March 19, 1975 (8 pages)

a ———_ ee e Eccentric Mer A Nearer ere EO gy me M ne eo, oe 2 mee AND THE NEWSPAPERS ‘ Doris Foley ning to the dogs and give the star a chance; 1e every night his graceful winning ways with cabbages, more valued than bouquets, amily, and though the bouquets sweet, ly fit to smell, the cabbages to eat. o papers of 1853 do not report any lashing yect Lola to do. She withdrew into seclusion, ing within. Fortunately her engagement at > had ended, and she was not subjected to IS. came the most popular hit of the season, as llowing newspaper accounts: rald, June 24, 1853: ‘‘This establishment was loft’ last evening as it doubtless will be for uring the continuance of the new burlesque 5, 1853: ‘A new burlesque and extravaganza ring the past week written by Dr. Robinson. o have been to see it have heard the gossip of lic since it was put on the stage. . .”” June 26, 1853: ‘‘Dr. Robinson’s new burlesque e Countess?’ has filled the San Francisco g every evening during the week. The parts esque by Miss Caroline Chapman, and Mr. f themselves equal to a five-act tragedy. We upon producing the first successful-original is capital, but we do think ‘Billy’ in his ‘Spider ittle too thick.”’ June 26, 1853: “The new burlesque still ed with unbounded applause and immoderate 28, 1853: ‘‘ ‘Who’s Got The Countess?’ was vith its local hits and extravaganza burlesque a roar of laughter.” . the performance, however, protested in a incisco Herald: ; “San Francisco, California June 26, 1853 ld: ess for the second time the new local burlesque ‘an Francisco Theatre last evening. I happened rst presentation, when taken by surprise by the » and carried completely away by the drollery formers, I laughed with the loudest, and ) the enjoyment of the moment without thinking it the object or the effect of the piece. A second iss Chapman’s comic bravura, and Mr. 1e dance, which after all are the great points in ake the whole affair . . an exceedingly coarse upon one who, whatever her faults and foible ; proved herself a noble-hearted and generous ttle deserves that her exertions in behalf of _. be repaid by ridicule and scurrility. after serious reflection on the character and tez while a visitor among us can go and witness: delight a vulgar misrepresentation of her or, and ridiculous caricature of her person and ion of her peculiarities? ant Firemen of San Francisco, of whom she ch heartfelt enthusiasm and to whose noble ely and voluntarily contributed thousands of embers of the Benevolent Association for whom uch pleasure, well knowing that the wide spread ; not confined by-prejudices of race or religion. who through you have become the grateful yunty. Not anyone who possesses a particle of chivalry, or a feeling of sympathy for an vely, generous confiding woman. . . ances as the ‘Spy Dear’ dance are at any rate of fun; and. occasionally amusing, but a lady! If no gratitude is left for her benevolence, good decreed at least that her name and character icly ridiculed and outraged in this community, there is another stringent reason why this effort ot have been placed before the public. There AS PART OWNER of the San Francisco Theatre, Dr. David G. (Yankee) Robinson gained immense popularity through his impromptu rhyming,.and many wellknow citizens felt the brunt of his ribald rhymes. So greatly were these relished by the audiences of the fifties, the yankee doctor gained in favor and was made an alderman on the first San Francisco Board. In 1852, he was even seriously considered a likely candidate for mayor. : ‘ (Photo courtesy of the California State Library, Sacramento) . probably never was or ever will be an actress in San Francisco who has made more warm friends than Miss Caroline Chapman. She can play anything and everything and do it well. . . and I cannot believe that lowering her in this manner to a more profaned depth than I supposed low comedy to be capable of, can be any more agreeable to herself than it is to her admirers. ‘It’s really not at all in her way.’ No! No! We’ve had enough of this . . .Give us ‘Beauty’ again, charming Carry and don’t let them make a mule of you any longer,S”’ 1 a patrick Hull, the young Irish publisher of the San Francisco Whig, whom Lola had met on her trip to California, assumed the -role of protector and friend. His paper criticized the humor of the burlesque at regular intervals. San Francisco Whig, June 21, 1853: ‘We can hardly join in the onslaught upon the opposite side of the house but nevertheless do say . .some instances came Pat to the point.” ; San Francisco Whig and Commercial Advertiser, June 27, 1853: “We would suggest that the ‘Spy Dear’ dance (by Wm. Chapman) be performed with a little more regard to the rules of propriety and with a more decided view of the careful arrangement of drapery.”The constant barrage stirred Dr. Robinson into writing the “Fighting Song.” It seems that a paper was published today, And about our burlesque it had much to say, : Tho’ filled up with falsehoods, one truth it betrayed That for hurling abuses ‘twas very well paid.” The stage is the public’s and here we should show All public abuses, or all that we know; Tho’ for telling the truth a paid press may blame We trust we shall live without chaning our name. . .2 Now, one thing I’d have the Commercial folk know, If they in their paper each morning will blow, They shall find I will come with the greatest delight, And answer their blackguard here every night! The question of ‘‘Who’s Got The Countess?” was answered in the marriage of Lola and Pat on July 2, 1853. Although all incentive was gone, the burlesque did not end, but toured Sacramento and e. Marysville Herald, Oct. 19, 1853: “The most laughable burlesque of ‘Who’s Got The Countess?” was received with all the” demonstrations of mirth which the audience could bestow. We never saw a house so convulsed with laughter. We doubt whether Lola can excel Miss Chapman.”’ (CONTINUED NEXT WEEK) eS SS ——---—---=-_—w& SE as SE — a ee arch 19, 1975 The Nevada County Nugget 5 — the .othets

a ———_ ee e Eccentric Mer A Nearer ere EO gy me M ne eo, oe 2 mee AND THE NEWSPAPERS ‘ Doris Foley ning to the dogs and give the star a chance; 1e every night his graceful winning ways with cabbages, more valued than bouquets, amily, and though the bouquets sweet, ly fit to smell, the cabbages to eat. o papers of 1853 do not report any lashing yect Lola to do. She withdrew into seclusion, ing within. Fortunately her engagement at > had ended, and she was not subjected to IS. came the most popular hit of the season, as llowing newspaper accounts: rald, June 24, 1853: ‘‘This establishment was loft’ last evening as it doubtless will be for uring the continuance of the new burlesque 5, 1853: ‘A new burlesque and extravaganza ring the past week written by Dr. Robinson. o have been to see it have heard the gossip of lic since it was put on the stage. . .”” June 26, 1853: ‘‘Dr. Robinson’s new burlesque e Countess?’ has filled the San Francisco g every evening during the week. The parts esque by Miss Caroline Chapman, and Mr. f themselves equal to a five-act tragedy. We upon producing the first successful-original is capital, but we do think ‘Billy’ in his ‘Spider ittle too thick.”’ June 26, 1853: “The new burlesque still ed with unbounded applause and immoderate 28, 1853: ‘‘ ‘Who’s Got The Countess?’ was vith its local hits and extravaganza burlesque a roar of laughter.” . the performance, however, protested in a incisco Herald: ; “San Francisco, California June 26, 1853 ld: ess for the second time the new local burlesque ‘an Francisco Theatre last evening. I happened rst presentation, when taken by surprise by the » and carried completely away by the drollery formers, I laughed with the loudest, and ) the enjoyment of the moment without thinking it the object or the effect of the piece. A second iss Chapman’s comic bravura, and Mr. 1e dance, which after all are the great points in ake the whole affair . . an exceedingly coarse upon one who, whatever her faults and foible ; proved herself a noble-hearted and generous ttle deserves that her exertions in behalf of _. be repaid by ridicule and scurrility. after serious reflection on the character and tez while a visitor among us can go and witness: delight a vulgar misrepresentation of her or, and ridiculous caricature of her person and ion of her peculiarities? ant Firemen of San Francisco, of whom she ch heartfelt enthusiasm and to whose noble ely and voluntarily contributed thousands of embers of the Benevolent Association for whom uch pleasure, well knowing that the wide spread ; not confined by-prejudices of race or religion.

who through you have become the grateful yunty. Not anyone who possesses a particle of chivalry, or a feeling of sympathy for an vely, generous confiding woman. . . ances as the ‘Spy Dear’ dance are at any rate of fun; and. occasionally amusing, but a lady! If no gratitude is left for her benevolence, good decreed at least that her name and character icly ridiculed and outraged in this community, there is another stringent reason why this effort ot have been placed before the public. There AS PART OWNER of the San Francisco Theatre, Dr. David G. (Yankee) Robinson gained immense popularity through his impromptu rhyming,.and many wellknow citizens felt the brunt of his ribald rhymes. So greatly were these relished by the audiences of the fifties, the yankee doctor gained in favor and was made an alderman on the first San Francisco Board. In 1852, he was even seriously considered a likely candidate for mayor. : ‘ (Photo courtesy of the California State Library, Sacramento) . probably never was or ever will be an actress in San Francisco who has made more warm friends than Miss Caroline Chapman. She can play anything and everything and do it well. . . and I cannot believe that lowering her in this manner to a more profaned depth than I supposed low comedy to be capable of, can be any more agreeable to herself than it is to her admirers. ‘It’s really not at all in her way.’ No! No! We’ve had enough of this . . .Give us ‘Beauty’ again, charming Carry and don’t let them make a mule of you any longer,S”’ 1 a patrick Hull, the young Irish publisher of the San Francisco Whig, whom Lola had met on her trip to California, assumed the -role of protector and friend. His paper criticized the humor of the burlesque at regular intervals. San Francisco Whig, June 21, 1853: ‘We can hardly join in the onslaught upon the opposite side of the house but nevertheless do say . .some instances came Pat to the point.” ; San Francisco Whig and Commercial Advertiser, June 27, 1853: “We would suggest that the ‘Spy Dear’ dance (by Wm. Chapman) be performed with a little more regard to the rules of propriety and with a more decided view of the careful arrangement of drapery.”The constant barrage stirred Dr. Robinson into writing the “Fighting Song.” It seems that a paper was published today, And about our burlesque it had much to say, : Tho’ filled up with falsehoods, one truth it betrayed That for hurling abuses ‘twas very well paid.” The stage is the public’s and here we should show All public abuses, or all that we know; Tho’ for telling the truth a paid press may blame We trust we shall live without chaning our name. . .2 Now, one thing I’d have the Commercial folk know, If they in their paper each morning will blow, They shall find I will come with the greatest delight, And answer their blackguard here every night! The question of ‘‘Who’s Got The Countess?” was answered in the marriage of Lola and Pat on July 2, 1853. Although all incentive was gone, the burlesque did not end, but toured Sacramento and e. Marysville Herald, Oct. 19, 1853: “The most laughable burlesque of ‘Who’s Got The Countess?” was received with all the” demonstrations of mirth which the audience could bestow. We never saw a house so convulsed with laughter. We doubt whether Lola can excel Miss Chapman.”’ (CONTINUED NEXT WEEK) eS SS ——---—---=-_—w& SE as SE — a ee arch 19, 1975 The Nevada County Nugget 5 — the .othets