Finding Israel Schwartz

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi All,

Israel Schwartz.

How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].

Regards,

Simon

ChatGPT:

To give the appearance of being in the theatrical line, a person might consider dressing in a way that reflects creativity, expression, and an understanding of the performing arts. Here are some general tips for achieving a theatrical look:

1. Bold and Expressive Clothing: Theatrical attire often involves bold, vibrant colors and unconventional styles. Consider wearing clothing that stands out and expresses a unique personality.
2. Costume Pieces: Incorporate elements that resemble costumes. This could include statement accessories, dramatic headpieces, capes, or theatrical makeup. These elements can convey a sense of artistic flair.
3. Layers and Textures: Experiment with layers and textures to create a visually interesting ensemble. Mixing different fabrics, patterns, and textures can add depth to your look.
4. Accessories: Statement accessories such as oversized jewelry, hats, gloves, or even props like a fake microphone, can contribute to a theatrical appearance.
5. Dramatic Makeup: Pay attention to makeup. Bold eyeshadow, eyeliner, and lipstick choices can enhance the theatrical effect. Consider using makeup to create dramatic expressions or features.
6. Footwear: Shoes can be an essential part of the overall look. Depending on the character or style you're trying to embody, consider footwear that complements the outfit.
7. Hairstyle: Hairstyling can also play a significant role. Elaborate updos, wigs, or even colorful hair extensions can add to the theatrical effect.
8. Character Inspiration: If you have a specific theatrical character or style in mind, draw inspiration from their costumes and looks. This could be anything from classic Shakespearean garb to avant-garde avant-garde performance art.
9. Confidence and Poise: Theatricality isn't just about what you wear; it's also about how you carry yourself. Walk with confidence, use expressive gestures, and maintain good posture.
10. Personal Interpretation: Ultimately, the theatrical look is subjective and can be open to personal interpretation. It's about expressing creativity and individuality, so don't be afraid to take risks and have fun with it.

Remember, the key to achieving a theatrical appearance is to embrace creativity and expressiveness. Whether you're drawing inspiration from specific characters or creating your own unique style, the goal is to convey a sense of theatricality and artistic flair through your clothing and overall presentation.

[joelhall]

Hi All,

Israel Schwartz.

How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].

Regards,

Simon

I would imagine he would have looked as if he were dressed in theatrical garb: I.e. what a Londoner may have thought when looking at a Haredi man.

[Wickerman]

My guess would be, for the period, somewhat loudly Simon. Mismatched patterns, dramatic moustache, that kind of thing. Attention seeking.

Schwartz being in "the theatrical line" must surely mean in an official capacity; managerial staff or official.

Henry Irving was not only a leading man, but a theater manager.
His street attire reflects his position in life. Here he is seen leaving the Lyceum (in top hat - center).
Apologies for the size of this pic, didn't have the means to reduce it.



Victorian Britain being the distinctly class-based society it was expected everyone to dress according to their position in life.
Today we find this difficult to visualize, we cannot tell a banker from a doctor, a lawyer, or a clerk. But in the 19th century there were very definite articles of clothing which set one profession aside from another.

[jason_c]

Flamboyantly, I suppose, but I don't think we're talking Quentin Crisp here.

This made me laugh.

[jason_c]

Maybe it was just a cultural difference Simon, someone maybe who had over exaggerated speech and mannerisms (not common to the british).

Or could they have meant somebody who appeared gay? Or the clothing?
Hard to say.
What were London theatrical men like back then I wonder?

Pat.......

This is what I had previously suspected on here but the idea was dismissed. I have an amateur interest in Shakespeare. I remember reading that Shakespeare's ear-ring signified roughly what ear-rings do today; a bit flamboyant and fashionable. I think Schwartz may have worn Victorian equivalent of a bit of bling, and perhaps a few frills on his clothing too. Im imagining Schwartz looking part gypsy, part dandy. Perhaps with a fetching looking hat.

[Paddy]

Thank you very much Debra,

So if they started school in 2-88 that means February right ? That narrows it down quite a bit.
So it is possible the Aaronsons had moved to Ellen Street between October 1886 and February 1888. Also possibly living at 22 Ellen Street after feb 1888
I seem to remember thinking no 22 Ellen Street was Israels wifes familys address is that right do you know?
I found a John McDuell at 22 Ellen street in the St George in the East 1887 Electoral roll but I am not sure if he would be a lodger or owner?

Pat.........

[Debra A]

Pat
It looks like this family were at 45 Boyd St in 1888. I think it's probably the same father in both admissions despite the surname difference:

Name Date of Birth
Date Admitted
Number
Last School Parent or Guardian Address Date Left
Reason Left Notes

Deborah 09-1879
05-03-1888
13795
Simon SHEROTSKY 45 Boyd St 06-1891

Jews' Free School London

Betsy 06-04-1869
16-10-1876


Simon KARETSKY 45 Boyd St 02-1888

Jews' Free School London

[Paddy]

Alexander Aaronson

I received Alexanders' birth certificate that I had been waiting for and it gave the address of 45 Boyd street.
So I still dont know when they moved from Boyd street to Ellen street, only that it was between 1886 and 1890. So frustrating but still possible. I now have to try and see who moved into Boyd street.
If anyone can come up with any ideas ? I have tried the electoral registers.

Pat........

[Robert]

I imagine the trouble was that, just as Liz and BS were having their bust-up, Schwarz came along and rather tactlessly serenaded them with his gypsy violin.

[Abby Normal]

Maybe he was a Gypsy they went in for quite strange frock type things He He !
Maybe Jack was shouting Gypsy not Lipsky ?? (only joking)

Pat

Brilliant!
and cool pic

[Paddy]

Maybe he was a Gypsy they went in for quite strange frock type things He He !
Maybe Jack was shouting Gypsy not Lipsky ?? (only joking)

Pat

[Michael W Richards]

Hi All,

Israel Schwartz.

How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].

Regards,

Simon

My guess would be, for the period, somewhat loudly Simon. Mismatched patterns, dramatic moustache, that kind of thing. Attention seeking.

[Michael W Richards]

It is often remarked that the Schwartz account is uncorroborated - sometimes implying that an incident which is seen by only one person can be safely dismissed as not having taken place at all.

On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?

Maybe because in his account the soon to be deceased was actually being assaulted minutes before her throat was cut..once. Neither of the other 2 mentioned that they saw anything like an assault.

Serious suspicions about Lechmeres possible guilt are held almost exclusively by a single poster here.

[Abby Normal]

It is often remarked that the Schwartz account is uncorroborated - sometimes implying that an incident which is seen by only one person can be safely dismissed as not having taken place at all.

On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?

Normally I would agree and would say he should also be at least a person of interest. But his suspect matches the other witnesses suspect descriptions, and specifically the peaked cap.

[Paddy]

On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?

Bridewell
They do say the last one to see the victim is high on the list. We are told Hutch had been to Romford and he knew Mary an other bits of info. We also know Lechmere was going to work, where he worked, the route etc. I dont think one can suspect Schwartz just yet as we know nothing about him at all. Once we know a bit I am sure he will join the others as suspects. Who knows maybe he was Jack ?

Pat.....