Schwartz, a fraud?

[The Grave Maurice]

Although I've said this before, I'm going to say it again because it always makes me laugh. Schwartz was still in his theatrical makeup, and BS man didn't say "Lipski", he said, in disbelief, "Lipstick!". Ha!!

(I believe this joke doesn't work over the pond because, in England, lipstick is called "lipvarnish" or summat.)

[mariab]

Wow! That's a good one (with the lipstick)!
A nice weekend to all. (I'm in Ahens, Greece, waiting while my mom is “altering“ my surf shorts to go to the beach. Although it's everything but a warm day –yet.)
Best regards,
Maria

[Chris]

Chris, do we by any chance have any records at all of Israel Schwartz having engaged in the theater? Lynn Cates is looking for that, but with no success so far. The attempt at research in theater records might be an exercise in futility, since the testimonies say nothing concrete, just that Schwartz was “of a theatrical appearance“.

No, unfortunately not. Nor any references to Hungary, which is the one real discrepancy in the identification of him as the witness.

[Errata]

No, unfortunately not. Nor any references to Hungary, which is the one real discrepancy in the identification of him as the witness.

I think "theatrical appearance" refers to eccentricity or dress or feature. The Neo-Raphaelites were described that way. I think it also refers to dramatic or stereotypical appearance or gesture. Flamboyant dress or manner, dramatic gestures, all of these can lend to a "theatrical appearance". My bet is it refers to someone whose stereotypical looks or features are strongly reminiscent of Caricatures seen in popular theater and music halls. Someone who had a dark hair, mustache and goatee and looked like a stereotypical "villain" would be described that way. I imagine a man with stereotypical Jewish features and dress, who strongly resembled the Jewish caricatures on stage might also be described that way. Just a thought.

[mariab]

That's a pity! Gareth Williams has done some additional research in Poland for Klosowski (and he talked about it during the recent conference in Whitechapel). I don't know if anyone has attempted anything in Hungary for Schwartz. (Am I correct to assume that we have hardly any information on Schwartz vs. information on Lawende?)
I hope everyone had a nice weekend. I've had such a beautiful day! Until a little while ago I was swimming in different creeks at a place close to Marathon, Greece. Then we walked a few miles, over the water cliffs and among beautiful (and wonderfully smelling) vegetation, up to a harbor town to get the bus back to Athens. Now I almost feel like I just run a marathon, but in a good way. (As we essentially walked, then took the bus on the exact same route where the historical Marathon run happened!)

[Chris]

Errata

The trouble is that the newspaper report didn't just say he had a "theatrical appearance"; it said he "had the appearance of being in the theatrical line." But of course appearances can be deceptive.

[mariab]

To Chris:
One of the newspaper reports (was it The Echo?) simply said “a theatrical appearance“. I'm sorry, but I can only check it out much later tonight.

Errata wrote:
I imagine a man with stereotypical Jewish features and dress, who strongly resembled the Jewish caricatures on stage might also be described that way. Just a thought.
I definitely think there might be something in what you're saying. Jewish stereotyping, attacking and caricaturizing occurred a lot in the press in the 19th century, both in London and Paris. (Successful, established Jewish personalities such as the baron Rotchild and the composer Giacomo Meyerbeer were not spared.)

[Chris]

To Chris:
One of the newspaper reports (was it The Echo?) simply said “a theatrical appearance“. I'm sorry, but I can only check it out much later tonight.

No - the Star says what I quoted above, and as far as I know that's the only newspaper that contains any detail at all on Schwartz.

[mariab]

I just checked the Star again, and what it says is “This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line.“ Very possibly the quote I recall about Schwartz “having a theatrical appearance“ simply comes from some thread.
I'd very much like to conduct a bit of research on Schwartz from different perspectives, but it won't be possible before November at the earliest.

[packers stem]

Errata

The trouble is that the newspaper report didn't just say he had a "theatrical appearance"; it said he "had the appearance of being in the theatrical line." But of course appearances can be deceptive.

Bit irrelevant really as they both mean exactly the same thing do they not.
If someone was described as having a 'lower class appearance' or 'having the appearance of being from the lower classes' would we see a difference in the two statements?It's just the english language and the way the writer chooses to set out the sentence.

[mariab]

I'm not sure it's the same. “The appearance of being in the theatrical line" is totally clear (while the details from which this impression was gained are missing), but "had a theatrical appearance" could mean different things. It could even mean (stretching it a bit) that Schwartz' testimony appeared “staged“, that he described the events of the evening of September 30 in an exaggerated, not convincing fashion.

[packers stem]

Sorry Maria but this has got to be the finest hair splitting i've ever seen in connection with a statement.

[Chris]

Bit irrelevant really as they both mean exactly the same thing do they not.

No, they do not.

Errata suggested that a "theatrical appearance" might just mean that Schwartz looked like a stereotypical stage Jew. So it might, and that could be consistent with Abberline's observation (in relation to the significance of "Lipski") that he had a "strong jewish appearance."

But if you have the appearance of "being in the theatrical line," then that must mean that you look as though you are employed in a theatre, which is different from looking like a character on a stage.

[Observer]

Hi Chris

What do you suppose a person who has the appearance of "being in the theatrical line" would actually look like? Doublet and hose, and a skull parked in his right hand?

all ther best

Observer

[Errata]

No, they do not.

Errata suggested that a "theatrical appearance" might just mean that Schwartz looked like a stereotypical stage Jew. So it might, and that could be consistent with Abberline's observation (in relation to the significance of "Lipski") that he had a "strong jewish appearance."

But if you have the appearance of "being in the theatrical line," then that must mean that you look as though you are employed in a theatre, which is different from looking like a character on a stage.

Or a little of both. The Jews that middle to upper class people were most exposed to were in fact entertainers (barring Disraeli). Even the Divine Sarah was a Jew. It doesn't say that Schwartz is Jewish in the article.

I think "being in the theatrical line" is a euphemism for Jew. Lots of people thought that the only people in the entertainment industries were whores and Jews (Jews being the better end of that spectrum). And there was a certain amount of truth to that. I don't think it would be recognized in a modern context, but back then? But I think it's a euphemism along the lines of "confirmed bachelor" for a gay man, "full-figured" instead of fat, or "a great personality" instead of ugly.