The Pantheonic Statuette of Norton I
Life and Times of a Tribute Created Towards the End of the Emperor’s Life — And the Artist Who Created It
ONE CAN FIND numerous newspaper accounts, from during Emperor Norton’s lifetime, of photographs, paintings, and cartoons of the Emperor being displayed in shop windows.
Original paintings and cartoons often were available as lithographs — so, one could step into a shop and purchase a copy of what was in the window.
Larger photography studios, like Bradley & Rulofson and Thomas Houseworth & Co. — both of which made several photo portraits of the Emperor over the course of his imperial career — did a brisk business in “celebrity” photographs. These studios maintained celebrity catologs of their portraits. A customer of a given studio could browse the studio’s catalog; request that a cabinet card be made up for any celebrity listed; and purchase the card to add to their private collection.
Emperor Norton is listed in the “Odds and Ends” section of Bradley & Rulofson’s catalog for 1878:
"Odds and Ends" section of Bradley & Rulofson's Celebrity Catalogue, 1878, p.46. Collection of the California State Library. Source: Internet Archive
In his 1986 biography of the Emperor, titled Norton I: Emperor of the United States, William Drury — as is his wont — takes all this quite a few steps further, writing in the following opening passage that Emperor Norton
was San Francisco's most popular tourist attraction. Those who came West on the transcontinental railroad knew all about the mad monarch from the travel books they had read. They bought picture postcards of Norton the First, Emperor Norton dolls in feathered hats, Emperor Norton Brand cigars with his portrait on the label, and colored lithographs of the Emperor to display beside the Currier prints in Victorian parlors.
As if to clarify when all this was meant to be happening, Drury later drops the following into a series of episodes that he situates in 1872:
San Francisco's gift shops were filled with souvenirs of His Majesty: Ed Jump's lithographs, Bradley & Rulofson's postcards, Emperor Norton statuettes, Emperor Norton dolls, Emperor Norton mugs and jugs, Emperor Norton Imperial Cigars.
In describing the scene at Emperor Norton’s funeral, Drury writes:
The peddlers were busy, selling souvenirs.
"Picture postcards of the Emp! Every one a living likeness!"
"Emperor Norton dolls!"'
"Cigars! Emperor Norton cigars!"
Except for the photographs and lithographs — which Drury does detail elsewhere in his book — every claim here is an unelaborated assertion that Drury doesn’t back with any documentation.
Was there really a robust market for Emperor Norton souvenirs during the Emperor’s lifetime? Was there a time, during this period, when Norton-themed trinkets were being retailed — and were as ubiquitous — as Drury claims?
If so, one would expect to see the existence of this market reflected in
newspaper advertising;
lengthier profiles of the Emperor published by Benjamin E. Lloyd, in his book Lights and Shades in San Francisco, in 1876 and by the San Francisco Chronicle in 1879;
notable accounts of the Emperor published in the memoirs of those who knew him — O.P. Fitzgerald in 1881 and Charles Murdock in 1921; and, of course,
the obituaries.
Were there really peddlers at Emperor Norton’s funeral hawking Emperor merch?
If so, one would expect to see this in news coverage of the funeral.
:: :: ::
ABSENT ANY countervailing evidence, I will continue to regard most of William Drury’s claims along these lines as what they appear to be: historical fiction.
But, to the extent that, during Emperor Norton’s lifetime, San Francisco artists and photographers did create and contribute to something that could be described as a “Norton tribute industry,” it’s worth taking a closer look at one late entry to the genre.
In his brief article, “Norton I: Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico,” published in the October 1923 number of the California Historical Society Quarterly, Robert Ernest Cowan notes:
A striking portrait of [Emperor Norton], painted by Benoni Irwin, was formerly in the chess-room of the Bohemian club, and a familiar little terra-cotta figure, possibly by Mezzara or Wells, may yet occasionally be seen.
Cowan’s description of a “little terra-cotta figure” tells us that he is referencing a statuette or figurine of some kind. Indeed, both Pietro Mezzara (1820–1883) and Francis Marion Wells (1848–1903) were well-regarded sculptors who spent significant portions of their professional lives in San Francisco — and whose time in the City overlapped Emperor Norton’s. So, Cowan’s guess was an educated one.
A few more important suggestions from Cowan’s description:
1) The statuette was a specific work.
2) The statuette had an artistic pedigree — it was not a work by an anonymous artist.
3) The statuette could have been known to some of the California Historical Society’s readers in 1923.
4) The statuette existed as an original with copies.
:: :: ::
THAT I’M AWARE, only one statuette of Emperor Norton answers to this description. It was sculpted by jeweler Herman Jacob Brand (1837–1914) in 1877.
Emperor Norton statuette, 1877, by Herman J. Brand (1837–1914). Plaster with metal walking stick, 22” x 7” x 7”. Collection of the Society of California Pioneers. The statuette was in the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF) collection for 91 years until FAMSF deaccessioned and transferred it to the Pioneers in late 2021. Photograph: FAMSF. Source: FAMSF
As we’ll see shortly, it appears that the Emperor himself may have kept one of these in his apartment at the Eureka Lodgings.
Apparently, Brand was born in Germany. Other details of his early life are elusive — including exactly when he arrived in San Francisco.
Brand’s younger brother Carl Jonas Brand (1843–1908) also was a jeweler. According to a biographical profile of the younger Brand published in 1924, when he left his birthplace of Rotenburg, Germany, for California in 1861, his older brother Herman — unnamed in the account — already was in San Francisco.
If the older Brand was in San Francisco by 1861, he might not have been there for long enough to establish a directory listing. Indeed, the following item from the Sacramento Daily Union has Herman Brand in Virginia City, Nev., in July 1863. *
“Serious Accident,” item on Herman Brand as a jeweler in Virginia City, Nev., Sacramento Daily Union, 11 July 1863, p. 2. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection
Brand — listed as “H. J. Brand” — first appears in the San Francisco directory of 1867, as a “jeweler with R.B. Gray & Co.” (The 1866 directory is lost — so, it’s possible that Brand was with R.B. Gray that year, too.)
In the city directories from 1869 to 1871, Brand is listed as a partner with Ernest Henrici in Henrici & Brand, manufacturing jewelers. (See page 303, column 2, in the 1869 directory here.)
This is notable, as the 1868 directory shows Ernest Henrici in partnership with Henry’s brother Jonas in Henrici & Brand, jewelry manufacturers. (See page 275, column 2, in the 1868 directory here.)
Consistent with the 1924 account that has Jonas Brand sailing for California in 1861, the first San Francisco listings for Jonas have him as a jeweler with F. Reichl in the directories of 1862–67. In 1869, he still is listed at Henrici & Brand — but not as a partner. The directory of 1870 is lost. But, in the 1871 and later directories, there is no listing for Jonas Brand.
The apparent partnership succession at Henrici & Brand from the younger Jonas Brand to the older Herman J. Brand raises a number of questions about the precise California movements and professional networks of the Brand brothers in the 1860s.
But, if Herman Brand was in San Francisco by 1861, then he was about 24.
For those keeping count, 1861 also is a year when Joshua Norton was a very new Emperor.
Starting with the directory of 1872, Herman J. Brand was listed as a solo practicing jeweler, and — except for the one year, 1879, when the directory showed the partnership of Brand & Weule — he continued to be listed this way through 1908.
For the majority of this period — the 23 years between 1875 and 1898 — Brand was located in the 200 block of Kearny Street, between Sutter and Bush.
Brand was living in San Francisco as late as 1909, the year of his last directory listing in the city. He was reported as living in Oakland when he died in 1914.
:: :: ::
IT’S INTERESTING to note the subtle shift in the directory listing for Henrici & Brand when Herman J. Brand arrived as a partner in 1869: from “jewelry manufacturers” to “manufacturing jewelers.”
Looking at the directories, it appears that the term “manufacturing jewelers” was being adopted by more and more jewelers during this period. But, perhaps, the term also better suited Brand’s conception of himself as being an artist and a sculptor first and foremost.
The brief listing for Herman J. Brand on one well-known website of historical artist biographies notes that Brand was a member of the San Francisco Art Association and this his work was exhibited at the Mark Hopkins Institute of Art in April 1906. (The Art Association did hold its spring exhibition at the Mark Hopkins Institute in early April 1906. The exhibit closed just a couple of days before the quake.)
Among his pursuits as a sculptor and jeweler, Brand was a medallionist. Today, his name most often comes up in the world of numismatics, where gold tokens and charms that he made between the early 1870s and mid 1880s are tracked in catalog and auction listings used by collectors and coin historians.
The “California miner” motif was a signature of Brand’s
Left (obverse) and right (reverse): 1883 octagonal half-dollar-sized gold “California Miner” token, by Herman J. Brand (1837–1914). Source: Collectors Society (see page 2 of listing)
The only other three-dimensional figurative sculpture of Brand’s that I've encountered is a rather fine plaster bust of the recently assassinated William McKinley (1843–1901) that he sculpted in 1902.
This sculpture was written up in newspapers coast to coast in 1902 and 1903. Seems that Brand actually was a friend of the McKinleys. He brought the plaster east to show it to Ida McKinley (William's widow) in the hope of gaining her approval — which he got.
The Smithsonian American Art Museum — then known as the National Museum of American Art — liked it so much that they ordered a bronze cast of it. Whether this ever was made, I’ve not been able to determine. But, a plaster — possibly the original? — is in the Smithsonian now. Maybe the museum just acquired it outright and never got around to making a bronze?
William McKinley, by Herman J. Brand (1837–1914). Plaster, 25¼ x 22⅜ x 11⅛ inches. Collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Source: SAAM
:: :: ::
BUT, WHAT interests us here is the Emperor Norton statuette that Brand created 25 years earlier, in 1877. There are images of three known copies:
1
SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA PIONEERS
For 90 years, the ivory-colored example shown above was in the collection of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF: de Young / Legion of Honor).
An online FAMSF listing archived in April 2016 identifies this example as a “plaster” work from “ca.1875” and notes that it was acquired in 1930. The listing doesn’t specify which of the two museums was the original acquiring institution.
There is no artist credit. Which suggests that the “credit line” — E.A. Stanford — refers to the donor.
Who was E.A. Stanford? An educated guess: The only “E.A.” that I find, among the famous Stanfords, who would have been alive and old enough to make an art donation to one of the two museums in 1930 is Ethel Van Oostenbrugge Stanford (1886–1950).
In 1910, Ethel married Grant Lansing Stanford (1883–1956), who was Leland Stanford's great nephew — tracing a line from (a) Leland's older brother Charles to (b) Charles's son Welton to (c) Welton's son Grant (who married Ethel).
,Census records of 1905 and 1930 have Ethel as “Ethel A.” — thus "E.A. Stanford."
FAMSF deaccessioned this work in 2021 and transferred it to the Society of California Pioneers. In its reports related to the transfer, FAMSF included the information that Herman J. Brand is the sculptor of the statuette.
2
SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT
When Allen Stanley Lane — who grew up in Santa Rosa, Calif. — had his biography of Emperor Norton published in 1939, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat noted that the book includes a photograph of “the statue of ‘Emperor Norton’ that [is one of the] prized articles in the cabinet museum of early California relics in the foyer of The Press Democrat building.”
Excerpt of article, “Former S.R. Man Authors Book on ‘Emperor Norton,’” Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 24 January 1939, p. 2. Source: Newspapers.com
In his caption, Lane describes the statuette as being “Made by H.J. Brand in 1877” and credits the photograph as “Courtesy: E.L. Finley, Santa Rosa, Calif.”
Ernest L. Finley was the owner and publisher of the Press Democrat at the time Lane’s book was published. The courtesy credit to Finley rather than to the paper suggests the possibility that the statuette was part of Finley’s private collection.
William Drury included a newer photograph of the Santa Rosa statuette in his 1986 biography of the Emperor and credited the photo to the Press Democrat — which suggests that the statuette still resided at the paper’s offices at the time.
Emperor Norton statuette, 1877, by Herman J. Brand (1837–1914). Plaster, 22” x 7” x 7”. Collection of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat by the 1930s until 1986, when this photograph — credited to the newspaper — was included in William Drury’s 1986 biography Norton I: Emperor of the United States (Dodd, Mead). Current location unknown.
As the photo shows, the Santa Rosa copy is painted.
I’ve not been able to determine where this copy is now.
3
WELLS FARGO HISTORY MUSEUM
The Wells Fargo History Museum, at 420 Montgomery Street in San Francisco, long has been a destination for Nortonians, who can stop in for free, any day of the week, and see the signed Emperor Norton promissory note that is in one of the Museum’s glass cases
The Museum’s copy of the Norton statuette has not been on display for many years.
Wells Fargo corporate historian Alyssa Bentz notes a number of interesting details from the Museum’s catalog description: The statuette is inscribed “H.J. Brand, S.F. 1877” on the base — corroborating the Lane caption. And, it entered the Museum collection in 1935, courtesy of its previous steward, a John Howell. (One theory, suggested by our friend Mark Reed, is that this is John Howell (1874–1956), founder of John Howell — Books, the venerable San Francisco antiquarian bookshop that opened in 1912 and closed in 1984 with the passing of Warren Howell (1912–1984), who succeeded his father as the head of the firm.)
The sculpted walking stick shown in both the Wells Fargo and the Santa Rosa copies suggests that the metal stick seen in the Pioneers’ copy — called “metal stick” in the FAMSF description — is the frame for a sculpted stick that, at some point, became broken beyond repair.
Like the Santa Rosa copy, the Wells Fargo copy is painted. The color schemes of the two copies appear to be slightly different. The color photograph here gives a real flavor of the work. (For information and credits for both photographs, see the caption under the color photo.)
Two photographs above: Emperor Norton statuette, 1877, by Herman J. Brand (1837–1914). Plaster, 22” x 7” x 7”. Collection of the Wells Fargo History Museum, San Francisco. Photo credits: Top: The Forgotten Characters of Old San Francisco (The Ward Ritchie Press, 1964). Bottom: Wells Fargo History Museum
:: :: ::
BOTH WELLS FARGO and the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco have the Brand statuette of Emperor Norton as being 22 inches tall, with Wells Fargo adding that the base is 7 inches across. So, the piece is not of insubstantial size.
Indeed, the scale of the statuette makes it reasonable to wonder whether there could have been a market for such a thing in gift shops. A cabinet card or a lithograph is one thing. Even a 6- or 8-inch miniature of Emperor Norton, one can imagine many locals of the period wanting for their bookshelves — and, an item of that size would have been small enough for a tourist to tuck in to their bag and take home as a memento.
But, how many people would have wanted a nearly-2-foot-tall plaster likeness of the Emperor as part of the furniture?
A single sentence that appeared in an August 1878 column filed by the San Francisco correspondent of the Kennebec Journal of Augusta, Maine — of all places! — may answer the riddle.
Remember that Herman J. Brand sculpted his Emperor Norton in 1877.
Emperor Norton statuette reported as a staple of San Francisco saloon decor in excerpt of “Letter from California,” by Toby Candor, datelined San Francisco, 8 August 1878, Kennebec (Me.) Journal, 28 August 1878, p. 1. Source: Newspapers.com
“The Emperor has been immortalized by a statuette taken of him which can be seen in scores of bar-rooms.”
It seems a good bet that the correspondent from the northeastern corner was telling his fellow Mainers about Brand’s work. If so, we have to consider the possibility that Herman Brand’s whole concept was to create something large enough to be suitable for viewing and enjoyment in public gathering places — like saloons.
Were more than 100 of Brand’s statuettes cast? Another bet: No. Were most of these placed in saloons? Perhaps.
Certainly, it’s notable that, 145 years later, there are in San Francisco today at least two “bar-rooms” — the Comstock Saloon and Emperor Norton’s Boozeland — that have sculptures of the Emperor inside.
Do our friends at Boozeland and the Comstock know they are upholding a century-and-a-half-old tradition?
:: :: ::
OF COURSE, there was at least one person who in the late 1870s would have wanted a large statuette of Emperor Norton in his home: Emperor Norton.
Note the following description of the Emperor’s room at the Eureka Lodgings that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle’s obituary of 9 January 1880:
“Little plaster cast” of Emperor Norton reported seen in his apartment, excerpt of “Imperial Ashes” (obituary), San Francisco Chronicle, 9 January 1880, p. 2. Source: Newspapers.com
“There were many hats. There was first an old stovepipe hat resting side by side with a little plaster cast of himself on the table.”
Brand’s statuette? I’m doing a lot of betting here — but, I suspect the odds are better than even!
In February 1880, the month after Emperor Norton died, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted by resolution to transfer the Emperor’s personal effects to the Society of California Pioneers.
Among these personal effects — according to the property listing for Joshua Norton included in the San Francisco Coroner’s Report for 1879–80 — was the statuette that the Chronicle reporter noticed on the evening of the Emperor’s death:
Listing for Joshua A. Norton in Coroner’s Report (Property of Deceased Persons), in San Francisco Municipal Reports for the Fiscal Year 1879–1880, p. 381. Collection of the San Francisco Public Library. Source: Internet Archive
Alas, the statuette and the other surviving accoutrements of nobility were lost in the earthquake and fires of 1906.
Which — if I’m right that both Emperor Norton and FAMSF had a copy of the same statuette of the Emperor by Herman J. Brand — adds a certain poetry to the Pioneers’ in 2021 receiving from FAMSF another copy of the Emperor’s statuette they had lost 115 years earlier.
:: :: ::
THE ONLY other evidence I find of Emperor Norton statuettes during the era of the Emperor’s reign — although not technically during his lifetime — is in the following excerpt from a San Francisco correspondent’s letter to the Tehama (Calif.) Tocsin newspaper, published on 24 January 1880.
The writer reports that, in the immediate wake of the Emperor’s death, “pictures [and] statues in terracotta of him are numerous and numerously sought for.”
Report of “statues in terracotta” of Emperor Norton “sought for,” excerpt of letter from San Francisco correspondent “T.L.B.”, Tehama (Calif.) Tocsin, 24 January 1880, p. 3. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection
But, again, there is no mention of the “statues in terracotta” being in shops.
Still. What does it mean that statues of Emperor Norton were “sought for”? Sought for to buy them? Following the Emperor’s death, was there a momentary sentimental retail demand for statuettes of the Emperor — a market that had not existed previously? Did Herman Brand rise to meet this demand by casting more copies of his work? Did other artisan producers opportunistically step into this gap?
Or, were statues of the Emperor “sought for” simply to see them? Did saloons already known to display an Emperor Norton statuette, possibly Brand’s, do a slightly better business in the weeks after the Emperor’s passing?
Either, or both, are possible.
:: :: ::
IN THINKING about Herman J. Brand’s statuette of Emperor Norton, it occurs to me that a sculpture of someone created during that person’s lifetime may harbor a potential that cabinet cards and lithographs sold in shops — to use the examples relevant to the Emperor — did not.
Such a sculpture may have greater power (a) to reveal the creator’s desire, conscious or subconscious, to elevate the subject — and (b) to in fact elevate the subject — into the pantheon of the community — to place the subject among the “gods” and heroes revered by the community.
It’s a natural connection to make, as the original Pantheon — the first-century C.E. temple in Rome — is believed to been a repository of sculptures of the main Roman gods: Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Apollo, Diana, etc.
The idea gains poignancy with the prospect that Brand’s statuette was seen and viewed primarily within the secular temple of the San Francisco saloon.
The following conceptualization of the Pantheon, from 1894, is disputed in scholarly circles — but it speaks to the tradition of the Pantheon as a house for sculptures of the gods. (Note the inclusion of Minerva, a central figure in the Great Seal of California.)
Conceptualization of the first-century C.E. Pantheon of Rome by Heinrich Nissen, 1894. Figure 2 in Edmund Thomas “The Cult Statues of the Pantheon,” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 107, November 2017, pp. 146–212. Source: Cambridge University Press
Is there an adjectival form of the noun “pantheon,” I wondered? “Pantheonic,” perhaps?
My instincts were right. The word is a little archaic — but, it exists. Hence, the title of this article.
In fact: When consulting my trusty Compact Oxford English Dictionary, I learned that “pantheonic” entered the lexicon in 1865 — the very moment when Emperor Norton was settling into his reign and when, most likely, Herman J. Brand arrived in San Francisco.
Definition and historical origins of “pantheonic,” The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, vol. II, Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 2067.
Perhaps it was destiny that Herman Brand would come to create a pantheonic tribute to Norton I.
* Thanks to Ellen Halteman for this reference
:: :: ::
For an archive of all of the Trust’s blog posts and a complete listing of search tags, please click here.
Search our blog...