Front Endpaper.

FEU D’ARTIFICE À VERSAILLES POUR LE MARIAGE DU DAUPHIN, 1735.
FROM A WATER-COLOUR DRAWING BY MOREL TORRÉ.

Copyright. Brock. Sutton]

[Frontispiece

Display at the Tercentenary Fetes, Quebec, July 23rd, 1908. The largest display ever fired in the Western Hemisphere. From a drawing by C. M. Padday.

PYROTECHNICS:
THE HISTORY AND ART
OF FIREWORK MAKING

BY A. St. H. BROCK, A.R.I.B.A.

WITH NUMEROUS COLOURED
AND OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS

LONDON: DANIEL O’CONNOR
90 GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.1
MCMXXII

Dedicated
to the memory of
my brother
Wing-Commander
Frank Arthur Brock, R.N.A.S.
Killed at Zeebrugge
April 23rd, 1918

. . . . . . . . . . . be bright and busy

While hoaxed astronomers look up and stare

From tall observatories, dumb and dizzy,

To see a Squib in Cassiopeia’s Chair!

A Serpent wriggling into Charles’s Wain!

A Roman Candle lighting the Great Bear!

A Rocket tangled in Diana’s train,

And Crackers stuck in Berenice’s Hair!

Ode to Madame Hengler, Firework-maker to Vauxhall
By THOMAS HOOD.

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The word “fireworks” as a metaphor, used either to describe the higher flights of oratory, of literature, or of human strife, whether it be in Parliament or the Parish Hall, or merely descriptive of domestic discord, is familiar, even threadbare.

Moreover, the metaphor has generally a humorous flavour; why is this? Is there anything inherently comic about fireworks? It is true that for a short season the less critical of the comic papers used the cracker and squib as pegs upon which to hang the type of joke which depends for its success on the atavistic human trait of laughing at the misfortune or discomfort of others, but this is the lowest type of humour which soon palls upon the mind.

The Stage also has its comedy and clown, yet the mention of the stage is not a signal for mirth. Can any who have heard the long-drawn Ah-h! of rapture from many thousand throats, at the bursting of a flight of shell, or the darting up of the wonderfully tinted rays of the “Magical Illumination” at the Crystal Palace, maintain that the most dramatic moment on the stage is more affecting to the spectators?

Pyrotechny is possibly the only art which can compete with nature; anyone who has seen a first-class firework display will admit that for impressive grandeur, colour effects, and contrasts of light and shade, pyrotechny is unapproached.

Pyrotechny paints on the canvas of the sky; and the results are at once the joy and despair of the artist. Many artists have tried to record their impressions, but the results have been generally disappointing. Whistler came near success, but even his wonderful work conveys merely the dying embers of passed glory. One feels that here has been a magnificent display, but the scene in its full grandeur is not depicted.

One of the few black-and-white artists who can approach the subject with some success is Mr. C. M. Padday, an example of whose work is reproduced in the following pages. His success comes from a careful study of the subject, both technically and from the point of view of composition.

That fireworks are popular there is no doubt; no form of amusement is capable of giving enjoyment to so many people at one time; there is no entertainment which so appeals to youth and age of all classes and tastes. And yet it is doubtful if there is an industry concerning which the public at large is so profoundly ignorant.

To the average onlooker any firework which rises in the air is a rocket, any that revolve are catherine wheels; both of these assumptions are incorrect.

What is the average conception of a firework factory? A building, let us say, in which workmen, with sleeves rolled up, are busily engaged in shovelling heaps of gunpowder. How many know that a firework factory consists of dozens of small buildings, the construction of which is exactly defined by law, separated by spaces also specified by law; that workmen may not roll up their sleeves in the danger buildings; or that the amount of gunpowder in each building is strictly limited to a small quantity? All of these restrictions being enforced with the view, of course, of limiting the effects of any explosion that may occur.

So far as I am aware, no history of the art has yet been written. It is true that during the nineteenth century many text-books on pyrotechny were written, but the historical side of the subject has been generally represented by a few disjointed remarks in the prefaces.

My object has not been to write a text-book on firework-making, but rather to trace the art from earliest times, and to give a description of the development and process of manufacture. For those interested in the subject, and desiring fuller information, the list of MSS. and books given in the Bibliography at the end of this volume may be found useful.

My excuse for adding another volume to the literature of the art is that I am of the eighth generation of a family of pyrotechnists, whose work, I venture to claim, has not been without its effect. If I succeed in interesting, and in some degree enlightening, my readers, I shall feel I have not written in vain; if I fail, I shall know it is not in my choice of subject but in my capacity for dealing with it.

A. St. H. BROCK.

Sutton,
August, 1922.

ERRATA

Page 117 line 13 for “filled” read “fitted”

„ 133 „ 8 „ “and” „ “at”

„ 153, 154 for “Hume” read “Hime”

PART I

CHAPTER I
THE ORIGIN OF PYROTECHNY

Pyrotechny, or the Art of Firework-making, is of great antiquity, and the date of its origin is quite unknown; indeed, it would be impossible to define with any degree of exactitude what actually constitutes a firework.

It is curious how universal is the belief that fireworks were dependent upon the invention or discovery of gunpowder. Very little consideration will prove the fallacy of this view; in fact, will show that the reverse is probably the case. In India and China saltpetre (or nitrate of potash) is found in large quantities, and was, no doubt, used by the primitive inhabitants in far-off times for such purposes as curing meat, cooking, etc. The dropping of a quantity in the camp fire may have attracted the attention of some early inventor to the extent of starting him on a series of what were probably the earliest chemical experiments.

He would notice that the presence of saltpetre made the fire burn brighter, and its use as a tinder maker would suggest itself by mixing it with some substance which he knew to be combustible. The most common fuel he knew of was wood, but it must be a powder to mix evenly with saltpetre. Wood is not easily reduced to powder; saws had not been invented, so that he could not add sawdust, and the nearest thing he could get would be charcoal from the fire, which could easily be reduced to powder. With this mixture he would be well on the way to success in elementary pyrotechny.

The next step in his career as the first pyrotechnist is to utilise his composition as an easy means of making fire. Gradually he gives up his hitherto necessary tasks of hunting and trapping, as he receives the fruits of other labours in return for his services as fire-maker to the tribe.

The most important item in early social life is fire, the implements for producing it the most valued property of the tribe; it was the focus of religion and the centre of daily existence, so that any new phenomenon connected with fire would be of the greatest interest to primitive people, and any short cut to the production of fire would be accorded more perseverance and care in its perfection than almost any other invention.

Fire would be struck with a piece of iron pyrites on a flint, small pieces of reguline particles of iron would be detached and fall on the fire mixture unlit. Afterwards, when combustion of the mass of fire mixture took place, these small pieces of metal would scintillate as do the iron filings in a modern firework composition. This would give rise to a further series of experiments, and gradually the composition known as Chinese Fire would be evolved, which is known to have been in use in the East from remote times.

Having arrived at a pyrotechnic composition, attempt to use it in other ways besides fire-making would naturally follow, and sooner or later the idea of filling the mixture into tubes would suggest itself, especially as both in India and China (in one of which countries pyrotechny undoubtedly originated) a serviceable tube—or to use the modern term “case”—was ready to hand in any size or quantity in the ubiquitous bamboo. The bamboo is in use for the purpose at the present day in the East, and until recent times, when displaced by European weapons, was used in the construction of ordnance of considerable size. Mortars used for throwing firework shell up to six or more inches in diameter are still in use in Japan and China, the barrel consisting of a section of bamboo strengthened on the outside with a binding of split cane.

Having reached the point of charging composition into a tube, that is to say confining it, a more or less violent explosion was likely or rather certain to follow during the course of the experiments, which might suggest the use of a tube as a means of discharging a projectile. This would lead to research in the direction of the best composition for the purpose and the evolution of gunpowder.

It must be remembered that the constituents of gunpowder must be present in approximately exact proportion, whereas with primitive pyrotechnic compositions, if the ingredients saltpetre and charcoal are present, it is almost impossible to fail in getting some result.

The above suggestion must not be taken literally as a statement of fact, but rather as an attempt on the part of the writer to trace the stages by which pyrotechnic and explosive compositions came to be evolved.

If one disabuses one’s mind of the curiously widespread belief that all fireworks are composed chiefly of gunpowder, and that without the invention of gunpowder fireworks could not have been constructed, it seems far more likely that pyrotechny is based on the discovery of the assistance given to combustion by saltpetre, than on the discovery of gunpowder.

CHAPTER II
PYROTECHNY IN THE EAST

Pyrotechny undoubtedly had its genesis in the East, and for that reason we will deal with its development there first. As he has intended to convey, the writer is strongly of opinion that the discovery of pyrotechnic compositions antedated that of gunpowder. In many cases earlier writers have discovered passages which they consider prove the use of firearms and gunpowder; in reality these refer to Greek-fire and similar compositions, which were used as projectiles, being thrown from machines or catapults, and not as propellants. Gunpowder as a mixture of ingredients may have been known from remote times, as undoubtedly were other simple pyrotechnic compositions, but all evidence goes to show that its use as a propellant was not known until well into the Christian Era.

The composition Greek-fire, known in ancient times as “naphtha,” was a mixture of pitch, resin, and sulphur, with the addition in some cases of crude saltpetre. It may be considered that in the absence of the latter ingredient the mixture does not constitute a pyrotechnic composition, but from the description of the use of “naphtha” in early writings, it appears at least likely that it was generally present.

The fire was either enclosed in hollow stones or iron vessels, and thrown from a catapult, or sometimes filled into the end of arrows and assisted to propel them forward or sustain their flight.

Philostratus (170–250 A.D.), writing of the Indian Campaign of Alexander the Great (B.C. 326), relates that the inhabitants of a town on the river Hyphasis (Beas) “defended themselves by means of lightning and thunder, which darted upon their besiegers.” This has been considered as evidence of the use of firearms, but is more probably the first reference to Greek-fire. Greek-fire or “naphtha” was used at the defence of Constantinople between 660 and 667.

At the siege of Pian-King Lo-Yang (1232), as mentioned in the Chinese Annals, iron pots were thrown containing a burning substance which could spread fire over half an acre, and described by the historians as the “thunder which shakes heaven.”

The Mongolians attacking Bagdad in the year 1258 made use of similar vessels, also fire arrows. Marco Polo, describing sieges of towns in China 1268 to 1273, mentions the throwing of fire.

In most of the early records although noise is remarked upon, it is apparently while the projectile is in the air or upon impact; this disposes of the impression which many writers have formed that firearms are referred to, there being no reference to an initial explosion.

Sir George Stanton, writing in 1798 of his embassy to the Emperor of China, says that “nitre (saltpetre) is the daily produce of China and India, and there accordingly the knowledge of gunpowder seems coeval with that of the most distant historic events. Among the Chinese it has been applied at all times to useful purposes ... and to amusement in making a vast variety of fireworks—but its force had not been directed through strong metallic tubes, as it was by Europeans soon after they had discovered that composition.”

Although the place of origin of the art, pyrotechny has not developed in the East as rapidly as in Europe, except in Japan.

Japanese pyrotechnists, with that wonderful capacity for careful and exact manual work which is so characteristic of the race, have developed aerial fireworks, that is to say, the shell, to a remarkable degree of perfection. The compositions used are not to be compared with European manufactures in point of colour or brilliance, but the effects obtained are extraordinary. The stars, upon the bursting of the shell, are thrown out in symmetrical patterns and designs, several examples of which are given in the accompanying Japanese colour prints.

Daylight fireworks also originated in Japan. Instead of pyrotechnic effects, the shell contains a grotesque balloon in the form of an animal, human figure, or other form, which, being open and weighted at the lower end, becomes inflated as it falls and remains in the air for a considerable period. Other daylight effects are coloured clouds formed by coloured powder, distributed by the bursting of the shell, showers of streamers, confetti, and toys.

Chinese firework displays have often been enthusiastically described by travellers in China. Whether it is that the glamour of the East distorts the perceptions, or that these travellers have not seen a European firework display, there is no doubt that such descriptions are, to say the least, over coloured.

Chinese fire (a composition of saltpetre, iron filings, sulphur and charcoal), a few simple colour compositions, and a large number of Chinese crackers of varying sizes constitute a Chinese display; the rest of the exhibition being eked out with lanterns, pictures, etc., which certainly do not come under the heading of pyrotechnics.

The writer once had an opportunity of witnessing a Chinese display of some importance, lasting several hours, which produced the effect on the mind of watching some performance or game of the rules of which one was in entire ignorance. Pyrotechnically, only the crudest effects were produced, the remainder of the display, consisting of such items as a man slowly climbing a ladder carrying a lantern, was to the uninitiated mystifying.

The following is an account by a traveller in the early nineteenth century of a Chinese display: “The fireworks, in some particulars,” says he, “exceeded anything of the kind I had ever seen. In grandeur, magnificence, and variety they were, I own, inferior to the Chinese fireworks we had seen at Batavia, but infinitely superior in point of novelty, neatness and ingenuity of contrivance. One piece of machinery I greatly admired: a green chest, five feet square, was hoisted up by a pulley fifty or sixty feet from the ground, the bottom of which was so contrived as then suddenly to fall out, and make way for twenty or thirty strings of lanterns, enclosed in a box, to descend from it, unfolding themselves from one another by degrees, so as at last to form a collection of full five hundred, each having a light of a beautifully coloured flame burning brightly within it. This devolution and development of lanterns was several times repeated, and at every time exhibiting a difference of colour and figure. On each side was a correspondence of smaller boxes, which opened in like manner as the other, and let down an immense network of fire, with divisions and compartments of various forms and dimensions, round and square, hexagons, octagons, etc., which shone like the brightest burnished copper, and flashed like prismatic lightnings, with every impulse of the wind. The whole concluded with a volcano, or general explosion and discharge of suns and stars, squibs, crackers, rockets and grenades, which involved the gardens for an hour in a cloud of intolerable smoke. The diversity of colour, with which the Chinese have the secret of clothing their fire, seems one of the chief merits of their pyrotechny.”

It will be seen that lanterns play an important part in the exhibition, and that when the fireworks proper are reached, the result is an “intolerable smoke.”

Indian pyrotechnists are more advanced than their Chinese neighbours. Firework displays carried out by them are nowadays more or less crude attempts to reproduce European work.

The writer has seen a set piece evidently intended to follow a fire picture seen in a European display carried out by small wicks burning in oil instead of the “lances,” as the small fireworks used to outline the pictures are called in this country.

In India as in China fireworks play a frequent part in religious and civil ceremonies. In the former country, at certain festivals, a primitive device for producing a series of reports is used. These are called “adirvedis,” and consist of a series of short iron tubes fitted to a wooden plank, charged with gunpowder and tamped with clay.

At weddings, crackers are largely used under a variety of names, such as Vengagvedi, Gola, Pataka or Koroo. To-day these are simple crackers filled with country-made gunpowder or the imported Chinese crackers. Formerly almost the only composition used was chlorate of potash and one of the sulphides of arsenic. A favourite form consisted of a small quantity of the two ingredients put together unmixed into a piece of rag with some small stones or grit and tied. The resulting fireworks were similar to the “throw-down” crackers sold in this country.

Owing to the very large number of accidents caused by the casual methods, both in manufacture and use, with this highly sensitive composition, H.M. Chief Inspector of Explosives for India endeavoured, in 1902, to secure its prohibition, as was done in this country in 1895, but it was not until 1910, when it had been established that this composition was being used by anarchists, that it was finally prohibited.

The most successful effect produced by Hindoo pyrotechnists is the “Tubri.” The composition is here known as Chinese fire, a mixture of charcoal, saltpetre, sulphur and iron dust, charged into either bamboo tubes or earthen pots.

It is a common practice to fix a pot at either end of a long bamboo, which is whirled quickly about by a performer; the result produced is quite good, but seems rather to come under the heading of juggling than that of pyrotechnics proper. As the pots are theoretically the wrong shape for such a purpose, that is to say, a large mass of composition is burning through a narrow orifice, premature explosions are frequent. This want of theoretical knowledge is noticeable throughout, but such incidents seem to be appreciated as part of the show.

Another use of the earth pot is the “burusu,” a kind of red flare; the composition used being sulphur, saltpetre, and nitrate of strontia. Flare compositions are also used loose as in England, and are known as “chandrajota” or “mahteb.”

Abusavanani or Hawai, that is to say, rockets, are now made similarly to those manufactured in Europe except a bamboo case is most generally used, but formerly chlorate of potash and orpiment seem to have been employed for this purpose.

The firework shell under the name “out” is also manufactured very much as in this country, except that the range of effects is very limited, simple coloured stars being almost the only “garniture” used.

In Siam it is a custom, and one apparently of considerable antiquity, to celebrate certain religious festivals with firework displays. These displays take place in the day-time, and take the form of discharges of rockets, some of which are of very large size; a writer giving their length, exclusive of the stick, as from 8 ft. to 10 ft. The case is composed of a section of bamboo bound with string. The composition consists of coarse native powder, of which from 20 lbs. to 30 lbs. is often used in one case. The rocket stick, which is of bamboo, varying from 20 ft. to 40 ft. in length, is gaily decorated with coloured paper and tinsel and fitted with bamboo whistles. A rough scaffold is erected from which to fire the rockets, and according to those who have witnessed such exhibitions, considerable altitudes are reached by the rockets in flight. As may be expected with such crude methods, mishaps are of frequent occurrence.

CHAPTER III
PYROTECHNY IN EUROPE

Pyrotechnic compositions and gunpowder are inextricably mixed together in early European records; for our inquiries it will serve no useful purpose to disentangle them, the latter being only a particular case of the former. We will therefore deal with them together, taking the evidence of the knowledge of one as that of both, as until gunpowder is specifically mentioned as being used as a propellant in a gun or similar weapon, there is nothing to distinguish it from any other pyrotechnic composition.

The earliest record of European pyrotechny is in Claudius’ account of the public festivities during the consulate of Theodosius in the fourth century A.D., in which he describes fire “which ran about in different directions over the planks without burning or even charring them, and which formed by their twisting and turning globes of fire.”

Leo VI, Emperor of the East, in a work written about A.D. 900, says: “We have divers ways of destroying the enemies’ ships, as by means of fire prepared in tubes, from which they issue with a sound of thunder, and with a fiery smoke that burns the vessels on which they are hurled. A tube of tin must be put on the front of the ship to hurl this from.”

The most interesting reference of an early date is supposed to have been written by Marcus Graecus in his “Liber ignium ad comburendos hostes” (Book of fires for burning up the enemy), in which he not only gives the exact proportions of the compositions, but describes what is virtually the modern cracker, and also a primitive form of rocket. The case of the former was only partially filled, as with the jumping cracker of to-day, and although the wording is not very explicit, it was apparently bent in a similar way.

The date of this work is a subject of controversy; some writers place it as early as the eighth century, and it can only be said with certainty that it is not later than 1280. The latter date is fixed by the death of Albertus Magnus, who, in his book “De miribilibus mundi,” from internal evidence, is obviously plagiarising the Liber Ignium.

Friar Roger Bacon (1214–94), in two of his works, refers at least twice to compositions containing saltpetre, powdered charcoal, and sulphur. In one place he refers to fires that “shall burn at what distance we please”; in another to “thunder and corruscations,” which references seem to suggest that he is describing something of a pyrotechnic nature rather than the simple effect of gunpowder. His description in no way indicates that he claimed to be the inventor, but rather as something well known before.

Dr. Jebb, in his preface to Bacon’s “Opus Majus,” refers to what seems to be an early example of both the rocket and the cracker.

Dutens, in his “Inquiries into the Origin of the discoveries attributed to the Moderns” (1790), makes reference to many early writers, which are mostly so vague and exaggerated that no definite conclusion can be drawn from them; most refer to the early uses of Greek-fire or similar composition.

Don Pedro, Bishop of Leon, says that “in 1343, in a sea combat between the King of Tunis and the Moorish King of Seville ... those of Tunis had certain iron tubes or barrels wherewith they threw thunderbolts of fire.”

This description, if accurate, may be thought to suggest the use of cannons, but it is more likely to refer to the use of Greek-fire; this composition will, in certain proportions, if charged into a strong tube, give intermittent bursts, projecting blazing masses of the mixture to a considerable distance. The writer has seen this effect produced in a steel mortar of 5½ inches diameter, the masses of composition being thrown a distance of upwards of a hundred yards, a considerable range in the days of close warfare. Anyone who has seen this phenomenon will at once realise that here probably is the true solution of many obscure early references to explain which so much ingenuity has been expended.

An interesting fact which seems to have escaped the notice of writers on this subject is that Theresa, daughter of Alfonso V. King of Leon and the Asturias (A.D. 999), when married to Abdallah, King of Toledo, took for device on her coat of arms a mortar in which a powder is being pounded. This powder is supposed to represent gunpowder, a supposition which is supported by the motto, “Minima maxima fecit” (A little makes much). If gunpowder is intended, this must be one of the earliest references to its quality of exploding, and it is difficult to explain the meaning otherwise.

Richard Cœur de Lion used Greek-fire on his galley at the siege of Acre in 1191, and it is thought by many that it was introduced into Western Europe by the Crusaders, who had learned its use in the East.

Alfonso Duke of Ferrara had as his coat of arms a bomb-shell in flight, and Antoine de Lalaing, Count of Hooghstraeten, had a bomb-shell exploding in water. The adoption of these two devices at about the same time (1540) seems to indicate that this projectile was coming into use, that is to say, for military purposes at least.

An early reference to shell appears in Stowe’s Chronicles (1565). He mentions two foreigners, Peter Brand and Peter Van Cullen, a gunsmith, in the employ of Henry VIII (A.D. 1546), who “caused to be made certain mortar pieces being at the mouth eleven inches unto nineteen inches wide, for the use whereof to be made certain hollow shot of cast-iron, to be stuffed with firework or wild-fire, whereof the bigger sort for the same had screws of iron to receive a match to carry fire kindled, that the firework might be set on fire for to break in pieces the same hollow shot, whereof the smallest piece hitting any man would kill or spoil him.” The missile is to all intents the firework shell of the present day, except that the modern shell has a papier-maché case.

The reference to “firework” without further explanation seems to indicate that by this time the word was well established in use. Shakespeare makes three references to fireworks. In “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” Act V, Scene 1, Don Armado says: “The King would have me present the Princess with some delightful entertainment, or show, or pageant, or antic, or firework.” In “Henry VIII,” Act I, Scene 3, we read of “fights and fireworks”; and again in “King John,” Act II, Scene 1: “What cracker is this same that deafs our ears?”

However, nothing in the nature of a firework display appears to have taken place, at least in this country, before the time of Elizabeth.

The use of fire for theatrical purposes, as in Mystery Plays to represent the “gate of Hell,” has been taken by some to refer to fireworks, but this seems doubtful as flames are mentioned, and it is more probable that a torch or similar contrivance was used.

When, however, we read a description of a barge at the coronation of Anne Boleyn, in 1538, carrying a dragon “casting forth wild fire—and men casting fire,” the reference to some pyrotechnic effect, however primitive, seems fairly obvious.

The men performers may be considered as early types of the “green man” who made his appearance somewhat later. The office of this performer was to head processions carrying “fire clubs” and scattering “fireworks” (probably sparks) to clear the way.

One account of a procession to the Chester Races on St. George’s Day, 1610, commences as follows: “Two men in green ivy, set with work upon their other habit, with black hair and black beards, very ugly to behold, and garlands upon their heads, with great clubs in their hands, with fireworks to scatter abroad to maintain the way for the rest of the show.”

The fire clubs referred to are described in John Bate’s book, published in 1635; the same writer illustrates a “green man” on the title page of his work.

Facsimile Title-page of Bate’s Book, showing a “Green Man.”

Regarding the origin of the Green Man, it has been suggested that the character was evolved from the wild men, satyrs, monsters, etc., which appeared in the earlier exhibitions. This may or may not be so, but another explanation suggested to the writer by an old Danish print of the sixteenth century is at least plausible.

This print, which apparently represents a floating firework device of the old scenic type, shows two figures carrying fire clubs wearing leaves, and suggesting immediately the green man of a slightly later date.

Behind them are two figures holding rockets, leaving no doubt that a firework display is portrayed.

On the other hand, apart from the fact that normally they have no fire issuing from their clubs, the supporters of the Danish royal arms might be here depicted; a supposition which is borne out by the fact that the figure surmounting the erection carries the crown and sceptre of Denmark.

It seems quite within the bounds of possibility that these two figures were introduced into Danish displays as a compliment to Royalty, and that later they appeared in England, and became, as it were, acclimatised. Colour is lent to this belief by the record of a display given on a float by the King of Denmark in 1606 upon his departure from this country, where he had been on a visit to his brother-in-law, James I.

This exhibition seems to have given James a taste for fireworks, and one at least of the Danish artists appears to have remained in this country, as some months after James had a display carried out by “a Dane, two Dutchmen, and Sir Thomas Challoner.”

In 1572 a firework display was given in the Temple Fields, Warwick, by the Earl of Warwick, then Master-General of the Ordnance. The occasion was a visit to the castle by Queen Elizabeth, who appears to have been rather partial to such exhibitions.

The display consisted of a mimic battle, with two canvas forts for a setting; noise was provided by the discharge of ordnance of various sizes; the fireworks proper seem to have taken the form of flights of rockets. The display was evidently conducted in a somewhat reckless manner, some houses being set on fire, and some completely destroyed, the two inhabitants of which are said in a contemporary report to have been in bed and asleep, although how that could be with continuous discharge from twenty pieces of ordnance, to say nothing of “qualivers and harquebuses,” in the immediate neighbourhood, is to say the least curious.

Two other displays attended by Elizabeth were those at Kenilworth in 1572 and at Elvetham in 1591.

A Display of the Earliest Type. From a contemporary print (c. 1650).

The first European people to make headway in the art of pyrotechny proper appear to have been the Italians. Vanochio, an Italian, in a work on artillery, dated 1572, attributes to the Florentines and Viennese the honour of being the first who made fireworks on erections of wood, decorated with statues and pictures raised to a great height, some in Florence being forty ells, or seventy-two feet high. He adds that these were illuminated so that they might be seen from a distance, and that the statues threw out fire from the mouths and eyes.

He refers to the practice, which survived up to the end of the eighteenth century, of constructing elaborate temples or palaces richly decorated, with transparencies illuminated from inside, statuary, gilding, floral and other decorations. On these erections the fireworks proper were displayed, and which were then called artificial fireworks. Nothing very large in the way of firework set-pieces seems to have been attempted, but effect was gained by repetition of a small device over the facade of the building.

Displays were given annually in Florence at the Feast of St. John and the Assumption. This custom extended to Rome, where the festivals were given on the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, and at the rejoicings on the election of a Pope.

The towers and fortifications of the castle of St. Angelo furnished suitable spots for these, being visible from the greater part of the city of Rome, and what are described as braziers, firepots, and other fires would be placed there, so as to give a great display without the expense of a building.

Evelyn, the famous diarist, gives an account of one such display which he witnessed in 1664.

In other towns that wished to imitate the festival of Rome, it was arranged to place illuminations on the highest towers and steeples of the towns, but as it was found that there was considerable danger of fire from these, it was afterwards preferred to make suitable erections in the great public squares, which were convenient for the exhibition itself and also for the sightseers.

The Italians appear to have held the supremacy until the end of the seventeenth century.

In the book of Artillery by Diego Ufano, written in 1610, we read that only very simple fireworks were made in his time in Spain and Flanders, consisting of wooden framework supporting pots of fire wrapped round with cloth dipped in pitch, but that more than fifty years before magnificent spectacles could be seen in Italy.

In 1615, on the occasion of the marriage of Louis XIII, a display was given at Paris in the Place Royale, in which were included combats between men carrying illuminated arms.

In 1606 the Duc de Sully gave a spectacle which depicted a battle between savages and monsters, the former throwing darts and fire. A similar display had previously been given on the occasion of the entry of Henry II into Rheims, and it was repeated in 1612.

These spectacles, which are quoted as firework displays, cannot rightly be considered as such, fireworks playing a comparatively secondary part in the exhibitions.

A display of this nature to celebrate the capture of Rochelle was conducted by Clariner of Nuremberg, a celebrated pyrotechnist of the day.

During the reign of Louis XIV, 1638–1715, great advances were made in pyrotechny in France; great displays were given on the return of the King and Queen to Paris in 1660, on five consecutive days at Versailles in 1676, also on the occasion of the birth of the Dauphin in 1682, in Paris at the Louvre, Dijon, and Lyons.

A particularly fine display in celebration of the Peace of Riswick, 1669 (for which event displays took place in several countries), is mentioned by Frézier, who wrote a treatise on pyrotechny (1747); it was, he says, witnessing this display that inspired him to study the art.

Set Piece of the Scenic Type.

One of the chief causes of progress in France was the encouragement given by Louis XV (1710–1774) to the pyrotechnists Morel Torré and the Ruggieri brothers, the latter being Italians from Bologna who became naturalised Frenchmen, and contributed very greatly to the development of French pyrotechny. They were the first to rely chiefly on fireworks for the effect, instead of using them merely to embellish a scenic or architectural structure.

Louis XV expended large sums of money on displays, one of the finest being that fired at Versailles in 1739 by Ruggieri, on the occasion of the marriage of Madame La Première of France with Don Philippe of Spain. Writing of this display in 1821, Ruggieri’s son says: “There appeared for the first time the Salamander la Rosace and le Guilloche, which are still admired to-day.” These are purely pyrotechnic pieces and devices; similar or identical ones are used at the present day, which seems to indicate that fireworks proper were making headway against scenic effect.

Other displays in France during the eighteenth century were those on the occasions of the birth of the Duke of Brittany, 1704; birth of the Dauphin, 1730; the convalescence of the King, 1744; and the return of the King to Paris, 1745. Also there is in existence a series of prints which, but for the fact that they are described as fireworks, would be taken to be scenic tableaux; whether the figures are human beings or wax-works is not indicated. These were erected in celebration of the following events:—The taking of Tournay, the taking of Chateau Grand, Victory over the Allies, all dated 1745; the taking of Ypres, 1747, all of which took place in Paris before the Hotel de Ville. Similar displays were given in Lyons in 1765 to celebrate the taking of Fort San Philippe, and at Soleure in 1777, in honour of the Swiss Guard.

Displays took place at Versailles (1751) on the occasion of the birth of the Duke of Burgundy. In 1758–9 came a further series of victory celebrations in honour of the victory of Lutzelberg, over the English in America, and over the Allies at Bergheri, all of which appear to have been of the “tableau” type mentioned above.

There were also displays for the peace celebrations on the Seine, 1763, the birth of the Dauphin, 1782, in the Place de Geneve, and peace rejoicings, 1783, before the Hotel de Ville.

Ruggieri, however, states in his book that the display fired on the marriage of Louis XVI (or, as he then was, the Dauphin) was the only display since the great fetes of 1739 which showed any considerable advance in the art; he may, however, be in some degree biased as his father was concerned in each of these displays.

Firework Display at Nuremberg, 1650. From a contemporary engraving

CHAPTER IV
PYROTECHNY IN EUROPE (continued)

During the later part of the seventeenth century, and subsequently, many prints appeared depicting firework displays; their number seems quite out of proportion to the total number of prints published in that period.

Possibly this may be taken as some indication of the popularity of firework displays at the time, or may give the measure of the favour in which they were held by the artists of the day.

Many of these prints are of little value to the student of pyrotechny, as they merely depict the more or less elaborate structure for the display by daylight, and whatever may be their architectural or artistic merit there is generally no indication of what actual fireworks were to be used, or how they were to be displayed.

In some cases a list of the works is given under the engraving, adding greatly to its value in the eyes of the pyrotechnist, and some, although they are considerably in the minority, are intended to represent the display in progress, although on the rather futuristic method of showing everything going off at one time.

A series of prints published in Germany during the seventeenth century are among the earliest in which a serious attempt is made to depict pyrotechnic effects; the series includes “Swedish Fireworks,” dated 1650; “Fireworks at Nuremburg in celebration of Peace,” of the same date; “Fireworks given at Pleissenburg by the Prince of Saxony,” 1666; and the same year, “Fireworks at Vienna”; all three prints show a good display of rockets, also bonfires, and there are indications of primitive wheels. The same remarks apply to a very fine plate published in 1669, depicting a display given at Stockholm in honour of the investiture of Charles XI of Sweden with the Order of the Garter by the British Ambassador. This engraving carries with it a feeling of conviction that it is an actual representation of the scene, and not—as is the case with earlier and with some later work—that the artist is drawing on his imagination. In many of the earlier prints it is difficult to judge if the artist is depicting what he imagined, or monsters and scenic effects actually constructed for the display.

It is worthy of note that even in early times, speaking pyrotechnically, the value of water in enhancing the effect of fireworks seems to have been realised. The display at Stockholm we have already mentioned appears to have taken place on the sea front. Many of the larger French displays of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were fired with a foreground of water; in those at Versailles full advantage was taken of the wonderful fountains and ornamental water, the display given in celebration of the entry of Louis XIV in Paris after his marriage being given on the Seine, and many of the early English displays took place on the Thames. Probably the earliest contemporary account of any length of a firework display in England is one headed “The Manner of Fire-Workes shewed up upon the Thames” in celebration of the marriage of Prince Frederick (Elector Palatine) with the daughter of James I in 1613. We read “many artificiall concusions in Fire-Workes were upon the Thames performed.

“First, for a welcome to the beholders a peale of Ordnance like unto a terrible thunder ratled in the ayre.... Secondly, followed a number more of the same fashion, spredding so strangely with sparkling blazes, that the skie seemed to be filled with fire.... After this, in a most curious manner, an artificiall fire-worke with great wonder was seen flying in the ayre, like unto a fiery Dragon, against which another fierrie vision appeared flaming like to Saint George on Horsebacke, brought in by a burning Inchanter, between which was then fought a most strange battell continuing a quarter of an howre or more; the dragon being vanquished, seemed to roar like thunder, and withall burst in pieces, and so vanished; but the champion, with his flaming horse, for a little time made a shew of a tryumphant conquest, and so ceased.

Great Firework Display near Stockholm, July, 1669. To celebrate the Investiture of Charles XI, King of Sweden, with the Order of the Garter by King Charles II.

“After this was heard another ratling sound of Cannons, almost covering the ayre with fire and smoke, and forthwith appeared, out of a hill of earth made upon the water, a very strange fire, flaming upright like unto a blazing starre. After which flew forth a number of rockets so high in the ayre, that we could not chose but approve by all reasons that Arte hath exceeded Nature, so artificially were they performed. And still as the Chambers and Culverines plaide upon the earth, the fire-workes danced in the ayre, to the great delight of his Highnes and the Princes.

“Out of the same mount or hill of earth flew another strange piece of artificiall fire-worke, which was in the likenes of a hunted Harte, running upon the water so swiftly, as it had been chaced by many huntsmen.

“After the same, issued out of the mount a number of hunting-hounds made of fire burning, pursuing the aforesaid Harte up and downe the waters, making many rebounds and turnes with much strangenes; skipping in the ayre as it had been a usual hunting upon land.

“These were the noble delights of Princes, and prompt were the wits of men to contrive such princely pleasures. Where Kings commands be, Art is stretcht to the true depth; as the performance of these Engineers have been approved.

“But now again to our wished sports: when this fiery hunting was extinguished, and that the Elements were a little cleared from fire and smoke, there came sailing up, as it were upon the Seas, certaine ships and gallies bravely rigged with top and top gallant, with their flagges and streamers waving like Men of Warr, which represented a Christian name opposed against the Turkes; where, after they had awhile hovered, preparing as it were, to make an incursion into the Turkish country, they were discovered by her Towers or Castles of defence, strongly furnished to intercept all such invading purposes, so sending forth the reports of a cannon, they were bravely answered with the like from the gallies, banding fire and powder one from another, as if the God of Battle had been there present.

“Here was the manner of a sea-fight rightly performed: First, by assailing one another, all striving for victorie, and pursuing each other with fire and sword: the Culverines merrily plaid betwixt them, and made the ayre resound with thundering echoes; and at last to represent the joyes of a victorie, the Castles were sacked, burned, and ruinated, and the defenders of the same forced to escape with great danger.”

The foregoing appears to be the only full account of a display in England during the early part of the seventeenth century, but in the first serious work on fireworks, “Pyrotechnia,” by John Babington, “gunner and student of the mathematicks,” we find a proposed programme for “a generall piece of fire-worke for land, for the pleasure of a Prince or some great person.” The spectacle consists of two castles with mechanical effects, but includes such devices as horizontal and vertical wheels, flights of rockets, line rockets and “torches of beautifull fire.” Babington also describes the St. George and Dragon device, which is merely scenic, the figures being of wickerwork and canvas with slight firework effects. At this time, according to a “History of Colleges in and arround London,” there were “many men very skilful in the art of pyrotechny and fireworks.”

In a book on fireworks, published in the same year, by John Bate, the author concludes by saying: “I might have been infinite in the describing of such like with Ships, Towers, Castles, Pyramides. But, considering that it would but increase the price of the book and not better your understanding, since all consist of the former workes, which are so plainly described as that the most ignorant may easily conceive thereof, and (if any whit ingenious) thence contrive others, of what fashion they list.” From this it would appear that firework displays were by that date a well-established institution.

Pepys, in his account of the coronation of Charles II, 1661, says: “We staid upon the leads and below till it was late, expecting to see the fireworks, but they were not performed to-night.” He seems to have looked upon fireworks as a matter of course on such an occasion. However, a display of considerable size did take place, conducted by Sir Martin Beckman, later Firemaster to James II, who was responsible for most of the important displays until 1706. One of the earliest prints of an English firework display is that depicting the fireworks on the Thames at Whitehall for the coronation of James II, 1685, in which the artist appears to have drawn somewhat on his imagination.

Three years later an elaborate display was given on the Thames to celebrate the birth of an heir to the throne, who was afterwards known as the Old Pretender. In the same year we again see fireworks on the Thames, this time to celebrate the reception of the Prince of Orange.

In 1690 displays were given, again on the Thames, and in Covent Garden, on the occasion of the King’s return from Ireland.

The taking of Namur, 1695, was celebrated by a display in St. James’s Square, and on the same site two years later, the celebrations for the Peace of Riswick. This latter is depicted in a fine engraving, giving the following list of fireworks used on the occasion:—“1,000 Sky Rockets, from four to six pounds weight; 200 Shell; 2,400 Pumps with Starrs (Roman Candles); 1,000 Cones; 7,000 Reports; 15,000 Swarms; 400 Light Balls; 23 Rocket Chests, each containing 60 rockets from one to four pounders.”

John Evelyn, in his “Diary,” says: “The evening concluded with illuminations and fireworks of great expense.” The display cost £12,000.

There seem to have been no fireworks in London at the coronation of either Anne or the first two Georges, although on the former occasion rockets appear to have been fired from the Fleet at Spithead.

The Peace Rejoicings of 1713 were the occasion of another display on the Thames off Whitehall, the erection being about 400 feet long on barges chained together in the stream. A feature of this display was the water fireworks, described as: “1,500 small and large water Rockets; 5 large water Pyramids; 4 water fountains; 13 Pumps; 21 standing Rockets, with lights all swimming on the water; 84 of Coll Borgards; large and small Bees swarms, half of which were set with lights to swim on the water.”

The next event to be celebrated by firework displays on a large scale was the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; these were given at Paris, The Hague, London, and St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin. The Duke of Richmond was responsible for a display on the Thames off Whitehall, the official display taking place in Green Park, and was on a scale unequalled in this country until well into the last century. It was conducted by the famous pyrotechnist Gaetano Ruggieri, who came over from France for the purpose, assisted by Gioseppe Sarti, under the direction of the Board of Ordnance.

Fireworks on the Thames, June 17th, 1688. To celebrate the birth of a son to King James II. known to fame first as the Prince of Wales, and afterwards as the Old Pretender.

Following the practice of the period, an elaborate structure was prepared. The following is taken from the official programme:

“A DESCRIPTION OF THE MACHINE FOR THE FIREWORKS, &c.

“The Machine is 114 feet high to the Top of His Majesty’s arms, and is 410 feet long. It was invented and designed by the Chevalier Servandoni and all the framing was performed by Mr. James Morris, Master Carpenter to the Office of Ordnance.

“The Ornaments of this Machine are all in Relief, and it is adorned with Frets, Gilding, Lustres, Artificial Flowers, Inscriptions, Statues, Allegorical Pictures, etc.”

According to a contemporary newspaper report, the construction occupied from November 7th until April 26th. It was composed of timber covered with canvas, whitewashed and sized.

The display commenced about six o’clock, and continued until after twelve; during the display the left wing caught fire, which prevented the firing of some of the devices. Indeed, according to Walpole, the Duke of Richmond’s display on the Thames a few weeks later consisted largely of fireworks which had not been fired owing to this occurrence, and which the noble duke had bought up cheap.

Among the items were included the following:—Regulated Pieces, Fixed Suns, Stars of six Points, and between each point a Ray, a large vertical Sun moved by double Fires, Cascades, Pyramids (40 feet high) of Gerbs, etc., etc. The chief piece seems to be one “from whence Fire issues out and retires within, twelve times alternately; when without, it forms a Glory; when within, it composes a Star of eight Points, and then changes to a Royal brilliant Wheel, whose Fire is thirty feet in diameter, and is moved by twelve fires.”

The remainder of this century in England appears to be rather barren of firework displays on a large scale.

A writer in the “St. James’s Chronicle,” under the date February 18th, 1764, in a letter advocating certain improvements in St. James’s Park, evidently recalling the outcry over the 1749 display, observes: “We had no fireworks at the peace last year, that will surely obviate any argument preferred against the expense of the undertaking.”

Until nearly the end of the eighteenth century, according to Strutt, writing at that time, it was customary “for the Train of Artillery to display a grand fire-work on Tower Hill, on the King’s Birthday, but owing to the disturbances that occurred, the inhabitants a few years since petitioned against it.” There was, however, a great increase in the number of displays. Fireworks became a feature of the programme of the majority of the then fashionable tea and pleasure gardens.

Walpole describes a firework display given in 1763 by the notorious Duchess of Kingston, who was thirteen years later tried by her peers on a charge of bigamy.

The display appears to have taken place in Hyde Park, opposite the residence of the Duchess, then at the height of her popularity. He records that “the fireworks were fine and succeeded well.” One item seems curious to modern ideas; it took the form of a cenotaph for the Princess Elizabeth, a sister of the king, bearing the inscription: “All honours the dead can receive.”

The sequel was even more extraordinary, as “about one in the morning this Sarcophagus burst into crackers and guns.”

Firework Display given by the Duke of Richmond on the Thames off Whitehall, May 15th, 1749, to celebrate the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

Lieutenant Jones, who published a book on fireworks in 1765, in his preface makes the following remarks:

“I own I cannot help reflecting with some kind of chagrin that whenever we have had occasion for these sort of diversions to be exhibited in England we have almost always had recourse to foreigners to execute them; if this has been owing to the ignorance of our own people on this subject I shall be very happy if it is in my power to correct it; if it is only owing to that prevailing fondness we entertain for everything foreign I know no remedy for that evil but time and experience.”

To a certain extent his complaint seems justified; as we have seen, the Aix-la-Chapelle celebrations were conducted by foreigners—Ruggieri and Sarti. Later in the century, Morel Torré, who, as previously mentioned, collaborated with Ruggieri in pyrotechnic displays for Louis XV, and several other pyrotechnists came to this country and conducted displays. At the same time, however, there were undoubtedly many capable pyrotechnists of English nationality, who found scope for their abilities in the exhibitions given in the pleasure gardens of London and the provinces in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

A history of pyrotechny would not be complete without a survey of these popular places of amusement, and we propose in the following chapter to give a brief summary of the better known places of resort.

CHAPTER V
THE LONDON PLEASURE GARDENS

During the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries the Pleasure Gardens filled a position in the lives of a large proportion of the public comparable with that of the Cinema to-day.

To the great mass of the public, the most general form of evening relaxation was a visit to one or other of these places of resort. Apart from meals of a more or less elaborate nature, and liquid refreshments of various kinds, a great variety of entertainments were provided, varying from displays of horsemanship to exhibitions of paintings. Of these diversions none were more general than fireworks and illuminations. At many gardens fireworks formed a regular feature of the programme, at others, generally less ambitious undertakings, displays were confined to occasions, such as the King’s Birthday.

Space will hardly permit of more than a glance at those resorts situated in the provinces, but a description of those in the London area may be taken as typical.

Captain Marryat, in “Peter Simple,” gives an account of a visit to Postdown Fair, near Portsmouth, and an adjournment to the local Ranelagh Gardens to “see the fireworks.” As the pyrotechnist was behind time, Peter Simple and his friends took it upon themselves to fire the display. “In about half a minute off they all went in the most beautiful confusion; there were silver stars and golden stars, blue lights and Catherine Wheels, Mines and Bombs, Grecian fires and Roman Candles, Chinese Trees, rockets and illuminated mottoes, all firing away, cracking, popping, and fizzing at the same time. It was unanimously agreed that it was a great improvement on the intended show.”

Undoubtedly the gardens best remembered at the present day are Vauxhall and Ranelagh, neither of which were early in the field in presenting firework displays to the public.

The first displays took place at Vauxhall about 1798, more than half a century after their appearance at some of the less famous gardens, and did not become a permanent feature of the programme until 1813. They continued regularly until the final closing of the gardens in 1859, the final item of the programme being “Farewell for Ever” in letters of fire. In 1813 an item in the firework programme was the performance of Madame Saqui, which was to slide down an inclined rope 350 feet long from the top of a mast 60 feet high, erected on the firework platform, enveloped in fireworks. So popular did this exhibition become that it was repeated here by other performers, by Longueman in 1822, and later by Blackmore.

The best-known pyrotechnists connected with Vauxhall were Southby, Mortram, and Hengler, the first display being by an Italian named Invetto.

Pyrotechnic displays at Ranelagh became a prominent feature of the amusements about 1767. The pyrotechnists Angelo, father and son, during that and the following years, helped to establish these displays in popularity, followed by Clithero, Caillot, Brock, Rossi, and Tessier, up to the closing of the gardens in 1805, after which date they appear to have been opened from time to time on special occasions. “The Morning Chronicle” of June 1st, 1812, announces that “By the Authority of the Right Hon. the Lord Chamberlain” these gardens would be open “in Honour of His Majesty’s Birthday, with a grand naval and military Fete, and a superb exhibition of Fireworks.”

An interesting old advertisement, dated 1766: “For the Benefit of the General Lying-in Hospital. The most superb and Magnificent Fireworks ever exhibited at that Place, under the conduct and direction of Mr. Angelo.” It would appear from this that fireworks had been fired at Ranelagh earlier than 1766, but they could not have been a regular feature before 1767.

Cupers Gardens, which stood on the south side of the river, approximately on the site of the Waterloo Bridge approach, were for a long period the scene of popular firework displays. Commencing about 1741, these displays were as elaborate as any of this period. The earlier displays appear to have been conducted by “the ingenious Mr. Worman,” who seems to have relied to a considerable extent on transparencies and scenery; in 1749 and 1750 he reproduced in miniature the firework “machine” or Temple used in the respective official displays in Green Park, and at The Hague for the Aix-la-Chapelle peace celebrations. Other scenic effects were a view of the city of Rhodes with a model of the Colossus; Neptune, issuing from a grotto below drawn by sea-horses, set fire to a pyramid or an “Archimedan worm” and returned.

Clithero was also associated with these displays, producing similar scenic effects, including a naval engagement in 1755, which was the last year of fireworks in these gardens.

The earlier displays at Marylebone Gardens took place about the middle of the eighteenth century. In 1751 a display is announced to take place at eleven o’clock, and “a large collection” of fireworks was advertised in 1753. Some at least of these earlier displays were fired by Brock, whose son, later on, worked here in conjunction with Torré. In 1769 the displays were under the direction of Rossi and Clanfield. From 1772 to 1774 was the most successful period of the fireworks at these gardens; they were then under the direction of Torré. A popular item, afterwards copied by Marinari at Ranelagh, was the “Forge of Vulcan,” a scenic display concluding with the eruption of Mount Etna.

On the occasion of Torré’s benefit, in 1772, there was a further exhibition of this kind, representing Hercules delivering Theseus from Hell.

During this period attempts were made by neighbouring residents to stop the displays as a nuisance, but nothing came of it, and the fireworks continued.

At the annual festival in 1772, the display included a temple of “upwards of 10,000 cases of different fires, all lighted at the same time.”

Other pyrotechnists firing at the gardens were Clithero and Caillot, both of whom had conducted displays at Ranelagh, the latter being responsible for the fireworks up to the closing of the gardens about 1778.

It is recorded that Dr. Johnson once visited the gardens on a firework night, but unfortunately a wet one, and notice was given to the handful of visitors that the fireworks were wet and the display would be cancelled. The doctor, however, was of opinion that it was a “mere excuse to save their crackers for a more profitable company,” and suggested that a threat to break the lamps would result in the show being forthcoming. Some young men standing by endeavoured, under his direction, to ignite the pieces, but unsuccessfully.

The Mulberry Gardens, Clerkenwell, were among the earliest to make fireworks a feature. Displays took place from the opening in 1742, and ten years later Clanfield gave a display each evening.

Two neighbouring taverns, “Lord Cobham’s Head” and the “Sir John Oldcastle,” had displays from 1744, and in 1751 “New fireworks in the Chinese manner” were announced at the latter establishment.

The New Wells, in the same neighbourhood as the foregoing, had had a display as early as 1740, but it appears to have been of a scenic nature, representing the Siege of Portobello.

The “Star and Garter,” Chelsea, advertised displays by Signor Genovini of Rome, in 1762, and “Jenny’s Whim,” in the same neighbourhood, had displays somewhat earlier, the place having been established as a pleasure resort by a pyrotechnist.

Cromwell Gardens, in the vicinity of the present Cromwell Road, had what appears to have been a small display in 1784.

Rossi and Tessier, the pyrotechnists of Ranelagh, gave displays at the Bermondsey Spa Gardens in 1792. A representation of the Siege of Gibraltar was given, and on September 28th of that year, “by special desire the Battle of the Fiery Dragons, and the line comet to come from the Rock of Gibraltar and cause the Dragons to engage.” Brock also gave displays here later.

Finch’s Grotto Gardens, whose site is now occupied by the headquarters of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in Southwark, had occasional displays of fireworks about 1770, as did the Temple of Flora in the Westminster Bridge Road, about the same date. Clithero advertised a display of fireworks at Jamaica House, Rotherhithe, in 1762.

A Peace Celebration display is announced for February 7th, 1749, to “be play’d off this evening in the Field adjoining to the Tavern called Bob’s Hall.”

In 1788 Astley senior advertises, to take place at the Royal Grove and Astley’s Amphitheatre, Westminster Bridge, a “Double Display of Fire-Works.... Numerous Devices prepared in the usual way from Powder, etc., which will be alternatively played off with the new-invented Philosophical Fire-Works, under the direction of Mons. Henry, the inventor and Professor of Natural Philosophy from Paris.”

The same year he announces a display “on the Thames immediately after Astley’s Exhibition in Honour of His Majesty’s Birth-day,” and concludes by saying “the Fireworks are made under the Direction of Mr. Astley, by Messrs. Cobonell & Son, who will let them off on the Thames this evening at different signals from Mr. Astley, Sen., who will be mounted on the Gibraltar Charger, placed in a Barge, in the Front of the line of Fireworks.”

Firework Temple at Vauxhall, 1845. From a woodcut in “The Illustrated London News.”

The “Philosophical fireworks” above mentioned were evidently an imitation of those exhibited at the Lyceum by Diller, which he describes as “Philosophical Fireworks from Inflammable Air without smell, smoke or Detonation.” These appear to have been nothing more than gas jets arranged in patterns and designs, some revolving and some stationary. Air was forced from a bladder through a sponge saturated with ether. Movement and variation were produced by turning on and off the gas from separate sets of holes. Two colours only appear to have been produced—rose and green; these were by the addition of strontia and baryta or copper.

A handbill is in existence advertising a similar display at Hull in 1804, by W. Clarke.

During the early part of the nineteenth century several gardens round London made a feature of pyrotechnic displays. The Mermaid Gardens, Hackney, in “The Morning Chronicle” of June 1st, 1812, announces “the greatest feast for the eye ever exhibited is a superb firework by that unparalleled artist, Mr. Brock, Engineer.”

The Yorkshire Stingo and Bayswater Tea Gardens in the west gave displays up to the early forties. White Conduit House, in the Islington district, had firework displays from 1824 up to shortly before the closing of these gardens in 1849.

Rosherville Gardens, opened in 1837, the North Woolwich Gardens, the Eagle, 1825–82, the Globe, Mile End, the Cremorne, 1843–77, all had their firework displays. The best known, however, for this feature were the Surrey Zoological Gardens, 1831–56, where Southby, of Vauxhall, conducted displays for several years, producing pyrotechnic and scenic displays there. In 1841 he gave a reproduction of the fireworks of St. Angelo, and the Illumination of St. Peter’s, Rome, which proved a great attraction to the gardens.

In the provinces the Belvue Gardens, Manchester, and the Clifton Zoological Gardens, Bristol, have made a feature of firework displays in their list of attractions, those at the latter being carried out in 1835 by Gyngell.

The famous Cremorne Gardens made a feature of pyrotechnic displays and spectacles of the scenic type with more or less regularity from their opening in 1846 down to the final closing owing to public petition in 1877. The earlier displays were carried out by Mortram and Duffel.

Firework displays of a somewhat more ambitious nature have been given from time to time at the Alexandra Palace, no doubt in emulation of the historic Crystal Palace displays, which are dealt with in the ensuing chapter.

CHAPTER VI
FIREWORKS IN THE NINETEENTH & TWENTIETH CENTURIES

As we have seen, the commencement of the eighteenth century was marked by great activity in the pyrotechnic art.

Firework displays were looked upon as a necessary item in the programme of a place of public entertainment. So ambitious did these displays become, owing to keen rivalry existing between the various resorts, that any official display in celebration of peace or like event must of necessity be on a scale of unexampled lavishness.

No official display of note appears to have been given in London during the first thirteen years of the nineteenth century, or indeed since the Aix-la-Chapelle peace display. The reason may have been the public outcry on the score of waste on that occasion.

They were totally prohibited at the coronation of George III, and at his jubilee in 1809 there were apparently no firework displays in London, although more than forty towns about the country celebrated the event pyrotechnically, and a fine display was given from the Fleet at the Nore.

The largest public firework exhibition on this occasion was that given at Bombay, where the celebration took place earlier in the year, the date selected being June 4th, the King’s birthday, instead of October 25th, the actual anniversary of his accession.

The Peace of 1802, although no official display was given, was the occasion of much private pyrotechnic enterprise, the fireworks and illuminations in London lasting nearly a week.

The Peace of 1814 was signalised in London by several displays: the 1st of August was chosen for the Peace Celebration, it being the centenary of the accession of the House of Brunswick, and also the anniversary of the Battle of the Nile.

The display in Hyde Park commenced with a naval engagement on the Serpentine between model warships representing the English and the combined French and American Fleets. This item, which lasted three hours, was followed by a display of water fireworks. The display in Green Park commenced at ten o’clock, one of the chief items being the “grand metamorphosis of the Castle into the Temple of Concord.” This change, says a writer in “The Times” of the period, “was made with somewhat less celerity than those witnessed in our theatrical pantomimes. It resembled rather the cautious removal of a screen than the sudden leap into a new shape. When fully developed, however, it presented a spectacle which excited general approbation.”

The Temple of Concord was an elaborate structure illuminated with coloured lamps, and decorated with gilding, festoons, etc., and transparent paintings. It was designed by Smirke, the paintings being by Stodard, Howard, Hilton, and others, and represented such subjects as “The Golden Age,” and “Peace restored to Earth.”

Charles Lamb, in a letter to William Wordsworth, dated August 9th, 1814, after describing the havoc wrought in the park by the crowds and booths, remarks that: “After all the fireworks were splendent—the Rockets in clusters, in trees and all shapes, spreading about like young stars in the making floundering about in space (like unbroke horses) till some of Newton’s calculations should fix them, but then they went out. Anyone who could see ’em and the still finer showers of gloomy rain fire that fell sulkily and angrily from ’em, and could go to bed without dreaming of the Last Day, must be as hardened an Atheist as ****.”

St. James’s Park was reserved for those who paid for admission. The trees were illuminated with lamps, and a Chinese bridge, which had been erected over the lake, was similarly treated. The use of gas on this structure must be one of the earliest occasions of its being employed for outdoor illuminations of this nature. Neither can the result be considered altogether successful, as the building caught fire towards the end of the firework display, and a lamplighter, who appears to have been caught by the flames in an attempt to throw himself into the water, was killed. Other men similarly employed were also severely burned. These men, evidently through ignorance, had started lighting the lower lamps first, working upwards on the structure, until they found themselves in a position of intolerable heat with no means of descending.

The pyrotechnic display consisted chiefly of aerial fireworks with gerbs, roman candles, fountains, and wheels; there do not appear to have been many devices of any size. “The Times” reporter complains that “the repetition of these things, with occasional pauses, for more than two hours became tedious to all.”

The coronation of George IV, in 1821, was celebrated by a display in Hyde Park, including land and water fireworks, superintended by Congreve. The displays on the coronation of William IV, in 1831, were directed by Congreve’s successor, Sir Augustus Frazer, but appear to have been of an insignificant character.

Queen Victoria’s coronation was celebrated by displays in Hyde Park and Green Park, conducted by Southby and D’Ernst, which exhibitions included a Temple on similar lines to that of 1814.

In France, during the first few years of the nineteenth century, there were many pyrotechnic displays of importance. Napoleon is credited with being extremely partial to such exhibitions. Displays took place in Paris in the Champs Elysées, at the barriere Chaillot, before Les Invalides in 1801 to celebrate the foundation of the Republic, and in the following year in honour of Napoleon’s arrival in that city.

Major-General Lord Blayney, who was captured by Napoleon’s troops in the Peninsula in 1810, travelled on parole across Spain and France on his way to Verdun. His somewhat leisurely journey of nearly six months enabled him to witness many celebrations of French victories in the towns through which he passed. He records having seen fireworks and illuminations among other places at Malaga and Orleans.

In 1804 a display was given by Napoleon before the Hotel de Ville, Paris, on his assumption of the title of Emperor of the French. The scenery provided for this display took the form of a representation of Mount St. Bernard, with a figure symbolising Napoleon mounted on a charger on the summit.

This display was repeated in 1810 on the occasion of his marriage with Marie Louise; this time, however, the topmost feature was the Temple of Hymen, with figures of Napoleon and his bride.

Other displays were given on the bridge of Louis XVI, which appears to have been a popular position for such exhibitions, in 1800, 1804, 1806, 1820, and 1821. Another site frequently used for displays was the garden of the Senate, where Ruggieri fired displays in the years 1801, 1806 (twice), and 1807.

Fireworks continued to be a national institution in France, irrespective of the form of government. Louis Napoleon, like his uncle, being fond of fireworks, or it may be, considering them a good means of gaining popularity, made any public event an excuse for pyrotechnic displays. Notable occasions were the Military Fetes, 1852, the Fete of the Emperor, 1853, the visit of Queen Victoria to the Paris Exhibition of 1855, in honour of which a most elaborate display was given at Versailles, the Baptismal Fetes in 1856, the triumphal entry and the Emperor’s birthday, 1859, and the visit of the King Consort of Spain in 1864.

The Entente Cordiale movement in 1868 was responsible for displays in the Fleets on both sides of the Channel, those in France taking place in Cherbourg, those in England at Spithead.

A previous event which had been celebrated pyrotechnically on a large scale in both countries was the Peace Rejoicing at the conclusion of the Crimean War.

This occasion was marked in London by four displays of fireworks on a scale hitherto unprecedented. The sites chosen were Hyde Park, Green Park, Primrose Hill, and Victoria Park. They were arranged thus with the very sensible idea of splitting the crowds of sightseers into sections and thus preventing dangerous crowding to one spot. The fireworks were prepared for these displays in Woolwich Arsenal, under the direction of Mr. Southby, the pyrotechnist of the Surrey Gardens, who went there for this event.

The programmes of these displays were precisely similar, with the exception of that at Primrose Hill, which consisted mainly of aerial fireworks.

Tyrrell, in his “History of the War with Russia,” gives the following account of the display in Green Park: “At the appointed signal there was a continuous discharge of maroons, accompanied by brilliant illuminations with white, red, green, and yellow fires.... Then for two hours followed every conceivable design of elegant and dazzling pyrotechnic art. Flights of rockets a hundred at a time; revolving wheels, sun star and golden streamers, and fiery serpents chasing each other through the air. Gerbs, Roman candles, tourbillions, shells, and fixed pieces of the most fantastic designs and brilliant hues. The eyes were dazzled by the intensity of the light.... It was strange to believe that so fierce and ungovernable an element as fire could be rendered so delicately obedient to the will of man.... The triumph, however, of the entertainment was reserved for the close of it. This was a tremendous bombardment, during which the air was constantly filled with flights of rockets, and was intended as a representation of the last grand attack upon Sebastopol—the blowing up of the magazines and works, and general conflagration.

“As an introduction to this there were five fixed pieces, all of complicated construction, the centre being an enormous one which, amid all its fantastic blazing and revolving, exhibited the words ‘God Save the Queen.’ Language fails to convey a vivid idea of the deafening, roaring, crashing and grand appearance of the termination, during which the proud fortifications of Sebastopol were supposed to succumb. Then rose up into the blackness, rapidly one after another, six flights of rockets, comprising altogether no less than ten thousand of these beautiful and brilliant instruments.... It was such a spectacle as man could not reasonably expect to witness more than once in a lifetime.”

This account appears to be somewhat highly coloured, as the official programme makes no reference to the fall of Sebastopol, but it is evident from it that the writer was greatly impressed with the display, and contemporary prints indicate that he was voicing popular opinion.

It is worthy of note that these celebrations were the first occasion of the kind in which the exhibitions consisted of veritable fireworks without extraneous matter in the form of scenery and buildings. This may account for the fact that there was, on this occasion, considerably less of the usual outcry against the “waste” involved. It is curious that on occasions of this kind there are always to be found certain damp spirits who begin a clamour against the expenditure of money on fireworks which might be applied to other objects. The Aix-la-Chapelle display excited these gentlemen to a great pitch, probably on account of the elaborate nature of the preparations, which, as we have already seen, occupied over five months, thus providing them with plenty of time to develop their theme, or an object lesson to prove their statements.

Queen Victoria’s Visit to France, 1855. The Fireworks at Versailles. From a drawing by Gustav Doré in “The Illustrated London News.”

Where, however, the display consists—as on the occasion under consideration—solely of fireworks proper, a few days’ preparation on the actual site is usually sufficient; the kill-joy has less time to spread himself. It may be mentioned his season is over with the display; generally the British public, having enjoyed itself, turns a deaf ear to those who would convince it that it ought not to have done so.

Other displays took place in various parts of the kingdom: in Edinburgh on Arthur’s Seat, at Portsmouth on the Fleet, to mention two only.

An interesting event which took place on the 25th August was the entertainment of 2,000 men of the Guards at the Surrey Gardens. This resort was at the time the home of British pyrotechny, the displays being conducted by Southby, who, as we have said, went into Woolwich Arsenal to assist in the production of the fireworks for the official displays. The amusements of the day concluded with an exhibition of fireworks.

A further event connected with the foregoing celebration was the festivities in Moscow on the occasion of the coronation of the Emperor Alexander II, which concluded with a pyrotechnic display.

From this time until the end of the century the history of pyrotechny in this country is practically the history of pyrotechny at the Crystal Palace; it has been the Crystal Palace displays which have set the pace, as it were, to pyrotechnists in this country, and has provided the spur which has placed British pyrotechnists not only ahead but markedly ahead of their competitors in other countries.

The Crystal Palace displays became a national institution, and any public event worthy of such recognition was accorded a pyrotechnic celebration there on a scale hitherto unattempted.

The credit for the original introduction of fireworks at the Crystal Palace must belong to the late C. T. Brock, who succeeded in inducing the Directors to institute a competition among pyrotechnists in 1865. It may be interesting to give in his own words an account of the matter, taken from an article written by him some few years later:

“It occurred to me that of all the places of public resort suitable for the inauguration of a new era for pyrotechny, none offered such glorious advantages as the Crystal Palace, then at the height of its popularity. Its terraces, fountains and foliage offered unrivalled advantages for the display of grand effects. The Directors of the Crystal Palace Company, who had more than once been applied to for permission to hold displays in the grounds, feared that, inasmuch as fireworks had been recently associated solely with gardens of the Cremorne class, the Palace itself would be degraded to the same rank if consent were granted. I urged that the Exhibition of 1862 had afforded no opportunity for competition among firework makers—necessarily excluded by the nature of their trade—although almost every other branch of manufactures were embraced, that such a contest might with reason and advantage be held at Sydenham, and that fireworks were really not of an immoral tendency. I further agreed that in the event of the result being unfavourable, either financially or from a social point of view, no second display need take place, but if, as I felt confident, there should be a large attendance of the better classes, then other exhibitions might follow. The Directors, after many months of delay, consented to make the experiment, and the favourable result of the trial on July 12th, 1865, far exceeded my most sanguine expectations.

“The result was an unlooked-for success, 20,000 people being present on the occasion. Three more displays took place that year upon a small scale, but always with successful results.

“The first display was produced jointly by my father and Mr. Southby, the winner of the first prize, and continued to the end of that season by my father alone under my management.

“The success of fireworks at the Crystal Palace having become an accomplished fact, I built extensive works at Nunhead, and commenced manufacturing on a scale never previously dreamt of in the trade—the vast expanse of the locale of my displays obviously necessitating extraordinary expenditure of material.

“By degrees the set pieces grew from twelve feet in diameter to 300 feet. Shells for which the Crystal Palace has been renowned grew to one hundred times more than the ordinary shells of my early days, and thousands of pounds weight of material was gradually introduced to increase the effectiveness of these displays.”

“The GRAND WHIM for Posterity to Laugh at:
Being the Night View of the Royal Fireworks, as Exhibited in the Green Park, St. James’s, with the Right Wing on Fire.”
Firework Display in the Green Park to celebrate the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1749.

The Crystal Palace displays carried out by C. T. Brock and his brother, Arthur Brock, who succeeded him in the business on March 25th, 1881, have since become proverbial. They continued up to 1910, when the Crystal Palace was taken over by the promoters of the Pageant of Empire. They have been revived in 1920, when the War Museum was opened, and the attendance has proved that the public taste for fireworks is very far from diminishing.

During the run of forty-five consecutive years an installation was built up, method and technique were evolved unknown in any other place of pyrotechnic exhibition.

While the firework terrace, with its magnificent background of park and shrubberies, is unrivalled as a firing ground, it is at the same time the most exacting. The huge building, its imposing position and setting, the wonderful fountains, all demand pyrotechnic effects on a corresponding scale.

The pictorial set pieces, originally introduced by C. T. Brock in 1875, increased in size until a plant was arrived at capable of exhibiting a picture ninety feet high and two hundred feet long on the main girder, which length could be extended to even six hundred feet of frontage, as on the occasion of the exhibition of a battle piece or similar subject.

During this period the subjects dealt with in the main set pieces have covered a wide range. A favourite subject, and one lending itself particularly well to pyrotechnic production, is the sea battle. Almost every historic naval engagement of sufficient size to warrant its adoption has been proved the subject for a fire picture.

Among the battle pictures produced are the following:—Bombardment of Alexandria in 1882, Siege of Gibraltar in 1883, Battle of Trafalgar in 1884; during 1885, two pictures representing the use of the ironclads of the period and based on the Naval manœuvres, entitled the “Attack on Dover,” and the Battle of Bantry Bay; the following year another imaginary picture depicting an attack by torpedo boats on the latest battleship, the “Colossus.” The Bombardment of Sebastopol was reproduced in 1887, followed by the Jubilee Naval Review at Spithead. In 1888 the defeat of the Spanish Armada was depicted; in 1890 Trafalgar, followed in 1891 by the engagement between the “Chesapeake” and the “Shannon,” together with a portrait of Admiral Sir Provo Wallis, then aged one hundred, and another from an early painting showing him at the time of the engagement when the command of the English vessel devolved upon him owing to the casualties among the senior officers. Later in that year the Battle of the Nile was reproduced; 1893 saw the Bombardment of Canton; 1894 the Battle of the First of June, and the Battle of the Yalu. The Battle of Manilla Bay was produced in 1898, and on the centenary date the Battle of the Nile. In 1889, H.M.S. “Implacable” was shown in action on the day on which she was commissioned, followed in 1900 by the Bombardment of the Taku Forts, and in 1901 by the immortal sea fight between the “Revenge” and the “Fifty-three.” In 1904 the Russo-Japanese War gave subjects in the various attacks on Port Arthur and the Battle of Tsu-Shima, and the Battle of the Sea of Japan in the year following. The Battle of Trafalgar was renewed that season, and in 1908 another imaginary picture portraying modern naval warfare was produced, followed in 1909 by an imaginary encounter between the first Dreadnought and other craft.

The revival of the Crystal Palace displays in 1920 saw the reproduction of the Battle of Jutland, of which the following appreciation appeared in the Press: