THE MANTLE OF MAGIC
Compars
THE MANTLE OF MAGIC
By James Hamilton, A.I.M.C.
Much has been made of "Magic Mantles" over the years, but not quite so much as
recently. Some people have come to believe that an actual Mantle or cloak has
been passed from one magician to another, and that this lineage has been
extended back to Herrmann the Great himself. (Alexander Herrmann, 1844-1896).
[Authors Note: I do possess in my collection an actual mantle of Alexander
Herrmann.] This lineage has been constructed in various modes, with some
beginning with Herrmann and others starting with Kellar.
The whole idea of a 'mantle of magic' was once again brought to the forefront
on the recent PBS special, "The Art of Magic" ...Johnny Thompson who sees
Burton, not as another magician, but as the next magician. "There is a lineage
in magic, Kellar at the turn of the century was the leading magician in this
country and he passed his mantle of magic to a man named Howard Thurston. Dante
received the mantle of magic from Thurston. Dante passed the mantle of magic
onto a man named Lee Grable, and just recently Lee Grable passed the mantle on
to Lance Burton."
First of all, what is a 'mantle'? Webster's New World Dictionary defines it
as:
man*tle (man't'l), n. [ME. mantel, mentel derived from AS. mentel &
OFr.mantel; both derived from L. mantellum, mantelum, a cloth, napkin, cloak,
mantle; origin obscure], 1. a loose, sleeveless cloak or cape; hence, 2.
anything that cloaks, envelops, covers or conceals: as, hidden under the
mantle of night.
Therefore, we must conclude that the Mantle of Magic was the Cape that is
part of formal full dress attire that has become associated with the magician.
Do we not to this day associate the wearing of a cape as something mysterious?
Somehow involved in hiding the secrets and containing the power of the
magician. How then did this 'mantle' come to be passed on? As in the famous
poster, did Harry Kellar actually place a mantle on the shoulders of his
successor Howard Thurston? If so, where did Kellar receive the mantle?
Certainly not from his predecessor Herrmann!
The American public has always only embraced one magician at a time to its
bosom. When Alexander Herrmann began his career in America in 1874, the
leading magician was Robert Heller. Heller's premature death in 1878 opened
the door for the ambitious and talented Herrmann to step in and claim the
American people for his own. Herrmann fully dominated the scene until his
untimely death in 1896. His closest rival was Harry Kellar and Kellar was not
able to secure the best bookings that Herrmann controlled. At the time of
Herrmann's death the N.Y. TIMES of December 19, 1896, p. 9 said, "...that Prof
Herrmann's nephew, Leon Herrmann, who is now living in Paris, may succeed to
the mantle of the magician." This is the earliest mention of a 'mantle of
magic' I have come across. I believe this was in the strictest allegorical
sense.
Kellar, also an ambitious and talented magician, quickly moved into Herrmann's
place and secured bookings in the best theatres in the country. Although
Alexander had named his nephew, Leon to be his successor, Leon did not have
the personality to wrest the position away from Kellar. Mme. Adelaide
Herrmann, Alexander's widow, wished nothing more than to keep the name of
Herrmann before the American public. Her growing animosity towards Leon killed
the chance to keep the Herrmann name at the top. She strongly held that the
title, "Herrmann the Great" was hers and was a valuable trademark. Perhaps if
she had been gentler and more understanding with Leon and later with her own
nephew, Felix, the name Herrmann might have maintained a greater influence in
the 20th Century and therefore retained possession of the 'Mantle.' The point
is that Herrmann never passed his 'mantle' to Kellar, if he passed anything on,
it was to his nephew Leon.
Before his retirement in 1908, Kellar had been searching for a successor to
take over his show. He had several magicians in mind, but finally settled on a
personable young man, Howard Thurston. They struck a business deal in which
Thurston would buy the Kellar show and he and Kellar would tour one season
together to establish Thurston as Kellar's legitimate successor in the public
mind. From this business arrangement came the idea of the famous 'Magic
Mantle' poster. This was a BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT, not a solemn passing of the
'Mantle of Magic! ' The image was probably the brain child of one of the
Strobridge Lithograph Co.'s artists.
The Great Jansen (Harry Jansen 1886-1955) had been working for Howard Thurston
for a few years building props and illusions. An offer from a well-known
showman to back Jansen in building his own show, which would have competed with
Thurston, prompted Thurston to discourage Jansen from taking risks and asking
him to come on the road with him. Jansen soon felt stifled and again Thurston,
always alert to competition, offered to back him in his own show. Jansen
agreed and left for New York to begin building his new show. Thurston agreed
to take care of everything, of course, he would own the show and it definitely
stipulated Jansen would not play Thurston's territory! Jansen was to take the
name Dante and buy Thurston out in weekly installments.
This was the first of Thurston's additional units that Thurston would produce.
The second unit was headed by Raymond Sugden as Tampa, The Royal Court
Magician. A third unit was to be Faust. This was turned down Jack Gwynne and
Mac Donald Birch, both not wanting to change their names. Felix Herrmann,
Adelaide's nephew, was even considered, but because of the sensitive situation
between nephew and aunt, was dropped. Faust never got off the ground. Dante
having exhausted all of his performing opportunities in the U.S. and
frustrated in playing the second string theatres was forced by financial
considerations to gain his fame on foreign shores. He did not return until
after Thurston's death in 1936.
Let's look at the contrived passing of the 'mantle.' The most widely advanced
history regarding the purported succession of the 'mantle' begins with
Alexander Herrmann, then Harry Kellar followed by Howard Thurston and ending
with Dante. An alternate theory starts with Kellar to Thurston and ending with
Dante. This covers from 1896 to 1936. In the meantime, where does that put
Harry Houdini? Regardless of Houdini's mediocre ability as a magician, is he
to be excluded from this progression of magicians? And what about The Great
Blackstone? Upon the death of Thurston and with Dante out of the country for
many years, he naturally stepped into the position of America's favorite. Is
he also excluded in this passage of the 'mantle?' And currently, where does
that place Doug Henning, the late Harry Blackstone, Jr. and David Copperfield?
They all have certainly toured with large shows, played Broadway and endeared
themselves to the publics hearts. Were they also bypassed?
On October 15, 1939 Dante finally returned to the United States. Had he been
passed this 'mantle'? Reading correspondence between Thurston and Dante, Dante
had worked for Thurston and bought the show that Thurston had financed for him,
another business deal. By putting Dante out under his aegis, Thurston had
effectively eliminated one of his major competitors. There is only an
indication through personal corresponence that Dante was to succeed Thurston.
No public acknowledgement of this arrangement was ever made.
This article is not meant to discredit or malign the talents and achievements
of any of the magicians mentioned, but to bring into proper light the accurate
historical significance of the progression of magicians.
All the Best,
James Hamilton
San Francisco
Compars
NEAMDE
James, what a wonderful and informative posting. Thank you for taking the time
to share this. Just a couple of observations:
<snip>
>> On October 15, 1939 Dante finally returned to the United States. Had he been
passed this 'mantle'? Reading correspondence between Thurston and Dante, Dante
had worked for Thurston and bought the show that Thurston had financed for him,
another business deal...There is only an indication through personal
corresponence that Dante was to succeed Thurston. No public acknowledgement of
this arrangement was ever made<<
<snip>
I believe that this is true not only on the part of Howard Thurston -- who
never publicly named Dante as his successor -- but on Dante's part as well. I
do not believe Dante ever claimed that Thurston had passed "The Mantle of
Magic" on to him. For his part, Dante did at one point name a successor -- not
Lee Grabel but Stuart Raw -- but this did not come to pass. While Dante and
Grabel apparently had a business relationship during the last year's of Dante's
life, that is a far cry from him passing The Mantle of Magic to him. In fact,
as Phil Temple -- the author and publisher of Dante:the Devil Himself -- notes,
Grabel once wrote that he did not claim to be Dante's successor at the time of
Dante's death because "Dante's name was of no box office value at the time."
For Temple's take on this controversy, see MagicTimes (www.magictimes.com).
For more on the Thurston successor issue, see the thread on this newsgroup
titled "After Thurston..."
Michael Edwards
>>THE MANTLE OF MAGIC
>>By James Hamilton, A.I.M.C.
.
Iasa
I think Lance Burton is a terrific performer and had brought a lot to magic,
but I'm afraid his receiving the Mantle of Magic from Lee Grabel was little
more than a publicity stunt designed to heighten his reputation and bring folks
into the theater. But, of course, the Kellar-Thurston arrangement was designed
to do that too....and to put a few more dollars into Mr. Kellar's pockets.
Magic is a wonderful art, great entertainment and even -- as those
Mystery-school kinda guys note --full of deep meaning. But it is also a
business. And in virtually every instance, the question of a magician's
successor has boiled down not to who is the next greatest performer, but to the
dollars and cents -- with a smattering of personal ambition and friendships
mixed in.
Ian
Iasa
On rereading my previous posting, I can see that some might feel that I was
being a bit too cynical. That wasn't my intention. I just wanted to
differentiate between magic historians -- or even the general public --
assessing the lineage of the "world's premier magician"and the personal and
financial arrangements made by showmen to capitalize on the notoriety of their
predecessors. I hope no one was offended.
Ian
NEAMDE
In article <199806241052...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ia...@aol.com
(Iasa) writes:
>>...little more than a publicity stunt designed to heighten his reputation and
bring folks into the theater. But, of course, the Kellar-Thurston arrangement
was designed to do that too....and to put a few more dollars into Mr. Kellar's
pockets.<<
I guess I'd put it a bit differently. Kellar was a rather astute businessman.
He had been performing for forty-seven years and had made a great deal of
money. But his eyesight was failing and he looked forward to a secure
retirement. The arrangement he made with Howard Thurston was in the personal
and financial interests of both men (though during their last tour together,
Thurston was actually losing money). Thurston said that he paid Kellar $6000
for the show. In fact, this may have just been the down payment. Of course,
he wasn't just purchasing the illusions. He was buying Kellar's name,
reputation, and route.
In truth, Kellar and Thurston did not always agree on how to present a large
magic show. And there were moments that Kellar had wished he had not sold the
show to him. But "the mantle" was passed during the final perfomance of the
Kellar-Thurston Mysteries on May 16, 1908 in Ford's Opera House in Baltimore.
What was actually handed from the older magician to the younger was Kellar's
wand. I know of no evidence that Kellar really placed a cloak on Thurston's
shoulders. That image comes from the wonderful Strobridge lithograph
"Thurston, Kellar's Successor -- Invested with the Mantle of Magic."
Michael Edwards
RobBlock2
com...@aol.com (Compars) writes:
>on the recent PBS special, "The Art of Magic" ...Johnny Thompson who sees
>Burton, not as another magician, but as the next magician. "There is a
>lineage
>in magic, Kellar at the turn of the century was the leading magician in this
>country and he passed his mantle of magic to a man named Howard Thurston.
>Dante
>received the mantle of magic from Thurston. Dante passed the mantle of magic
>onto a man named Lee Grable, and just recently Lee Grable passed the mantle
>on to Lance Burton."
James,
A wonderful essay. This brought back to my mind something that I wonderered
about when first watching "The Art of Magic". I know very little about Lee
Grable. Who was this magician, what is his history and what were the
circumstances of his "passing the mantle" to Lance Burton?
Rob Block
Iasa
RobBlock2 wrote:
>> This brought back to my mind something that I wonderered about when first
watching "The Art of Magic". I know very little about Lee Grable. Who was
this magician...<<
Lee Grabel was born in Portland, Oregon in 1919. He trouped a pretty large
illusion show in the 1940's and 50's. Many remember him for his performance of
The Floating Piano. I have heard he was an exceptionally talented performer and
this is born out in a review of his September 1956 show at the Memorial
Auditorium in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, in Arnold Furst's Famous Magicians of the
World. For further info, you can check out Ormand McGill's TheMagic and
Illusions of Lee Grabel (there was a recent posting from Denny Heany about this
book here on alt.magic.history). But his talent and these two texts
notwithstanding, it is virtually impossible to find even a slight reference to
him in any of the major magic history books -- not in Price, Christopher,
Dawes, Clark, Randi, or the Fisher's books. That alone should tell you
something about his claim to "The Mantle of Magic."
Ian
Bart Bosco
><
>
>Lee Grabel was born in Portland, Oregon in 1919. He trouped a pretty large
>illusion show in the 1940's and 50's. Many remember him for his performance
>of
>The Floating Piano. I have heard he was an exceptionally talented performer
>and
>this is born out in a review of his September 1956 show at the Memorial
>Auditorium in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, in Arnold Furst's Famous Magicians of the
>World. For further info, you can check out Ormand McGill's TheMagic and
>Illusions of Lee Grabel (there was a recent posting from Denny Heany about
>this
>book here on alt.magic.history). But his talent and these two texts
>notwithstanding, it is virtually impossible to find even a slight reference
>to
>him in any of the major magic history books -- not in Price, Christopher,
>Dawes, Clark, Randi, or the Fisher's books. That alone should tell you
>something about his claim to "The Mantle of Magic."
>
>Ian
Phil Temple is the one to ask regarding this Mantle of Magic nonsense. He's a
Dante expert and has all the notes, records, and so on. Personally, I think
it's a bunch of hokum.
Now, in all fairness to Lee Grabel, I saw his touring show twice over the
years, and it was wonderful. He is a talented perfromer and he did it all.
Miser's Dream, illusions, cigs, escapes, and even the floating piano. I saw it
once in the 50s and once in the 60s just as he was ready to retire the show.
It was as good a magic show as I've ever seen.
It is correct that he is seldom mentioned in any publications. His career
involved touring the back woods towns off the beaten path. He would play small
towns like Riverton, Wyoming and places like that. His venue was often in a
school auditorium in towns having no more than 3000 people.
Lee Grabel was what every kid wants to be when they think about a magician. He
looked the part, played the part, and his magic was flawless.
All that being said, I can't get excited about the Mantle business
Bart Bosco
AlFlosso
The previous postings on the issue of the passing of the mantle through Lee
Grabel to Lance Burton -- as well as Phil Temple's fine article on the web to
which someone made reference, more than adequately cover the field. I was
surprised to learn that Burton claims to have inherited the mantle -- and had
constructed an entire theater wall mural that graphically demonstrates the
"passing." My efforts to dissuade some researches of this notion took some
doing.
However, it is interesting to note that shortly after Thurston's death, his
press agent wrote to Dante, noting "it seems that every magician that Thurston
ever spoke to or shook hands with in the past thirty years is claiming the
Thurston crown. The worse the magician, the harded [sic] he is claiming the
title."
I guess this kind of tomfoolery should be expected among magicians, trained
deceivers who make their living via publicity. [After all, based on their
publicity, every magician is the "world's greatest." And if Lance's claim
gets his fans interested in the grand traditions of our art, so much the
better. But here at alt.magic.hsitory, we have to keep the record straight!
Gary Brown
Serendip69
Hi Everyone,
I have to agree with Bart Bosco, it is all a bunch of nonsense! In a
historical context, I view it as an one-time publicity stunt in 1908! I find
nothing wrong with publicity stunts, but I just get frustrated when historical
facts are distorted or overlooked.
My research was not meant to lessen the significance of any of the performers
cited. They were/are all very fine performers. I did this research
independent of Phil Temple, although he and I compared notes. Hope I got the
facts straight!
I personally consider Lance to be one of the very top magicians in our
business. Lee and Helene Grabel live here in the Bay Area and are dear
friends. I have seen Lee perform several times and he is a delightful and
skilfull magician.
I hope this encourages all of you to get out your archeologists hats and do
some intense research on subjects that are of particular interest to you...and
then share the fruits of your labors with us. We have such a fascinating
history!
All the Best,
James Hamilton
San Francisco
P.S.: For further reading I recommend Phil Temple's publications - "Dante, The
Devil Himself," "Our Life in Magic," and "The Thurston/Dante Letterset."
These will shed more light on Thurston and Dante.
AGUY MAGIC
about the mantle of magic... LOL (not again)
Hello everyone. I'm new to the alt.magic.history newsgroup, so your patience
and understanding would be greatly appreciated if I overstep my boundries.Just
a few quick observations that I couldn't help but notice during the "1998
Mantle Posting Record Breaker Topic".
In the mentioning of the Thurston "show units" in one of the early posts
responding to the "mantle", brother Harry Thurston wasn't mentioned as being
one of the units that attempted to tour with the Thurston show. Speaking of how
the "Magic Mantle" was passed from generation to generation, I would think
blood is thicker than water, and I found it ironic that brother Harry wasn't
mentioned. I'm sure it was an accidental oversight, since judging by the
reading in this newsgroup, most of you guys know what you're talking about.
That's great to see.
As far as checking the "Magic Bibles" for tips and clues on the passing of the
mantle, you can't go by them. Although they attempt to provide useful
information (and most do), listing RANDI's book among them, as a barometer by
which to go by, is a great misjustice to our art. He has left out QUITE a bit
of info on the famous working magicians, and tried to "predict" the names for
the upcoming stars of magic. Unsuccessfully may I add. The names that were
unknown in Randi's book, are, pretty much, still unknown, and have not yet
"made-it" to this day. Just my opinion, but that book doesn't cut it as far as
representing this art the way it should be represented. A better name for that
book would have been "A Spirit Among The Magicians". I apologize for the
bluntness here and now, but I must speak my mind. And I am a big Randi fan,
trust me on that.
The "Mantle" passing is a great topic, but like so many of you, I also think
that it was a business deal, rather than an actual "carry the torch" deal.
Excuse me for what I'm about to say, for I mean no disrespect... but for all we
know, the "mantle" could have been pooped on by the many pidgions in Heany's
barn!
Bottom line is this... The WORLD's GREATEST MAGICIAN isn't the one who gets
handed a "mantle". He isn't the one that claims the mantle either. He isn't the
one with the biggest stage show, or highest rated TV spot. Nor is he the one
with the largest poster or most colorful billboard.
He is the one we each remember, whom ever he may be, that first ignited an
interest in our brains and a twinkle in our eye. He is the one that allowed us
to experience what we thought was "real magic" for the first time. Mantle or no
mantle, we each can remember our first "magic". After all, it was that
experience that lead us here.
Thanks for reading this... AGUY MAGIC
Compars
Thanks Scott!
A nice observation that every magic history book is not necessarily an accurate
history. Even with their short comings I feel that Christophers and Prices
books are pretty accurate and fair overall history of magic. Of course, some
of the recent individual biographies are add all the details that are
impossible to include in general history books.
I am not real clear on this, but I seem to remember hearing that Harry Thurston
was not all that interested in taking out "the show" which he did for a short
time. He was a silent partner to his brother and backed Howard in the later
years. I guess the best information about Harry is in "Inside Magic" by Boston
and Parrish. Been awhile since I read it, MMmmmm, another one I should
re-read.
I think it is great how one topic leads to another. Eventually we start to see
the complete picture of our fantastic art.
All the Best,
James Hamilton
San Francisco
Compars
AGUY MAGIC
James Hamilton -
I'm not to clear on brother Harry's interest in Howard Thurston's show
either, or the biz dealings between them. I just mentioned it because I
recently found out (from Michael Edwards,a big thank you to him) that the props
from Harry's show were the ones used in the "Will Rock" version of Thurston's
touring show. I was always under the impression that Will Rock used Howard's
original props but I see I was wrong thanks to the Heany barn finding.
I also agree that Milbourne Christopher's "The Illustrated History Of Magic" is
probably one of the most accurate books excluding the inside trade books which
deal in more detail.
A very good account of the past, which is brief but seems to be pretty darn
accurate, is the Charles and Regina Reynolds book "100 Years Of Magic Posters".
They thank David Price and Jay Marshall. The book is also dedicated as such-
"To: Al Flosso... The Coney Island Fakir". Ironically, an Al Flosso poster
doesn't appear in the book. I wish the book was still available, as I want
another copy to display the posters during my shows, and I hate to take apart
the one I have. Know of anyone selling a decent copy?
AGUY MAGIC (Scott)
AlFlosso
>A very good account of the past, which is brief but seems to be pretty darn
>accurate, is the Charles and Regina Reynolds book "100 Years Of Magic
>Posters".
>They thank David Price and Jay Marshall. The book is also dedicated as such-
>"To: Al Flosso... The Coney Island Fakir". Ironically, an Al Flosso poster
>doesn't appear in the book.
Scott - You're quite right -- it's a wonderful book with terrific
illustrations and fine historical detail. There's a simple answer as to why
there's no Al Flosso poster in the book -- to my knowledge, there never was a
Flosso poster. The closest thing I could find was an old sideshow banner --
reproduced in black and white in the Sphinx -- from Flosso's Coney Island days.
Unfortunately, the original banner was destroyed and I don't believe that a
color reproduction exists.
>I wish the book was still available, as I want
>another copy to display the posters during my shows, and I hate to take apart
>the one I have. Know of anyone selling a decent copy?
Though some 60,000 copies were printed, *100 Years of Magic Posters* sold out
its entire print run, and the book is extremely difficult to find. There are
probably two reasons for this: first, the book appealed to graphic artists and
art lovers in addition to magic fans, and second, a number of copies were
certainly hacked up so the prints could be framed. It really should be
reprinted.
>I also agree that Milbourne Christopher's "The Illustrated History Of Magic"
>is
>probably one of the most accurate books excluding the inside trade books
>which
>deal in more detail.
There's also another industry title worth mentioning: TA Waters *Encyclopedia
of Magic and Magicians*. A fantastic reference work, the *Encyclopedia* is a
great tool to find a quick answer about a wide range of performers and effects.
Gary Brown
Gary Hunt
One quick note. The most used reference in my library is Bart Whaley's
"Who's Who in Magic". It is out of print, but well worth the time and cost
of getting. It is 466 pages long and gives a very short bio of hundreds of
magicians. A great place to start in tracking down information.
Gary Hunt
AGUY MAGIC
Thanks everyone! I'll look into both the TA WATERS Encylopedia (Thanks Gary
Brown) and BART WHALEY'S Who's Who (Thanks Gary Hunt).
About there being no Al Flosso poster... I wasn't sure, but I didn't remember
seeing an official poster of him, but there could have been at least a photo or
something included in the book "100 Years of MP". There is a big blank space
next to the dedication, surely a photo could have fit there. Oh well, it was
nice that Charles Reynolds dedicated it to him in the first place, so I
shouldn't complain.
Thanks again, Scott
NEAMDE
> aguy...@aol.com (AGUY MAGIC) wrote
>Thanks everyone! I'll look into both the TA WATERS Encylopedia (Thanks Gary
>Brown) and BART WHALEY'S Who's Who (Thanks Gary Hunt).
There have already been a number of threads on this newgroups about magic
history books and references. In fact, the FAQ for alt.magic.history contains
a guide based on an article that Gary Brown and I wrote on the subject (and
which can still be found on Gary Hunt's wonderful Magical Pasttimes
(http://www.uelectric.com/pastimes). But I have been keeping track of the
references I personally used the most over the past two months and it goes like
this (in order of usage):
1. David Price's Magic: A Pictoral History of Conjurers in the Theater
2. Bart Whaley's Who's Who in Magic
3. Milbourne Christopher's Illustrated History of Magic
4. Edwin Dawes' The Great Illusionists
5. Professor Hoffmann's Modern Magic
6. John Fisher's Paul Daniels and the Story of Magic
7. T.A. Waters' Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians
8. Arnold Furst's Famous Magicians of the World & his Great Magic Shows (I
nedver seem to pull out one without the other)
9. Edward Claflin and Jeff Sheridan's Street Magic
10. Charles & Regina Reynold's 100 Years of Magic Posters
This isn't meant to rank order these books in any other way than how often I
myself turn to them. But given Scott's comments, I thought this list might be
of some interest.
Michael Edwards
AGUY MAGIC
Thanks Michael Edwards. I've copied the list. I have some you've listed, need
to get some others. As you know, book collecting can certainly take up lots of
space, so I don't have all the titles that I really want.
Scott Interrante