Gathering A Crowd

the history of itinerant glassworkers

Tag: New York

Iron-jawed angels: Circus suffragists and the fight for the vote

/ / 0 Comments

On Sunday, March 31, 1912, a group of women gathered in the animal menagerie at Madison Square Garden to inaugurate a new group: Barnum & Bailey’s Circus Women’s Equal Rights Society. These circus suffragists – among them aerialists, equestriennes, strongwomen, and tightrope walkers – had joined the fight for the vote. At the meeting, well-known bareback rider Josephine DeMott Robinson reminded attendees, “You earn salaries. Some of you have property. You have a right to say what shall be done with it. You want to establish clearly in the mind of your husband that you are his equal. You are not above him, but his equal.”1

She and her fellow performers – most of whom were white – were uniquely positioned to spread the message of suffrage as they traveled throughout the United States engaging with audiences.2 They joined petition drives, handed out suffrage literature, and Robinson was even known to ride her horse at rallies.

photograph of Josephine DeMott Robinson riding her horse

Josephine DeMott Robinson at her riding school, showing some of her pupils how to vault a horse while in motion. Source: Narratively (Thomas Y. Crowell Company Publishers)

Suffragists celebrated women circus performers. Movement leader Inez Milholland stated that they “exemplify one phase of the ability of women to earn their own living.” Elizabeth Cook agreed: “There is no class of women who show better that they have a right to vote than the circus women, who twice a day prove that they have the courage and endurance of men.”3 But when it came to supporting the new society, Milholland was a little more hesitant. She had promised to attend the event, but did not show up. Instead, Beatrice Jones from the Woman’s Political Equality Union joined the group as they celebrated by christening a baby giraffe at the menagerie “Miss Suffrage.”

The press got wind of the event and were gleefully condescending in their coverage. Jones, according to a New York Times reporter, was surrounded by “women and girls, modishly and sedately gowned, so that you would never dream it was their daily lot to bound about, blithe and bespangled.” And Miss Suffrage? By the end of the evening, the giraffe – not “previously being consulted” about its new name – “couldn’t abide even the sight of a suffragette.”4 The New York Tribune joked that the lions “moved uneasily about their cages” and the hyenas “grinned and grinned.”5 A writer for the Sacramento Union reported that “Alexander Sebert, husband of Lillian Sebert, a bareback rider, projected himself into the meeting, took his wife and her sister, Jennie Byram, and hustled them out of the menagerie room … Sebert shouted that he didn’t intend to let his wife take part in such nonsense.”6

lithograph of women trapeze artists performing at circus

Female acrobats on trapezes at circus, 1890. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Library of Congress [Public domain])

But women circus performers were not daunted by this commentary. They were used to it: their profession put them in a radical position, and they had to strike a delicate balance between their roles as showwomen and the public’s demand for respectable entertainment. Although they wore leotards and demonstrated acts of strength and power in the ring, performers and promoters portrayed them as proper, domestic women, more concerned about cooking their husbands dinners than their acts. The fact that the majority of women circus performers were white (at least those under the big top) also helped to shape their image as respectable, middle-class citizens.

Rossa Matilda Richter, who performed as Zazel, the first human cannonball, was an expert at the tightrope, trapeze, and high dive. But off the stage, Richter spoke to reporters about her fellow showwomen and their commitment to traditional gender roles, “complete with tales of women commandeering the railroad dining car to bake a cake.”7 Richter stated, “The domestic instinct is very strong among circus women, for the reason that they are deprived of home life a great part of every year.”8 Circuses had strict rules for women performers and emphasized the presence of male family members, which helped assuage any suspicions of the public. However, writes historian Janet M. Davis, “they also unintentionally eclipsed the larger historical significance of the female big top performer as a durable champion of women’s rights.”9 They hid their radical performances behind high-necked dresses and freshly-baked cookies.

Photograph of Zazel the human cannonball

Rossa Matilda Richter, also known as Zazel, the first human cannonball performer when she was 14, 1887. Source: Wikimedia Commons (London Stereoscopic Co.[Public domain])

While Richter put forward her domestic ideals, English acrobat Josephine Mathews advanced a different narrative. She performed as “Evetta, the Lady Clown” and embraced “all of the new woman’s fads,” including bicycling and swinging Indian clubs.” Mathews boldly stated, “I believe that a woman can do anything for a living that a man can do, and I do it just as well as a man.”10 Both Richter and Mathews’ public personas were likely shaped by circus press agents, showing the contradictory ways women in the circus were depicted.

poster of Evetta lady clown

The Strobridge Lithographing Company Barnum & Bailey: Evetta the Only Lady Clown, 1895. Source: Circus Now [Public domain]

Katherine Brumbach, a strongwoman who performed under the name Katie Sandwina, was at Madison Square Garden as an inaugural member of the Barnum & Bailey’s Circus Women’s Equal Rights Society. At five feet nine inches tall and 210 pounds with a muscular frame, she did not fit the physical standards for feminine beauty at the time. But doctors declared her the “perfect female specimen” and others described her as “beautiful and feminine.”11 She earned up to $1,500 a week, which amounts to roughly $40,000 in today’s money. As part of her routine, she regularly lifted her husband, Max Heymann, above her head. Brumbach’s appearance, abilities, and the fact that she earned a wage were at odds with the ideal woman.

photograph of circus strongwoman Katie Sandwina holding three men in the air

Katie Sandwina, “The Lady Hercules”. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Bain News Service [Public domain])

Reporter Marguerite Martyn emphasized Brumbach’s divergent qualities in a 1911 article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, writing, “At the moment she was twirling her husband about in dizzy circles above her head … Carelessly, laughingly, she tosses her husband about as though he were not flesh and bone, but merely an effigy of inflated rubber. And he is no insignificant husband, either.” No “normal” woman would be able to lift and twirl her husband, especially with such ease. (Although some might like to, including the woman Martyn overheard exclaiming, “Gee! Wouldn’t I love to be able to bat a man around like that!”)12

In an accompanying illustration, Brumbach appears as large as a giant, holding the very properly-dressed and diminutive Martyn in one hand while preening for the crowd in a form-fitting leotard. In the next panel she has returned to more normal womanly activities, standing over a stove cooking dinner for her husband and son. “There are enough duties in her own home for any woman if she would make her family healthy and strong and wise,” Brumbach told Martyn. “I think I should be content to devote all my strength to my household.”13

black and white line drawing of Katie Sandwina

Imaginative sketch by Marguerite Martyn of strongwoman Katie Sandwina, 1911. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Marguerite Martyn [Public domain])

Whatever her feelings about housework and home life (or those she expressed as a part of her public persona), Brumbach was an eager participant in the fight for the vote. She became the vice president of the Barnum & Bailey’s Circus Women’s Equal Rights Society, joining Robinson, equestrienne May Wirth, wire-walker Victoria Codona, bareback rider Victoria Davenport, and many others in committing herself to the cause.

While it is unclear how long the society lasted or how much of an impact their actions had on the suffrage movement, Robinson, Brumbach, and their fellow performers arguably made their most convincing case under the big top. Their costumes, skills, and ability to outearn many male circus performers proved to those who watched their shows that women were capable of being more than just angels at home; they were iron-jawed Amazons worthy of the vote.

A version of this post was originally published on the Re/Visionist on December 16, 2019.

Stepping into the spotlight: Women itinerant glassworkers

/ / 0 Comments

The orphans from the Home of the Friendless filed into the Metropolitan Rink in orderly rows, staring at the wonders displayed before them. Glass sparkled from every surface, shaped like ships and birds and little men and women. A steam engine made of colorful glass spun and whirred next to a model of a derrick bobbing for non-existent oil. In the center of it all stood Madam Nora and her troupe of itinerant glassworkers, spinning, twisting, and blowing glass into all sorts of marvelous shapes. They were there to show the children all the wonderful things that could be made from glass, and to give each child a toy to treasure long after the show was over.

To thank the glassworkers for their gifts, the orphans sang them a song. It was the perfect end to the troupe’s two-week stay in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in March 1887. More importantly, it garnered Nora and her troupe a slew of free publicity and praise, as well as an open invitation to come back again. It paid to be a marketing-savvy woman in show business. 1

sepia photograph of itinerant glassworkers

Mrs. and Mr. Frank. A. Owen. Glass exhibition featuring spinning wheel and glass steam engine, 1904? Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, NY, CMGL 131372.

Itinerant glassworkers toured cities and towns entertaining and educating audiences from the 17th century through 20th century. They demonstrated glassmaking, blowing glass bubbles, spinning glass thread, and shaping flowers, baskets, and figurines. They created intricate models like skeletons and steam engines and covered tables with trinkets for sale. The trade was dominated by men, but there were quite a few women who performed too, including some of the most prominent and popular itinerant glassworkers of the 19th and early 20th century.

By stepping outside of the home and entering the public sphere, these performers transgressed the standards set for women. They traveled across countries and continents, demonstrating glassmaking for royalty, government officials, and members of the public. They made their own living, and some of them even counted their male family members as employees. Women like Madam Nora and Madam J. Reith ran their own troupes and became popular performers. Details about their private lives are few and far between, but as public figures they were breaking down ideas of what women could and should be at that time.

Mrs. Johnston

The earliest-known woman itinerant glassworker was a Mrs. Johnston or Johnson, who was active in the mid-18th century. In December 1740, she performed at the Robin Hood tavern in Dublin, Ireland, making “curiosities such as, men, women, birds, beasts, swords, scabbards, and ships” out of glass. She also used a wheel to spin glass thread, as much as “ten thousand yards of glass in half an hour.” 2 A few years later she traveled north to demonstrate in Edinburgh, Scotland. Here she won herself an admirer who was so impressed by her performance they composed a poem in her honor. 3

Signora Murch

More women followed in Johnston’s footsteps, often performing alongside their spouses or families. Signora Murch made glass with her husband in Devonport, England, in 1825. The two demonstrated their lampworking skills, “Modelling, Blowing, and Spinning Glass, of various colours.” They offered to make the “Likeness of any favorite DOG” in glass and teach women the “Art of Flower Making.” The Murches made many items for sale, including “Glass Feathers, Pens, Baskets . . . and other Curiosities too numerous to mention.” 4

Nora Allen

Nora Allen (a.k.a. Madam Nora), the performer whose troupe put on a show for the orphans of the Home of the Friendless, was one of the most popular American itinerant glassworkers of the 19th century. Her troupe – Madam Nora’s Original Troupe of Glass Blowers, Workers, and Spinners – included her second husband, her son, and her daughter-in-law, Adalorra Allen. They toured the East Coast and the Midwest in the 1870s-1890s, spending most of their time in New York and Pennsylvania. Her name was listed at the head of every advertisement, and her portrait was featured on broadsides and a newspaper published by the troupe.

Illustration of Nora Allen sitting behind a table full of lampworked plants and animals placed under bell jars. She is holding a small lampworked ship.

Detail of Madame Nora’s Original Troupe of Glassblowers, 1876? Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 132079.

By demonstrating for the orphans, Nora was performing “respectable” womanhood. Many women performers of the late 19th and early 20th century did the same, or were marketed by their managers as respectable women. They dressed conservatively, spoke about how much they loved to cook dinner for their husbands, and showed their interest in traditionally feminine pursuits like knitting and sewing. They did so to avoid public censure and to continue making a living as performers. Because their profession put them in the public eye, they could easily be labeled as disreputable and their acts as inappropriate for women and children to attend. So, while Nora may have truly wanted to give the orphans a fun day out, her actions also helped prove to locals that hers was a respectable show proper for all audiences to attend.

The Howells

During the first half of the 20th century there were several well-known families of lampworkers, including the Howell family. All of the women in the family demonstrated glassmaking: matriarch Ethel Maude Howell, daughters Grace Howell and Nona Deakin, and daughters-in-law Marie Howell and Verna Howell. Grace in particular found success demonstrating at festivals, for scouting troops, and making appearances on TV variety shows. She was perhaps best known for dressing up as Mrs. Santa Claus each December and demonstrating lampworking at the Manhattan Savings Bank in New York City during the 1960s.

A black and white photograph of a family of lampworkers in a booth. Two young women stand in front of the booth at either side. Seated behind the booth are, from left to right, a woman, a man, and a young man. The booth and shelves behind the booth are covered in pieces of glass, including items such as stags, ships, vases, and bunches of grapes.

Nona, Ethel, and Grace Howell are pictured here alongside their male relatives. Howell Family of Chelmsford, 1937-1945. Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 151522.

These are only a few of the many women itinerant glassworkers who performed for crowds. They, alongside circus performers, actresses, lecturers, singers, vaudeville stars, and others working in the public eye proved that women had a right to be in that space. Each time they appeared in front of an audience they broke the boundaries, putting themselves in the spotlight instead of staying at home.

A version of this post was originally published on the Re/Visionist on December 16, 2019.

“Only Mrs. during the month of December”: Grace Howell’s holiday glass gig

/ / 2 Comments

Those walking past the Manhattan Savings Bank in December 1961 were in for a treat. Peeking in the windows, passerby were treated to a sumptuous display of Christmas decorations, a singing Santa Claus and his elves, carolers, an ice rink complete with four ice skaters, and Mrs. Santa Claus making glass.

Wurts Bros. 45th Street and Vanderbilt Avenue. Manhattan Savings Bank, new branch, front view from east showing Christmas decorations. Source: Museum of the City of New York. X2010.7.1.10288 (https://collections.mcny.org/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=24UP1GXD6A54&SMLS=1&RW=1302&RH=723)
Wurts Bros. 47th Street. Manhattan Savings Bank, general view of lobby looking N.E. Source: Museum of the City of New York. X2010.7.1.10210 (https://collections.mcny.org/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=24UP1GXD6SRW&SMLS=1&RW=1302&RH=723)
Wurts Bros. 47th Street. Manhattan Savings Bank, Christmas show, ice skaters in. Source: Museum of the City of New York. X2010.7.1.10208 (https://collections.mcny.org/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=24UP1GXD64FQ&SMLS=1&RW=1302&RH=723)
Wurts Bros. 45th Street and Vanderbilt Avenue. Manhattan Savings Bank, Christmas carolers. Source: Museum of the City of New York. X2010.7.1.13752 (https://collections.mcny.org/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=24UP1GXD623Q&SMLS=1&RW=1302&RH=723)

That’s right, Mrs. Claus – otherwise known as Grace Howell – “spends her days [at the bank] blowing colorful baubles and Christmas ornaments.”  According to a profile in her hometown newspaper, The Scotch Plains Times, she is equally “adept at blowing the molten globs of glass into airy vases, birds, flowers, jewelry, or an intricate replica of a sailing ship.”1

black and white photo of Grace Howell, dressed as Mrs. Santa Claus, blowing glass for onlookers

Wurts Bros. 45th Street and Vanderbilt Avenue. Manhattan Savings Bank, Mrs. Santa Claus, glass blower. Source: Museum of the City of New York. X2010.7.1.10211

The Howell family of itinerant glassworkers

Grace Howell was the eldest child of Robert M. Howell and Ethel Maude Howell, two itinerant glassworkers who traveled the country demonstrating to the public. Grace’s parents taught her to lampwork as early as the age of five, and after years of practice she joined their demonstrations around the age of twelve. Her siblings, Robert Jr., Nona, and Leigh, followed in her footsteps, and by the 1930s the Howells demonstrated together as a family act. They were frequently on the road, living in a housecar with a lampworking studio attached. In the off-season they rented or purchased a home and made glass for sale.2

A black and white photograph of a family of lampworkers in a booth. Two young women stand in front of the booth at either side. Seated behind the booth are, from left to right, a woman, a man, and a young man. The booth and shelves behind the booth are covered in pieces of glass, including items such as stags, ships, vases, and bunches of grapes.

Howell Family of Chelmsford, 1937-1945. Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 151522.

Between performances Grace Howell completed high school, then took a break from the family business to work for a mail-order house company.3 She later became the family’s business agent, booking performances across the country.

Going solo

By 1953, and possibly earlier, Howell was demonstrating on her own, up and down the East Coast. She performed for scout troops, day camps, schools, and PTAs. “I don’t believe there is a major highway in the country, unless it was built in the last four years, which I haven’t traveled,” she told a reporter.4 She made regular appearances at fairs, craft shows, festivals, and banks. Howell worked at New Jersey-area attractions like the Gingerbread Castle and the Cannon Ball House, and appeared on television variety shows (including those of Johnny Carson and Dave Garroway). Her most recognizable appearance, however, may have been as a lampworking Mrs. Santa Claus in the window of the Manhattan Savings Bank.

Grace Howell demonstrates lampworking in the window of the Manhattan Savings Bank in New York City, 1963. Source: The Joint Digital Archives of Fanwood & Scotch Plains
Grace Howell lampworking glass in front of a crowd, 1964. Source: Newspapers.com
Grace Howell demonstrates lampworking to children, 1967. Source: The Joint Digital Archives of Fanwood & Scotch Plains

Howell spent at least a decade of Decembers in New York City, demonstrating her skills to fascinated crowds. Newspaper reporter Hannah Torain wrote, “Her excellence in glass blowing is complemented by her lively wit and warmth reflected on the faces of her onlookers.” She dressed as Mrs. Claus, from the fur-trimmed hat to a pair of rosy cheeks. She didn’t need makeup for the latter either: the heat of her lampworking torch helped with that. “That kind of heat will change the color of anything, even your glassblower,” Howell quipped. “I wear a perpetual sunburn.”5

black and white newspaper photo of Grace Howell, dressed as Mrs. Claus, showing some of her glass creations

Grace Howell as Mrs. Santa Claus, 1963. Source: The Joint Digital Archives of Fanwood & Scotch Plains

Reporters who wrote about Howell often commented on her humor, and it comes through in their articles. To one writer she joked, “[I’m] only Mrs. in the month of December.”6

 

Adorable baby contests

/ / 0 Comments

Most people agree: babies are cute. Much like kittens and puppies, attractive babies and babies doing funny things prompt smiles or laughter. You can find evidence of their popularity in the millions of photos and videos posted on social media sites and shared with friends and family. But which baby is the cutest?

wink 106 radio station website cute baby contest photo

Earlier this year I heard an ad for this adorable baby contest on the radio while on my way to give a presentation about itinerant glassworkers. Source: cbelmira.com

Today, a Google search for “adorable baby contest” produces 42.6 million results. There’s the “Cutest Baby Contest” page on Facebook, the Bidiboo “Baby Photo Contest” (with live voting results), and a baby photo contest on thecutekid.com with a $25,000 modeling contract prize. Parents who want to enter photos of their baby in a contest can find tips for winning shots on parenting websites and cautionary tales about stolen entry fees and voting fraud on scam detection sites.

What might surprise you is that these competitions have a long past. One hundred and fifty years ago, itinerant glassworking troupes like those of Madam Nora, Madam J. Reith,1 and the Woodroffe brothers hosted adorable baby contests of their own. Although they sometimes had grander titles – “Grand Carnival of Croesus and Contest of Infantile Beauty,” for example – the concept, popularity, and controversy they could cause is remarkably similar to the baby competitions of today.

detail of broadside, says baby show saturday

Madam Nora’s troupe was one of many that held these baby beauty competitions. Detail of Madame Nora’s Original Troupe of Glassblowers, 1876? Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 132079.

Concept

The idea behind adorable baby contests is simple: gather a group of babies or young children together and vote to determine which one is the cutest. Today, people upload photos to websites and social media platforms, where viewers all over the world can vote on their favorite baby. Some 19th-century competitions relied on photographs or allowed voters to submit any name they wished. During the last week of an 1881 show in Buffalo, New York, each attendee wrote the name of the most popular local baby under five years old on a card. The polls closed on Saturday at 4pm, and the winning baby received a piece of glass worth $75.

newspaper advertisement for baby show photographs

Local photography studios cashed in on the competitions as well, offering enlargements of photographs and extra deals for devoted parents. Advertisement from the May 30, 1907 issue of Webster’s Weekly, Reidsville, North Carolina. Source: Newspapers.com

Many competitions required the contestants to be on view at the glassworkers’ shows. An 1887 article about a competition run by Madam Nora’s troupe in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, documented the hazards of such an arrangement: “The crowd was so great that much difficulty was experienced in displaying the babies with any comfort either to the little ones or to the spectators.”2 Despite the packed room, 40 children under two years of age were entered into the competition and, according to the reporter, “their fond mothers had very good reason to feel proud of them, for they were beautiful babies . . . most of them were exhibited in handsome carriages and all were prettily attired.” The winning baby, Martha Howells, was presented her prize by a “committee of five disinterested ladies” selected by the troupe’s manager, Duncan C. Katen.3

newspaper ad for a madam j. rieth glassworking show

Madam J. Reith’s troupe was another that routinely held baby shows. Advertisement from the October 12, 1887 issue of The Morning Journal-Courier, New Haven, Connecticut. Source: Newspapers.com

Often, one vote was free, but in some cases additional votes could be purchased.  At a show put on by Woodroffe’s Original Bohemian Glass Blowers, extra votes cost ten cents a piece. This was a smart way for the glassworkers to make some additional money from attendees, especially those determined to see their favorite baby win first place. In this particular competition, the grand prize was a case of glass work worth $100 and the second prize was a fleet of glass ships worth $50, so many may have justified spending a few extra dollars on votes in hopes they would go home with a much more valuable prize.

At the 1881 show in Buffalo mentioned above, a grand total of 1,046 votes were cast. Assuming admission was at least ten cents (although it was likely more) and extra votes were ten cents, the glassworkers made over $100 just for the baby show, not counting the money they made the rest of the week on regular admissions and sales of glass souvenirs. This was a lucrative entertainment for any troupe to add to their act.

Popularity

Adorable baby contests were as popular in the 19th century as they are today, and newspaper writers reported on the events with great gusto.

An 1881 contest in Binghamton, New York, was reported on like an election. The Broome Republican stated: “the contest, which became more and more animated each succeeding day, culminated Saturday afternoon in a scene of feminine electioneering, which outdid in enthusiasm the greatest effort ever made at a political caucus by a lot of office seekers. Money was no object compared to votes for the favorites, and the large tin ballot box was full to the top when at 4 o’clock the polls were declared closed, and the votes were counted.” 4 An astonishing 4,400 votes were cast, and the results were clear: the “little favorite” Mabel Dunn won by a margin of around 600 votes.5

newspaper article on baby show voting results

Advertisement from the February 2, 1889, issue of The Daily Review, Wilmington, North Carolina. Source: Newspapers.com

Another contest held by Madam Nora’s troupe had over 101 entries. At that contest, The Hazelton Sentinel reported: “From the time the doors opened at 2:30 until the prettiest babe had been found and declared, the rink was filled to its utmost capacity. Married men, would-be married men, widowers, widows, and squealing babies were there in numbers and (excepting the old bachelors, who are as much afraid of babies as they are of women) all remained until the fun was non est.“6 Unusually, the contest resulted in a tie between babies Lawrence Eisenhuth and Theo Guth, each with 110 votes. To resolve the contest, a committee of nine women each cast one vote. Theo, at 21 months old, was declared victorious with a total of five votes to Lawrence’s four, and was awarded a “handsome glass shade, covering numerous glass ornaments that only dainty hands manufactured.”

Controversy

These competitions are not without their drama. Today, some parents balk at the idea of buying votes (no doubt many 19th century parents would agree).

Source: scam-detector.com

Others are convinced their baby should win, and that any other result is a scam.

Source: scam-detector.com

It’s no wonder some people avoid participating, especially as judges or contest organizers. An 1898 article in the Gibson City Courier joked: “We were inveigled into acting as a judge one year before we knew enough to ‘flee from the wrath to come,’ and in making one woman happy secured the everlasting enmity of nineteen. Now, we watch the baby show through a field glass.”7

While adorable baby contests were only one type of competition offered by itinerant glassworkers, they were by far the most popular, causing passionate participation and enthusiastic reporting. For glassworkers, the contests garnered a great deal of local attention, a healthy amount of revenue, and plenty of free publicity. And the winning babies (and parents) got the great distinction of being the most adorable – plus some beautiful glass.8

Detail from ad featuring text and image of a baby

Detail of Second and Positively Last Week of Woodroffe’s Original Bohemian Glass Blowers! Utica, New York: Grove & Bailey, 1881. Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 151258.

Following the trail of Lawrence Finn

/ / 0 Comments
handbill describing Finn's show

Exhibition of Fancy Glass Working and Spinning United States Hotel, Private Entrance : Mr. Finn. Augusta, Georgia: 1840-1843. CMGL 164968.

Lawrence Finn never stayed in one place for too long. Like many itinerant glassworkers, he was always on the move, traveling across the country to find new audiences. We don’t know much about his life, but let’s take the few clues we have and see if we can find Finn.

Where in the world is Lawrence Finn?

Tracking the path of someone who lived almost 200 years ago can be tricky. Today some people leave a minute-by-minute trail of their lives, but a traveling demonstrator like Lawrence Finn left few lasting records in his wake. Luckily, the job that kept Finn on the road also gives us an advantage when looking for him. When he set up shop in a new location he needed to attract customers, and Finn did so by advertising in the local newspapers and distributing handbills and broadsides. Sometimes the same newspapers would review his show. This paper trail gives us a fairly accurate idea of his travels.

Trail of evidence

Finn was British, and based on advertisements and historical data we can connect him to another Lawrence Finn, likely his father or uncle. This older Finn performed in London, England, before and during the time the younger Finn traveled around the United States. Therefore when both are in the United Kingdom, it can be difficult to determine which Finn was responsible for certain advertisements.

handbill describing one of the Finn's London shows

Finn’s Fancy Glass-Working Exhibition. London: 1815. Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 112199.

Based on passenger logs and newspaper advertisements, we know the younger Finn likely arrived in New York, New York, from London in October 1827 and rented rooms at 202 Broadway. He opened his exhibition there on Monday, November 12, 1827. At the time, he was perhaps the second itinerant glassworker to perform in the United States.1

newspaper ad

This is the first advertisement Finn placed in the newspaper upon arriving in New York City. Source: New York Historic Newspapers

This first show featured Finn exhibiting his “most curious and pleasing experiments of Fancy Glass Working, Spinning, and Blowing,” and making “articles of the most fanciful description,” including “ships, figures, quadrupeds, birds, flower vases, &c. &c. &c.”2 He worked from 11am to 3pm, and again between 6pm and 10pm. Potential audience members could buy tickets for 25 cents ($6.40 in today’s dollars); children were half price. Finn especially encouraged “heads of families and guardians” to attend his demonstrations.

Other itinerant glassworkers often visited smaller cities and towns, but, based on the surviving advertisements, Finn’s strategy was to stay in large cities near tourist destinations. His New York address, 202 Broadway, was located across the street from St. Paul’s Chapel and down the street from New York City Hall,  Peale’s Museum, and Scudder’s American Museum (later P. T. Barnum’s American Museum).3

Exhibition of Fancy Glass Working No. 202, Broadway : Mr. Finn. New York: J. Booth & Sons, 1828. Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 163865.
Fancy Glass Working in Miniature, from London. New York: New York American, 1828. Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 165045.

At the beginning of 1829, Finn closed his exhibition at 202 Broadway and spent the next few months demonstrating in Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In D.C., he was located near the National Mall on Pennsylvania Avenue — close to where the FBI and Department of Justice buildings are today. He extended his stay in the city due to bad weather, but eventually traveled to Philadelphia, where he set up his show in the Masonic Hall. There, a local newspaper praised Finn’s demonstrations as “highly deserving of patronage,” writing that “few persons will attend the [exhibition] without being much gratified.”4

After a few years, Finn moved to Boston, Massachusetts, and opened his exhibition to a new audience. He was situated near the Old South Meeting House, the Old State House, King’s Chapel, and Benjamin Franklin’s birthplace. A handbill for the show proclaims, “The process of Modeling Figures and Animals from the glass, in a state of Fusion, is so wonderfully curious, as to strike the beholder with astonishment – and must be witnessed, to decide on its merits, as no description can convey an adequate idea of the pleasure it affords.”5

Exhibition of the Art of Fancy Glass Working in Miniature, from London! Boston: C. S. D. & B. F. Griffin, 1831. Collection of the Rakow Research Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 163302.
Finn advertised in several newspapers, including the Boston Post. Source: Newspapers.com

Finn didn’t stay in Boston for long. By the beginning of 1832, he had traveled far south and was demonstrating lampworking above a jewelry store at 115 Chartres Street in New Orleans, Louisiana. Once again it seems he chose his location carefully, renting space in the French Quarter. The price of admission for his show had doubled to 50 cents, and he made additional revenue by selling figurines and ornaments “well adapted for relatives or friends.”6

Finn demonstrated in four New Orleans locations, including this room over a jewelry store. Source: Google News

Over the next decade, Finn revisited many of these cities. He traveled back to New York and Washington, D.C., then Boston, and finally New Orleans. He may have stopped in other cities in between, like Augusta, Georgia, but sometimes his trail dries up for a year or two. Even with all the information we have, Finn’s life and location is still a mystery at times.

Mr. Finn also worked at Scudder’s American Museum (later owned by P. T. Barnum) in New York City. Source: New York Historic Newspapers
Finn advertised in The Times Picayune whenever he demonstrated in New Orleans. Source: Newspapers.com

Mapping Finn’s route

Examining individual advertisements, reviews, or travel records provides insight into Finn’s life, but arranging multiple documents chronologically and mapping his movements gives us an even better idea of how he spent his time in the United States.

Finn visited New York City, Washington, D.C., Boston, and New Orleans repeatedly, and traveled mostly along the East Coast. Among the cities he visited from the late 1820s through the early 1840s, those mentioned above (excluding Washington, D.C., and including Philadelphia) were among the top five most populous cities of the United States. Only Baltimore, Maryland – at the time, the second largest city in the country – is missing from Finn’s itinerary, although it is entirely likely he demonstrated there, given his travel habits and exhibitions in nearby Washington, D.C. By choosing these major cities as tour stops, Finn exposed his show to hundreds of thousands of people, thereby increasing his potential revenue and popularity. The fact that he was employed by Rubens Peale and John Scudder, Jr., (both owners of successful New York City museums) speaks to his success.

Explore Lawrence Finn’s path from London to New York and beyond using this map.

A version of this post was originally published on the Corning Museum of Glass blog on June 13, 2017.

John Tilley’s wonderful mechanisms

/ / 0 Comments

To be seen in a neat Sitting Room, at 141 Broadway: the wonderful mechanisms of fancy glass blower John Tilley. This early American broadside, ca. 1820, enumerates the delights New Yorkers could observe if they paid the 25-cent admission fee to Tilley’s glassmaking and scientific exhibition.

handbill describing the show of John Tilley

Wonderful Mechanism J. Tilley, Fancy Glass Blower, from London. New York: J. Robinson, 1820. Collection of the Rakow Library, The Corning Museum of Glass, CMGL 163866.

John Tilley, originally from London, was the first known itinerant glassworker to bring his exhibition to the United States.1 Eighteenth-century Americans, influenced by their Puritan backgrounds, often shunned traveling entertainers and educators of any sort, some going so far as to outlaw circuses, traveling menageries, and acting troupes. Once those restrictions were lifted, Tilley and others found success touring cities along the East Coast.

Location

Tilley may have been the first glassworker to demonstrate in New York City, but he certainly wasn’t the last to make the city, and specifically Broadway, his home. Later artisans such as Lawrence Finn, W. Belzoni Davidson, and the Woodroffe brothers set up exhibitions in rented rooms and at museums including Barnum’s American Museum at the intersection of Broadway and Ann Street. Like it is today, the street was a center for entertainment.

Possible location of Tilley’s show circled on Broadway, New York, NY, 1821. Source: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division https://www.loc.gov/item/2006629796/
141 Broadway Street, New York, NY, 2019. Source: Google Maps

Even in 1820, New York City (then confined to Manhattan) was bustling. The city’s population had grown to more than 123,000 people, close to 30,000 more than just a decade before.2 William Cobbett, a British farmer, journalist, and politician who lived on a Long Island farm from 1817 until 1819, described the city as resembling “an English town, in point of manners and customs, much more than any other place that I have seen in America.”3 He comments on the low prices and high quality of everything from the food to the household furnishings available to residents.

On women’s fashions, he states, “The most gay promenades in and about London, and even the boxes of our licenced and degraded theatres, are, in point of female dresses, perfect beggary compared with the every day exhibition in the ‘Broad way’ of New York; where the very look of every creature you meet gives evidence of the existence of no taxation without representation.” Based on Cobbet’s description, it is easy to imagine crowds of well-dressed women and men patronizing Tilley’s exhibition.

Show highlights

Like many 19th-century itinerant glassworkers, John Tilley offered his audience a range of enticing entertainments. These included “Spinning and Reeling Hot Glass round a Wheel, with the astonishing velocity of a Mile in less than two minutes” and “Blowing Glass to different degrees of thinness and forming it into various Articles, such as Writing Pens, Smelling Bottles, &c. &c.”

In addition, Tilley explained scientific properties and principles using glass models such as a Cartesian diver and a “Hydro Pneumatic Fountain.” One curious demonstration involved Tilley blowing a “small Globe,” which he said would form “nearly” a vacuum and would fall to the floor “with apparent great weight.”

While John Tilley’s exhibition was “to be seen for a few Days only,” records of his shows and innovations are still available more than two centuries later.

A version of this post was originally published on the Corning Museum of Glass blog on December 19, 2016.

About
Contact
Privacy Policy

Newsletter

Subscribe to receive the best of Gathering a Crowd plus updates on all of my projects and publications. direct to your inbox.

Connect with me

If you’d like to keep up with what I’m thinking about and working on, follow me on Instagram and Twitter. Fair warning: posts are not limited to Gathering a Crowd topics.

© 2024 Gathering A Crowd

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑