were also taken to ensure against the threat of collapse. The Specification Book shows detailed work for reinforcing joists in the opera house as well as the use of 10 x 12 posts and timbers. The three levels of galleries, built in a horse-shoe shape, were supported by steel girders and decorated four-inch solid cast iron columns. The building was illuminated by gas and was specially ventilated to avoid asphyxiating the patrons. 'Fresh and Foul Air shafts' were installed (Specification Book). The architects were sensitive to theatrical needs as the following indicates:
The opera House lights to have supply at prompter's desk on stage and to be furnished with regulator so as to be able to control the flies, footlights, sidelights, auditorium lights, independently of each other, the lobbies and Dressing Rooms to be furnished separately and to be of sizes required. The whole to be thoroughly tested and to be warranted free from breakage. (Specification Book)
From a theatre buff's point of view,
the most fascinating thing about the London theatre is that it had elements
of the Park and Madison Square Theatres which had opened respectively in
New York in the 1874 and 1879 seasons. Architect Durand went on an American
tour with a party of Masons to examine other temples and theatres; they
visited New York, Boston, Rochester, Albany, and Troy with conscious and
elaborate emulation in mind. (London Advertiser, 21 April 1880)
Imagine the local excitement at having a model of these great metropolitan
theatres in such a short span of time! The opera house was located on the
upper floors of the Masonic Temple. According to architect Durand, the
Grand seated '1228 persons of an ordinary size, but 1500 could be seated
on a pinch.' (London Advertiser, 2 September 1881) The proscenium
was 28' wide and 30' high; the stage was raked and equipped with spring
traps. There were eight dressing rooms, a luggage and property elevator
- imagine hoisting horses! - , a 40' by 60' property room and scene dock,
and ample lobby space. The Opera House opened on 8 September 1881 with
Rose Eytinge in Cazauran's Felicia, or Woman's Love. Local reactions
included the statements 'This is something like' and 'Fine, ain't it.'
(London Advertiser, 9 September 1901) In addition to minstrel groups
like Thatcher, Primrose, and West, 'Tom' shows by artists like Mrs. George
C. Howard, Gilbert and Sullivan productions by D'Oyly Carte, and circuses
like Barnum's, London had the great fortune to experience performances
at the old Grand by Thomas W. Keene, Lawrence Barrett, Rhea, Albani, Annie
Pixley, Modjeska, Lily Langtry, Henry Irving and Ellen Terry, Julia Arthur,
James O'Neill, and Sarah Bernhardt. Unhappily Londoners missed Jumbo when
Barnum came to town (16 September 1885) as the elephant encountered that
fatal train the day before in a town just south of London.
On 23 Februray 1900, a fire started in the bill-posting room; the Masonic Temple was quickly gutted and the Grand Opera House was the first casualty of the fire. The company performing there lost an estimated $4,000 in properties. (London Free Press, 24 Februrary 1900) Within three days of the fire, Col. Whitney, through his son, announced he would give London an up-to-date Opera House. At its peak in the 1890s, this Grand had been host to 100 companies and 300 performances annually. When the circuit began in 1875, there were approximately 250 companies on the road; the average number of companies peaked at about 340 in the early 1900s, dwindling to 124 in 1914 and 49 in 1919. (Bernheim. 78) In addition, the population of London doubled between 1880 and 1900, from 20,000 to 40,000. Thus, the need for an expanded theatre was real - at least for a few years! Performances at the Grand moved to a temporary location for the balance of this season as well as the next.
The new Grand opened on 8 September 1901, four blocks north of the original location. The opening coincided with a feeling of post-Victorian optimism. We should remember though to temper this optimism with Ambrose Small's business acumen. The exterior of the new building simply was not as 'grand.' This, perhaps, more than anything else was a visible symbol of the emergence of a theatre businessman in his own right. Small and Whitney were owners rather than lessees. The front of the house possessed the same combination of stores for business purposes, for financial cushion or partial subsidy, but now the theatre auditorium was on the ground floor. The theatre was the reason for the building; it was no longer something incidental. Theatre had become a legitimate business concern, not simply a way of bonding the city to Britain or the States. In contrast to the old Grand, '... seen from the street one might readily suspect [it] was almost anything else. It has the appearance of a car barn with a cold storage at the rear. Beauty of outline has been slaughtered for business results.' (London Free Press, 4 September 1901) The reporter was correct in his analysis. The interior of the theatre was also practical in nature and was patterned after similar fourth-generation theatres built for touring productions. The stage was large and the auditorium generously appointed with two balconies. The capacity was 1850; there were wooden seats in the second balcony and upholstered seats elsewhere. There was, however, no 'waste space' for areas like the lobby, rehearsal areas or administrative offices. The physical arrangements allowed for even less interaction between management and the artistic product than the previous opera house. Like movie palaces later, there was a central marquee entrance between the frontage stores. The stunning feature both now and in 1901 was a magnificent proscenium. arch decorated with an Italianate fresco. Col. Whitney considered the decor 'plain, a trifle, but ... good.' (London Free Press 10 September 1901) The second balcony towered fifty feet above the stage. Much-appreciated features included 'the coloured footlights, the shading being very beautiful and that the new Grand possessed 'a "wideness" that the old one did not have.' (London Free Press 10 September 1901) The Grand was the only Canadian theatre able to accommodate a full-scale touring production of Ben Hur in 1929. When William Faversham played Herod in London in 1910, he was performing in the midst of 400 people on stage! London, Ontario, had indeed come a long way since the 1840s.
The officers of the garrison, in a sense cultural purveyors from Britain, had little eye to permanence when they scrounged the Methodist Church for their Theatre Royal in the early 1840s. This near-coterie theatre of sticks and stones, representative of the first generation of theatre building in Canada West, was replaced by a more substantial building of brick. The wherewithal for this structure came from the connection the Music Hall/Holman Opera House had with business, specifically the attached saloon. Drinking gave the theatre a somewhat lower social status. The Holman Opera House was the site of concerts, variety shows, legitimate drama, comic opera, and resident stock. These second-generation houses were also part of an informal touring circuit. Perhaps in an effort to elevate the status of theatre-going, leading citizens sought to connect the next major theatre with the Masonic Order. The design of the first Grand Opera House (1881) was impressive and substantial. Although locally owned, it was not locally operated and was part of a formal touring circuit. By the eighties, the practice of leasing theatres and developing circuits was becoming commonplace. As part of the post-resident stock era, the Grand housed touring productions as well as local amateur theatricals and concerts. When the 1881 Grand Opera House burnt in 1900, Col. Whitney along with Ambrose Small decided to rebuild. The auditorium and stage were as opulent as those of the first Grand but the exterior left much to be desired. Theatre as business was becoming firmly established. The repertoire was the same and again management was divorced, except in desires of financial returns, from the artistic product. What other differences were there between the two Grands? A newspaper writer noted, 'The difference is simply that the Grand of today is a creation of the new century. Things move along.' (London Free Press 10 September 1901) Many differences, including those in the exteriors, can be attributed to the emergence of the theatre businessman, a movement towards professionalism in all aspects of the business. As another example, the differences also extended to programmes. As one moves from one century to the next, from one Grand Opera House to the next, one notices a significant increase in advertising in the programmes. Theatrical matter becomes scarce in the programmes as the decades progress. Theatre impresarios had to make more extensive use of advertising than previously because subsidy or sponsorship was no longer given through a building.
Although she never graced the interior of the original Grand Opera House, Amelia Harris went for a drive in her eighties, 'to see the Masonic Hall and other improvements in the city.' (20 July 1881) Since the town's beginnings she had seen great changes. A few weeks later a reviewer described the opening-night ambience of the first Grand Opera House: 'One might well imagine himself transported to some metropolitan theatre.' (London Free Press, 9 September 1881) This was the desired effect of any of the four generations of theatres. The Opera House as well as other theatre buildings mentioned above, however primitive, made Londoners part of the international world - they were 'transported.'
Notes
I would like to thank Guy St-Denis and Ed Phelps of the Regional Collection of the D B Weldon Library UWO, Glen Curnoe of the London Room at the London Public Library, and David Fraser of the National Archives for their kind and thoughtful assistance. I am grateful for advice from David Gardner and Richard Plant. I greatly appreciated the technical support in the calendar's preparation of A R Hoy, R J Shroyer, and J A B Somerset. Finally, on behalf of Mary Brown and myself, I wish to acknowledge the generous support of the Faculty of Arts, The University of Western Ontario, the Ontario Arts Council, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.
1 MARY BROWN's articles should be read in conjunction with the calendar as they are closely connected with it.
2 In the winter of 1842 Alexander notes, 'Like Polar voyagers, we now fitted up a theatre, and turned out a very respectable corps dramatique.' He adds that a gymnasium was attached to the theatre. (183)
3 Garrison plays from this period include Rent Day, Idiot Witness, Two Gregories, You Can't Marry Your Grandmother, A Nabob for an Hour (London Inquirer, 28 Oct 1842; London Herald, 2 Jan 1843 and 18 Feb 1843)
4 The Holman Opera House was tom down in 1881 because it could not compete with the new Grand Opera House.
5 Whitney controlled 8 theatres in 1881, 19 in 1891, and 22 in 1893
6 A reporter notes the difference in the facades:
On this site the Opera House was built, distinctively marked from other parts of the building. Above this main flat were two additional stories surmounted by a mansard roof and a small tower. The materials for the ground floor were iron and sandstone, while the remainder of the building was built of red pressed brick and Ohio stone with illuminated tile belts at suitable points. This represented a pleasing contrast of colour. (London Free Press, 24 Feb 1900)
7 Regarding ventilation, one critic
observed, 'What would it profit a man if he heard the best drama ever played
and had his blood poisoned by vitiated air while he listened?' (London
Free Press, 1 Sept 1881)
8 The following is a description of some of the appointments of the new theatre:
Around the ventilated dome in the centre is painted a bright wreath of various flowers in which blue and pink form the principal colours. Outside of this are four figures, representing music, dancing, the drama, and tragedy, between each of which are emblematic drawings of musical instruments ... At the centre of the proscenium a 'fair likeness' of Shakespeare was painted. The drop curtain consisted of Greek ruins with the background of a lake and a high rocky mountain along its coast. There were many backdrops with suitable wings and flies: a fancy chamber with folding doors, a kitchen, street, a ship dock, moonlight, a garret, a rocky pass and many others.
9 A life-size (4-5 metre) sculpted
statue of Jumbo was erected overlooking St. Thomas at a cost of $100,000.
(London Free Press, 13 Sept 1986)
10 Daily Free Press, 26 Feb 1900:
The presence of the Grand was all that kept us for several years from building a new playhouse in London. Now we will go ahead with the work. I am returning to Detroit in the morning and will at once put Col. Wood at getting out plans. The Colonel has built 106 opera houses and London patrons may depend upon having a House worthy of the place. The burned House was much too small. We will now be able to bring better shows here because many of the companies will not come to a one night stand and tear their stuff to pieces hauling it off onto the stage. Yes by next season we will have a new Opera House here.
11 Population figures from Daniel Brock
for the period discussed:
1840 - 1,716
1867 - 13,051
1881 - 19,725
1901 - 39,183
1914 - 56,358
By 1914 there were a number of rival theatres in London.
12 The cornerstone-laying ceremony was held on 5 Aug 1880; the Masonic Temple was completed in 1881. It was gutted by fire in both 1900 and 1914. After the 1914 fire the building was known as the Dominion Savings Building. In 1928 it was purchased by Richmond Building Ltd, and became known as the Richmond Building. This much-renovated structure was demolished late in 1967.
13 ORLO MILLER, 'Old Opera Houses of Western Ontario,' Opera in Canada, vol 16 no 7 p 8:
When the curtain rose on the first act of that tear-soaked bucolic drama [Way Down East] playgoers - who that night included Ambrose Small and Col. Whitney - saw a stage of truly magnificent proportions. The proscenium opening was 42 feet - a width exceeded only by a bare half dozen theatres on the whole continent and those few, like the Hippodrome in New York and the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, were located in the very largest centres. It dwarfed absolutely anything else in Canada. From the footlights to the back wall, the stage measured 45 feet. The players thus had a usable acting area of 1,890 square feet - again, one of the largest available anywhere. The height of the proscenium opening was 34 feet. The distance between the sidewalls was 80 feet which was (and still is) a dizzying 70 feet from stage floor to rigging loft.
London 1914, p 37:
The exterior of the building is of handsome design, the veneer being of a high class of red pressed brick. There is an elaborate canopy above the main entrance from Richmond street, affording protection to patrons of the house who come or leave by motor or other vehicle.
London Free Press, 12 July 1950
[referring to the hayfield scene on the old act-curtain:]
[T]he chief interest in the old curtain was its entertainment value. Painted by the New York Curtain Co., as may still be read ... the audience was given to look at, during intermissions, a most entertaining landscape. This had a volcanic mountain peak as a background; a fine wooded prospect; a distant river and a creek flowing out of, or into, a pond lower left. A sense of activity was given by the big horse-drawn hayrack and another less easily identified farm vehicle, centre back. The rake indicated that the time was hay-harvest, but a certain florid colonng on the trees bordering the creek suggested autumn, these discrepancies providing some pleasant between-act musings out front, over the years.
14 There is a unique collection of
programmes in the Regional Collection of the University of Western Ontario's
library, belonging originally to the Advertiser critic Frank Adams.
It is very nearly complete for the period of the calendar.
Works Cited
Alexander, Sir James, L'Acadie; or, Seven Years' Explorations in British America. London: Henry Colborn, 1849
Bernheim, Alfred L, The Business of the Theatre: An Economic History of the American Theatre, 1750-1932. New York: B Blom (1932) 1964
Brock, Daniel, 'Population List for London' (Pamphlet, 1980), London Regional Collection, D B Weldon Library, University of Western Ontario
Brown, Mary M, 'The Canadian Connection,' Theatre Studies 24/25 (1977-79),107-18
-, 'Ambrose Small: A Ghost in Spite of Himself,' Theatrical Touring and Founding in North America, ed L W Conolly. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1982
-,'The Entertainers'; 'Circuits and Circuiteers,' Early Stages: Theatre in Ontario, vol 1, ed Ann Saddlemyer (forthcoming)
Careless, J M S, 'Frontierism, Metropolitanism, and Canadian History,' Approaches to Canadian History, ed Ramsay Cook. Toronto: Univ of Toronto Press, 1967
-, 'Metropolitanism. and Nationalism,' Nationalism in Canada, ed Peter Russell. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1966
Copy-book of Building Specifications 1876-1883, vol 2. Murphy-Moore Collection, Regional Room, D B Weldon Library, Univ of Western Ontario
Disher, M W, The Cowells in America, 1860-61: Being the Diary of Mrs Sam Cowell. London: Oxford Univ Press, 1934
Grant, George M, ed, Picturesque Canada: The Country as it Was and Is. Toronto: Belden Bros, 1882
Hamil, F C, Lake Erie Baron: The Story of Colonel Talbot. Toronto: Macmillan, 1955
Harris, Amelia, Diary, 1857-1882. London Regional Collection, D B Weldon Library, Univ of Western Ontario
Hines, Frances, 'Concert Life in London Ontario, 1870-1880,' M A Diss, Univ of Western Ontario, 1977
Johnston, Dennis, 'Metropolitanism: A Framework for Canadian Theatre History,' ACTH/AHTC Conference, Windsor, Ont 30 May 1988
Jameson, Anna, Winter Studies and Summer Rambles in Canada. 3 vols, London: Saunders and Otley, 1838
Lysons, Sir Daniel, Early Reminiscences. London: John Murray, 1896 Miller, Orlo, 'History of Theatre,' manuscript, National Archives, Ottawa
-, 'Old Opera House of Western Ontario,' Opera in Canada, vol 16 no 7
Rhys, Horton, A Theatrical Trip for a Wager! Through Canada and the United States. Vancouver: Alcuin Society, 1966 (New ed of 1861 publication, with intro, by Robertson Davies)
Tansky, Nancy and Lynne DiStefano, Victorian Architecture in London and Southwestern Ontario: Symbols of Aspiration. Toronto: Univ of Toronto Press, 1986
This article and the microfiche have been prepared with the assistance of an Ontario Arts Council grant.