The and the emergence of cinema The transformation of the magic lantern under influence of the arrival of cinema in the Dutch East Indies

Josefien van Poppel Student number: 10035524 Supervisor: Floris Paalman Second Reader: Marie‐Aude Baronian Thesis Master Studies University of Amsterdam Completion date: 10‐3‐2016

Unknown photographer, 9•2•1935. Dutch National Archive.

1 Index

Introduction 3

1. The pre•cinematic magic lantern (1657•1895) 12 1.1. The invention of the magic lantern: apparatus and early shows 13 1.2. Magical ghost show or scientific optical instrument? 16 1.3. Colonial magic lantern use in the Dutch East Indies 17 1.4. Change of function under the influence of new media 19 1.5. The lantern market of the Dutch East Indies 21 1.6. Conclusion 24

2. The age of showmen: transition and continuity (1896•1906) 26 2.1. Modernization in the Dutch East Indies 27 2.2. The magic lantern in the light of modernity 29 2.3. The arrival of cinema – the era of showmen (1896•1897) 31 2.4. Travelling companies: from fairs towards film theatres (1897•1905) 35 2.5. Conclusion 41

3. Lantern use: a new paradigm (1904•1910) 43 3.1. The magic lantern, new perspectives 44 3.2. The emergence of lantern use at lectures 48 3.3. Home use: a growing market 51 3.4. Conclusion 53

Conclusion 56

Bibliography 61

2 Introduction “New media might be here and slowly changing our consumer habits, but old media never left us. They are continuously remediated, resurfacing, finding new uses, contexts, adaptations.” This quote by Jussi Parrika from his book What is media archaeology? perfectly sums up the qualities of the magic lantern: the subject of this thesis. This was an ubiquitous optical instrument invented in the late seventeenth century and it has been used around the world for almost three decades. I came across a picture of this device, which is presented on the cover of this thesis. The description on the website of the Dutch National Archive reads: “In the Indies there is still place for the cabinet of wonders with moving images. When the man with the magic lantern appears, the whole village is overcome by great excitement, especially the youth.” I was struck by surprise, as I had always thought that the magic lantern was a very old device which completely disappeared after the introduction of cinema. This picture proved me wrong. The description also raises other questions: where I had thought the magic lantern was a device for the projection of still images, this lantern shows moving images. How is that possible? This thesis provides answers to these questions by looking at it in a media archaeological way as Parrika suggests: as a medium that is not monolithic, but that changed throughout the years, adapting to the market, the wishes of the customers and geographical and timely circumstances. For decades the lantern was primarily an object within the entertainment circuit: it was used by showmen within travelling companies to entertain the public with impressive projected images. In the late nineteenth century this function was threatened by another enormous invention, namely that of cinema. When cinema arrived the magic lantern might not have been of interest to the entertainment circuit anymore, because cinema offered moving or “living” images, while the magic lantern images were mostly still. It did offer the possibility of showing motion pictures due to the dissolving views camera, that was invented in the eighteenth century, which could make pictures dissolve, creating an effect of movement (possibly the camera on the picture). Nevertheless this technique did not nearly equal the possibilities for movement that film had to offer. With these possibilities and being the latest, most fashionable and most modern invention, cinema offered a major threat to the market position of the entertaining magic lantern show. This thesis addresses the

3 manner in which the magic lantern holders and creators responded to this invention and how cinema affected the use of the magic lantern. The question that is central to this research is: why and how did the magic lantern persevere after the emergence of cinema in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century? In order to answer this question, the uses and developments of the magic lantern prior to the emergence of cinema will be looked at and the manner in which the magic lantern gained popularity in the Dutch East Indies will be sought out. Secondly, the transition from lantern show to cinematic show will be researched very closely in order to find out how the introduction of cinema proceeded in relation to the magic lantern, by looking at show companies in the cities of Java. Finally the uses of the magic lantern in the beginning of the twentieth century will be explored in order to to answer how the magic lantern developed after the arrival of cinema. In this thesis the theories about lantern use provide a framework for a case study, which consists of lantern use within a specific geographical setting: that of the Dutch East Indies and particularly on Java. I have chosen for this environment, because of several reasons. In the first place: most academic literature about the magic lantern and about film is written about Europe and the United States. When it comes to the magic lantern most research is done about lantern use in the United Kingdom, because this medium was very popular in the Victorian Age. Asia is a relatively unexplored terrain which therefore might bring up alternative modes of lantern use. Secondly, the dynamics between the original population of the Indies and the Dutch on this colonial territory can play an important role within this research, because different lantern and cinematographic purposes can be derived from the relationship between the colonialist and colonized. And thirdly, and most importantly, the influence of modernity on the Dutch East Indies was very clear. Modernity is a concept that is often understood as a condition of the emergence of cinema, and is usually considered primarily a western phenomenon. Nevertheless, this research will show that modernity was inflicted in the archipelago very rapidly, which not only provided the inhabitants with modern aimed mindsets, but also offered very fertile ground for the quick emergence of cinema in this region. This dynamic can stress the context of the eighteenth century within which the lantern was created as a contrast to the modern environment of cinema, and the effects of these backgrounds on the use of these media.

4 Because the information about lantern use in this region is very limited, the core of this research will consist of more common studies about the apparatus and development of the magic lantern and zoom in on the use in the Indies as a case study to test and deploy these theories. When the transition of the lantern show towards a cinematic show will be discussed in the second chapter this process will completely be described within the context of the island of Java, in order to offer a very detailed account of this transformation, which took place in only a few years. Two theoretical frameworks will serve as counterparts to this thesis: media archaeology and modernity. Parrika states some media archaeological premises in the same introduction the first quote was drawn from, and this research will build upon those. Firstly media devices do not follow upon each other, or at least not in an individually causal relationship; they can also exist parallelly (4). Different uses and technical aspects of media can be taken over by new media, but this takes the form of a branched tree rather than in a linear one to one relationship in line with Foucault’s idea of genealogy: media can be formed by many different aspects relating to media networks, such as cultural practices and discourses, creating non•linear, alternative histories (6). Next to that, new media devices are not necessarily better than old ones and newness is a very relative concept: old media used to be new as well (11). Hence new media can be faster, formed by the latest technology and therefore more advanced, but old media might be more solid or easy in use. But most importantly a medium is not something static and solid. Media devices can change over time due to environmental influences, such as new inventions or a new ‘Zeitgeist’. And even if the apparatus does not change, new purposes can be found for media devices by new audiences and uses within new geographical contexts or timeframes. Modernity is often stated as the basis for the emergence of cinema and is mostly because of this a very popular concept in media archaeological theories, but it has rarely been linked to the magic lantern, despite the fact this concept is very fluid and has multiple approach angles. Therefore I seek to recover whether modernity was the sole or main condition for the emergence of cinema, and if the magic lantern also thrived on this development. Parrika describes the consequences of modernity as follows: “how new scientific and technological innovations influence the changing cultural landscape and even our basic ways of being in this world: seeing, hearing, thinking and feeling” (7). This quote suggests the magic lantern must also have been highly influenced by modernity, because it

5 was an optical medium connected to the way the people perceived the world. The emergence of modernity is situated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in most theories. Many non•media archaeological accounts of modernity have been written as well and I will therefore take a moment to explain how this research relates to these visions. Early cinema investigators Simon Popple and Joe Kember link modernity primarily to industrialisation and urbanisation (4). Upcoming metropolises had better transportation networks such as electrical tram connections from one side of the city to the other. This made leisure life a lot easier: it was literally more accessible, but also in terms of money, accessibility was achieved because of the upcoming middle class in the nineteenth century. This is a technocentric notion of modernisation: it is directly linked to developments regarding industry and machinery becoming more accessible and present in society on a much larger scale. In that sense this view is also limited: these developments are superficial symptoms of what must have been an underlying process. These factors could have contributed to the popularity and quick spread of cinema, but they do not explain why cinema has become popular in the first place, especially not in the Dutch East Indies. Elsbeth Locher•Scholten presents a somewhat more elaborated idea in her study regarding gender and modernity in the Dutch East Indies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century: she places modernity in a broader historical timeframe and with the addition of a particular way of thinking. In her point of view, modernity is “the application of rationality, the development of capitalism and industrialisation, including concomitant long•term processes, such as urbanisation, consumerism and individualisation” (32). In her work modernisation is a process, which has been going on for a longer time, namely since the Enlightenment. On top of that she adds a facet of rationality. In the Indies the enlightenment as a specific historical development never took place, because this was a western phenomenon. In that sense this definition of modernity might not be applicable. Further on she adds to this notion a second type of modernity: “the longing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century for progress, development and ‘the modern’ as well as the attraction of twentieth­century “modern” objects, like cars and telephones” (32). In this sense modernity is limited to a narrow timeframe, which captivates not only technical, mechanical and behavioural processes, but also puts the citizen in a position with agency while longing for “modern objects”. This “longing” existed in the Indies as well as in Europe. The consequences of this theory to colonial modernity are dual: on one hand the idea of

6 rationality since the Enlightenment suggests modernity wasn’t present in the colonies on the same level as in Europe. On the other hand the longing for modernity and integration of modern objects might have been present on the same level. This suggests modernity on the same level, but less deeply rooted and therefore of a different nature. This gives us a very complex notion regarding this research for additional reasons: the first chapter will point out that the longing for new media existed long before the end of the nineteenth century: other media had been popular as well for their newness, such as the magic lantern during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, which results in the question: was modernity or modernism, which refers to the modern mindset, a process that started before the late nineteenth century or is the longing for new media not always connected with modernity? And if the last is the case, was this aspect of modernity indeed a deciding factor for the popularity of cinema? This is a first hint towards the media archaeological notion that histories are more complex and there is not a simple causal relationship between modernity and the emergence of cinema. Another point of view can be derived from Tom Gunning’s article “The World as Object Lesson: Cinema Audiences, Visual Culture and the St. Louis World’s Fair, 1904” in which he puts emphasis on yet another aspect of modernity. For the most part, his idea corresponds with Popple’s and Kember’s idea, to which he adds some facets. About the World Fair in St. Louis, he states:

“The world exposition, then, served as a site where not only the products of modernity were displayed, but the protocols of modern spectating were rehearsed within the context of a new consumer culture. In this site Capitalism, Industrialism and Imperialism stagemanaged a complex interaction among technology, commodity, spectacle and ultimately, new forms of popular culture, all of which shaped the emergence of cinema” (424).

Gunning makes a connection between earlier mentioned aspects of modernisation such as industrialisation and technology and a new facet: modern spectatorship. Like Locher•Scholten he places responsibility for the emergence of modernity on the side of the people, the spectator in this case. On the other hand he recognizes the emergence of a new consumer culture within the context of industrialisation as Popple and Kember do. But once again I ask myself: is this new spectatorial mode a crucial factor in the popularity of cinema?

7 It might have shaped the interaction between the spectator and cinematic text, but in line with Gunning’s idea of cinema of attractions, which I will return to later on, audiences seem to have been interested in the medium because it was something new in the first place, as they had been in so many media in the decades before. The perspective of the relationship between modernity, cinema and the magic lantern I will bring forward in this thesis, is that these visions on late nineteenth century modernity did not form the primary condition for cinema to spread. However, both the magic lantern and cinema did develop under the influence of several aspects of modernity in a way that they could maintain their position in the twentieth century media landscape. The economic conditions that are often related to modernity such as the development of leisure life, the rise of the middle class, who had some money to spend and better transportation networks at their disposal, have undoubtedly contributed to the popularity of these media and to why they have sustained throughout the twentieth century. On the other hand, the interest in film was also for a large part made possible by other media such as the magic lantern, which had served a tradition of interest in new optics for decades and had already evoked a sense of interest in new products which clearly was not new when cinema spread. Moreover, as it comes to early cinematic practices, the second chapter will point out how the early cinematic show clearly fitted the tradition of magic lantern shows within the context of itinerary entertainment. In addition to the more extensive visions on media archaeology and modernity, other theoretical concepts and premises will form the cornerstones of this research. In the first place there is a clear difference between private magic lantern use and public lantern use. Fellow media archaeologist Meredith A. Bak has focused on private lantern use, especially use as a toy, while other authors have written about the magic lantern within the context of shows (Daniel Raichvarg) or in science lectures (Jennifer Eisenhauer). While private use was not at all threatened by the spread of cinema, aspects of public use did. The developments within public and private use will both be discussed, but emphasis will lay on presentational and show forms of lantern projection, because these forms show a clearer relation to cinema. Within this public context in the last chapter, the idea of controllability will be introduced. The direction in which the magic lantern developed after the introduction of cinema mostly had to do with the fact that this device was so easy in use and that the agency of the lantern show, presentation or projection lay with the controller and not with the device itself. The opposite goes for cinema: the device and its attributes terminated the show. In order to find

8 out all the benefits and disadvantages for using one device over the other, the uses and gratifications model will be deployed to point out all public•related factors that could play a part. Because this research is about the development of the lantern over a large period of time, an extensive role is reserved for trends and discourses relating to paradigms the magic lantern was placed within by the users and spectators during the different era’s of use. Daniel Raichvarg has related his magic lantern show research to the eighteenth century notions of science and magic, while Terry Castle elaborates on the rational and irrational effects of the in the Post•Enlightenment period. These aspects help to explain why the lantern was popular and why it developed in certain directions. In the late nineteenth century, in the aftermath of the industrial revolution, science and magic were not the common trends anymore and this completely changed the way in which the magic lantern was perceived and advertised, partially under the influence of cinema. These paradigms help to point out the diverse ways in which the magic lantern functioned and to understand why it was so resilient. Finally, I will follow up on Malte Hagener’s practical adaptation of Gunning’s cinema of attractions in order to stress the continuity between the early cinematic shows and the lantern shows, by deploying his model of a dialectics between attractions and narrativity. The context of the Dutch East Indies is chosen partially because it creates a clearer contrast between the late nineteenth century atmosphere of modernity and the period beforehand, and this context requires specific theory. The colonial context will be expounded by focusing on the relationship between colonizer and colonised. Within this specific relationship an important concept is featured: that of mission civilisatrice introduced by the work of Henk Schulte Nordholt, who is a specialist on Indonesia and orientalism. With the idea of spreading wealth and modernity in the colonies, the Dutch brought new technology and products to the Dutch East Indies in order to educate the local inhabitants. Media were implemented and transformed in the lines of this ‘mission’. The original inhabitants who were also influenced by and focused on modernity, were eager to pick up new forms of media and especially cinema became very popular within those groups of society. This can partially be explained with research by Karen Strassler, who researched the visual and consumer culture in Indonesia. Her research points out that the original inhabitants of the Dutch East Indies engaged with western products and customs by integrating them within their own traditional lifestyle. This way it did not cause much friction. Dafna Ruppin’s promotion

9 research forms a bridge from these accounts of colonial modernity, previous theories on modernity and the Dutch East Indonesian film Industry by focussing on the emergence of cinema on Java. These theories along with literature research will form a framework to interpret source material consisting of paper articles and advertisements found on the online paper database Delpher. These articles come from papers from the Dutch East Indies in the eighteenth and nineteenth century on the islands of Java and Sumatra. I have chosen for paper articles because they reflect the trends in public culture and offer insights in different types of articles: advertisements for shows, sales and reports of shows in the form of public opinion. The papers I will use are the Javasche Courant and Java•Bode, about the whole island Java, Soerabaijasch Handelsblad, the paper from the city Surabaya, Bataviasche Courant, Bataviaasch Handelsblad and Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad from Batavia (former Jakarta), De Locomotief: Samarangs Handels• en Advertentieblad and Samarangs Advertentie•blad from Semarang, and the Sumatra Post from the island Sumatra. Most papers were from Java and Sumatra, which were the most densely populated and cultivated by the Dutch, and which is the reason why I will restrict this research to these islands. These sources provide information about how the magic lantern shows and early cinematic shows were advertised and perceived and about the lantern sales in the Dutch East Indies in terms of locations, prices, target groups and trends. They are on the other hand limited as well; these papers were written in Dutch by the Dutch colonizers and aimed mostly at a Dutch public. They provide relatively limited information about the use of these media by the original inhabitants and Asian immigrants. It is therefore hardly possible to make estimations of the scale of lantern use and cinema visiting by these groups based on selected papers, but with the help of theories and trends as described in the literature about colonial media use, some information can be extracted about the nature of the media use of these inhabitants. In order to find out why the magic lantern remained in a stable position on the market a couple of benchmarks will be deployed, based on which a comparison between the two media will be made. The differences in apparatus between both media will be looked at to see if these are different in quality or if they make different kinds of use possible. Especially ‘usability’ is an important criterion I will investigate as it comes to the apparatus, because this can be an crucial factor in the popularity in private and public use. In addition, the functions and uses of the lantern and the early cinematic devices will be compared to see if the

10 possibilities the apparatuses offered were actually put into practice. Finally, emphasis will be put on promotion and audiences to find out what types of audiences were attracted to the magic lantern and early cinematic shows and in what ways. The most likely aspects to differ when looking at the way in which the magic lantern developed after the introduction of cinema are apparatus and function, as it mostly became a illustrational device at lectures. But looking at the front picture, audiences might have shifted as well. This research will start off with a chapter about the pre•cinematic period about lantern use. I will begin by explaining how and when the lantern was invented and how it soon developed different functions within different social and geographical groups. Then, I will put emphasis on the use of the magic lantern within the context of the Dutch East Indies and find out how the lantern market developed in this region. In the second chapter I will reflect upon the emergence of cinema based on the concept of modernity. There will be shown how this medium arrived and spread in the archipelago. In this chapter emphasis is put upon the transition from the lantern show towards the cinematic show, and the similarities between these two entertaining modes will be stressed in order to find out why the lantern disappeared within this context and to what extent it influenced the cinematic show. In the third chapter I will point out how the magic lantern developed after the arrival of cinema. This chapter will show how the entertaining function decreased along with the raise in popularity of cinema and how the lantern thrived within the context of lectures by combining the theories on home and toy use as formulated by Bak’s and Eisenhauer’s theories on home use with the information derived from the Dutch East Indies’ paper articles.

11 Chapter one: The pre•cinematic magic lantern

The magic lantern was a Dutch Invention from the seventeenth century (Wagenaar•Fischer 15). In order to find out the qualities of the lantern and understand how the lantern functioned and developed in the Dutch East Indies at the time cinema arrived in the late nineteenth century, this chapter shows how the magic lantern was invented and how it spread throughout the world in the decades of lantern use previous to the time cinema was invented. Within this period from the late seventeenth to the late nineteenth century, the world changed immensely. The lantern was invented in a time, when society was at the start of modernization: the industrial revolution had yet to commence, many important things we associate with technology nowadays such as electricity were not yet invented and the world was in very early stages of globalization. Travelling went slowly, world trade was also in an early stadium. In this era science was quickly developing, partially due to the enormous wealth of Europe. Many inventions were done in the area of machinery and optical devices. Many of these have lost public interest soon afterwards, but the lantern persevered up to the 1950s. Why and how was the lantern able to stay on the market and what functions did it fulfill? In order to find this out this chapter will zoom in on the purposes and ways of using the lantern from the invention of the lantern up to the arrival of cinema in the Indies. The development of these purposes and functions will show how the lantern developed, in what contexts the device was used and why in order to find out the importance and replaceability of the medium. The lantern’s journey commenced in the Netherlands from the workplaces of the scientists to the houses of the upper class civilians, but soon spread throughout Europe in the form of the lantern show. From the beginning, the magic lantern was used in different ways within different social contexts. I will show in this chapter in what paradigms the eighteenth century lantern users and spectators placed the medium and why and how they used the device based on literature about the lantern apparatus by Albert Wagenaar and scholars who followed up on his research, theories about public lantern shows in the eighteenth century such as Daniel Raichvarg’s article and discourse analysis of the phantasmagoria by Terry Castle. Because this research focuses primarily on the Dutch East Indies, in the second half of this chapter I will focus on lantern use within the geographical context of this area and show the additional modes of lantern use by studying Dutch East Indies’ paper articles.

12 The outlines of this research are media archaeological and this chapter fits within that framework: instead of seeing the magic lantern as a monolithic instrument and predecessor of the modern slide projector because of its very similar apparatus, this chapter will examine the different uses and possibilities of the lantern within the entertainment spectrum as well as its educational purposes. I want to emphasize on different perspectives of the lantern and focus on the different uses of the lantern throughout the centuries. I will do so by deploying different methods: I connect the source material consisting of the paper articles to a more common framework of literature and theory to find out the specifics about Dutch East Indies lantern use and how this colonial context relates to more western based research about this medium. I will also deploy discourse analysis by exploring the meaning of the words “magic lantern”, “scientific lantern” and “phantasmagoria” in the eighteenth and nineteenth century in order to research the different perspectives on the lantern and to find out what made this medium attractive to its audiences. Castle’s research for example, explains how it appealed to irrationality and the senses at the same time, which served as fertile ground for different forms of lantern use as this chapter will point out.

The invention of the magic lantern: apparatus and early shows The magic lantern was invented in the seventeenth century. It was a projection instrument, which incorporated similar but reversed techniques to those of the : the camera obscura projected the lit outside world through a lense or hole on the inside of a box, while the magic lantern projected an image lit by a flame inside the box on an outside wall through a lense. The original apparatus was a small box in which a small flame was placed, for example a candle or oil lamp. On top was a small chimney to release the smoke and a mirror was placed against the backside to reflect the light. In front of the flame one could place several small images painted on glass. Also similar to the Camera Obscura, the images had to be placed upside down to project the images the right way. In front of the image there was a lens, which projected the image on a flat surface. There have been disagreements about who has invented the device: Danish mathematics student Thomas Walgenstein and Jesuit Father Athanasius Kircher have both been indicated as possible inventors, but most scholars agree it was the Dutch mathematician and scientist Christiaan Huygens who invented the actual object around 1659 (Wagenaar et al. “The True Inventor” 23).

13 By the end of the seventeenth century, the magic lantern was no longer privileged to the scientific world and the lantern trade started to develop (Robinson 9). The lantern became a curiosity at that time, a toy for wealthy gentlemen. Scientists lost their interest in the device during the eighteenth century and most lanterns fell in the hands of traveling lanternists, who started a tradition of travelling lantern shows that would continue for nearly two centuries. They used the lanterns for shows throughout Europe in drawing rooms, bars and taverns (Robinson 9). The first lanternists came from the Savoy, a region in modern Switzerland, Italy and France, who had a rich tradition of street entertainment and adopted the lantern within their repertoire among a peepbox and a trained marmot (Loughridge 13). They often traveled with their families and other family members would provide different kinds of entertainment. From the early lantern days two modes of use are already brought to existence: public use and private use. Both were interesting for the public or owner for their newness, their association with science and magic and the sense of wonder the machine brought up. Also, the projections allowed the viewers to experience these sensations together and in that sense the lantern also fulfilled a social role. The lantern soon spread throughout Europe along with these travelling companies. To cater the entertaining functions of the lantern the apparatus of the machine was changed: another type of lantern was created, which was called the Bull’s­eye lantern (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 27). This new apparatus was small, light and easily transportable. The lens could be shifted some inches to create the right angle for the projection surface. But the Bull’s Eye Lantern was only one variation in the first magic lantern of many to come. The ‘s Gravesande Lantern (invented between 1720 and 1742) was a larger projector with larger slides (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 47). Consequently the projections were larger as well. Several innovations were added to the apparatus in order to improve the illumination, image quality and usability. In the 1780s, a Swiss lanternist developed a “quinquet lamp”, which was a huge improvement on the terrain of illumination (Robinson 9). New models of the magic lantern were not only made in The Netherlands or even in Europe, also in Japan several magic lantern models were invented from the eighteenth century onwards (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 49). This meant the lantern was no longer exclusive to the European market. As a result, new forms of lantern use were invented in Asia as well, such as utsushi•e: a hybrid form between lantern projection and shadowplay that was invented in Japan and popular during the nineteenth

14 century (Willis 7). Another Japanese invention that was created after utsushi•e was furo: an incredibly light magic lantern made out of a light wood instead of European metal (Willis 7). There are no records of the use of these devices outside Japan, so there is reason to believe these types of lanterns were exclusive to the Japanese market, but the European magic lantern was spread to other parts of Asia as well during the nineteenth century. Magic lanterns were not the only optical instruments on the market at the time: the wealthy seventeenth century citizens were fond of all kinds of optical toys and objects. Among those objects was the perspective box, which is a small box in which a painting was made against the backside creating the illusion of perspective. “Chinese Fireworks” were boxes with a perforated image in front with light shining through. Some other inventions of the founder of the magic lantern Christiaan Huygens were also quite popular, like the “Diaphanorama”: an optical toy, which created perspective in an image with a lamp and a mirror (Wagenaar et al. “Festive Illumination” 93). These objects made use of ingenious techniques involving light and perspective like the magic lantern. The magic lantern clearly did not have a monopoly position on the market and had to compete with all these other instruments. On the other hand, the magic lantern offered the possibility to paint your own lantern slides and many slides with different themes, such as biblical themes, “funny” portraits and landscapes were already made in several European countries in the early eighteenth century (Wagenaar et al. “Dutch Lantern Workshops” 40). Partially because of its many options and functions such as the possibility to paint your own lantern slides or buy standard packages the magic lantern was the only instrument that lasted throughout the decades. In 1803 advertisements started to report on a “new magic lantern” with “beautiful” and “coloured” pictures. This contributed to a new trend: the consumer and advertiser started to see the magic lantern as a toy. From 1806 to 1909 the magic lantern was advertised in several papers as a gift for small boys (Groninger Courant 26•12•1806). In The Leydse Courant from 1815 an article sums up “new, cheerful and educational St. Nicholas toys”. One of the toys was a magic lantern, lined up among some mathematic toys and a small pharmacy for “bourgeoisie children” (4­12). But the idea of the magic lantern as a scientific “toy” for wealthy gentlemen was also still in fashion: advertisements for “fine magic lanterns with additional catalogus” were still in the papers next to the toy advertisements (Leydse Courant 26•01•1824). Hence, there seem to have been two notable trends in the private magic

15 lantern use in The Netherlands of the nineteenth century. On one hand there was a continuation of the magic lantern use of the eighteenth century: wealthy men, who kept this object as a curiosity or a hobby among rare books, paintings and musical instruments and other optical toys such as “illumination closets”, Chinese fireworks and later on also burning glasses and electrical equipment. Most of these advertisements seem to be placed by booksellers, which suggests magic lanterns along with the other optical toys belonged to intellectual spheres at this time. On the other hand the magic lantern also became a toy for children. It is unclear whether it was the same type of magic lantern that was used as a toy.

Magical ghost show or scientific optical instrument? Throughout the eighteenth century two discourses relating to the lantern became dominant: the lantern as an optical and scientific device, and •more often in show context• the lantern show was performed by a so­called “magician”. It is imaginable that the effect of the lantern projection was quite magical for the spectator in this era as the magic lantern was the first projection device. Daniel Raichvarg points out taht this trend of the magical on one hand and the scientific on the other went for all forms of optical entertainment at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century. In his article “Science on the Fairgrounds, from Black to White Magic”(585), he argues this is caused by the popularization of science and the existence of public science shows. The performers, who were not necessarily educated scientists but often showmen, optimized the effect of wonder and surprise by using magnetism and electricity (589). This explains why science and magic were often connected to each other without further notice. A specific type of lantern show became particularly popular during the late eighteenth century: the phantasmagoria. This type of show fitted perfectly within the context of scientific magic as it was a ghost show made possible by modern science. Terry Castle connects the phantasmagoria to an even broader and more psychological development: that of the rational and the irrational. These states of the mind reinforced each other and were invoked by the ghost shows, which showed the technique to the spectators, but not entirely. The effect was a ghost projection was visible, the spectator saw a ghost while knowing ghosts did not exist (Castle, 30). This type of show was invented by Etienne Gaspard Robertson, a Belgian inventor and physicist. He made the projection surface translucent by treating a fine woven screen with wax or water (Robinson 10). By moving the lantern closer or further

16 certain effects would be created which made the images look like ghosts. The showmen of these shows were called magicians and physicists. While the background of this terminology is explained, it seems as though there is hardly a difference between these terms. However, calling the performer a physicist puts emphasis on the rational part of the lantern show and suggests the show can be explained as a scientific show. On the other hand calling the performer a magician leads the spectator away from this explanation towards a more irrational and entertaining perspective of the lantern show. While these discourses were interwoven during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, they split into different modes of lantern use afterwards. The rational idea of lantern use would later prove fertile ground for renewed scientific interest in the lantern, while the irrational magical discourse led to the emergence of lantern use within the entertainment industry. During the nineteenth century the phantasmagoria remained very popular. Whereas the magic lantern was an object often used in the private sphere and owned by private individuals, the phantasmagoria was exclusively a public show. The newspaper advertisements reflect this: the magic lantern was mostly mentioned in advertisements of furniture sales and the phantasmagoria was labeled as a “spectacle”; these advertisements were for ticket sales. The first advertisement for a phantasmagoria show in Dutch papers was in 1805 in the Amsterdamsche Courant. This show was on the Imperial Golf Court on the Keizersgracht, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city. At first the spectators would see “a public representation of physic and mechanic pieces of art” followed by a phantasmagoria or ghost appearance and concluded by a “whole new ghost ballet”. These phantasmagoria shows from Amsterdam were promoted as physical and technological progress, which is completely in line with the theory. At a show in 1811 in Amsterdam (Courrier d’Amsterdam) the show starts with applying electricity on a human body and magnetic liquid. It ends with “hydraulic”, a science in the dynamics of liquid. These elements must have been appealing to the public considering that this aspect of the show was featured in the advertisement.

Colonial magic lantern use in the Dutch East Indies The Dutch started to settle in the Indies at the time of the VOC (“Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie”; Dutch East Indies Company) in the seventeenth century (Ruppin 30). At first there were only a few trading posts on different islands. From around 1825 the island of Java

17 was almost completely under Dutch governance. In 1830 the Cultivation System came into operation, which meant all Indonesian companies had to pay twenty percent of their income and products to The Netherlands. The archipelago wasn’t officially Dutch territory until the ending of the nineteenth century. The settlement of Dutch colonists heavily increased when the Suezcanal opened in 1869. The traveling time reduced from several months to a couple of weeks, making the Dutch East Indies a more attractive place to settle. Compared to the Netherlands, the magic lantern in the Dutch East Indies seems to have been used less in the sphere of optical toys for wealthy adults, but it was nonetheless a curiosity or hobby object at first. The first magic lantern advertisements started to appear in newspapers in the beginning of the nineteenth century, almost a century later than in The Netherlands, because this country was yet to be inhabited by a widespread Dutch society at that time. The first account is from the Batavische Courant (18•04•1818). It is an advertisement of a lottery at which several prizes are offered. These prizes consisted of a “very good magic lantern”, an English stagecoach, a French table lamp, English guns, a microscope and a Bengal palankin, which was a typical Asian carriage. The objects seem more international, useful and diverse than the objects that were sold in the Dutch papers, which shows that the households of the Indies were more internationally oriented and that the lantern was not necessarily associated with the world of optical toys in this setting. The second advertisement from the Javasche Courant twenty years later (17•05•1837) offers very similar products: English guns, carriages and a magic lantern. Magic lanterns were placed among somewhat exclusive and exotic (foreign) objects in the first half of the nineteenth century. In later advertisements however, the typography of advertisements for lanterns were relatively small in comparison with other objects such as a “fine music box” and “porcelain and glasswork” (Java•Bode 23•04•1881). Hence the magic lanterns exotic and exclusive status probably had declined at a quick pace and had become a normal useable object. The phantasmagoria was also present at the entertainment market in the Dutch East Indies, although it seems like the word “phantasmagoria” was not necessarily associated with ghost appearances and horror shows. Most advertisements dealt with public magic lantern shows of all kinds with all sorts of images and for different types of public. The first advertisement of a show in this genre was in the Javasche Courant in 1839 (31•8), thirty years later than the first phantasmagoria show in a Dutch paper. The performer of the show was a “physicist” called Robertson, who came from The Netherlands and went back there

18 after 1839. It was a “catoptric and dioptric” (scientific optical terms, referring to the different kinds of light focus) experience and twenty•five images were shown. The subjects of the images were not advertised, which suggests the phantasmagoria of the physician should be interesting enough in itself. While the phantasmagoria was not advertised with ghost appearance, it did fit in the magic and science discourse as it did in Europe. Not only in Batavia, but also in other cities on Java, phantasmagoria shows took place. In 1855 there was a show in Semarang (Samarangsch advertentie•blad 16•03). Almost all paper advertisements were in Dutch, which shows it was directed towards Dutch or Dutch speaking citizens. Nothing is reported about an entrance fee. This show stood even further away from the association of the phantasmagoria with horror and ghost appearances which was neither in the Netherlands nor in the Indies a selling point of the show any longer at this time. Instead, this show would evoke some laughs and the images would exist of nature and art pictures. From the 1850s, “phantasmagoria” became a popular word in Dutch East Indies newspapers. It meant something like imagination, hallucination, apparition or fantasy: all of which connected to the irrational state of mind. In a paper article of 1884 the word was used within the following sentence: “This was not his only phantasmagoria, because after he entered the club building he imagined the bag he saw was his own property” (De Locomotief 22•3). It is clear within this sentence the word phantasmagoria was used as a synonym for imagination. Taking the common use of the word in paper articles into account, the show had to have a great influence on the Dutch language and must have been commonly known in all parts of the Dutch and Dutch colonial society.

Change of function under influence of new media From the introduction of the magic lantern in the early nineteenth century until the late nineteenth century the magic lantern has been used with different goals in the Dutch East Indies. The primary association with the magic lantern was entertainment. Within the spectrum of entertainment the magic lantern served different goals: in the private sphere it could show images to small groups. Some people placed advertisements to come to parties with their own magic lantern to show images to groups (Java•Bode, 26•4•1889). The magic lantern showed different pictures with different purposes: were always drawn or painted, until the invention of photography. Some contained moving elements. Because it was a relatively new medium, people used it to impress their guests. Similarly to the use in The Netherlands,

19 in the Dutch East Indies the device was also depicted as a toy. An example of this can be found in an advertisement of 1884, where the magic lantern was advertised as “a toy for kids” (Bataviaasch Handelsblad, 9•8). Later on photographic pictures became fit for the magic lantern, thanks to the process of collodion: an 1850s invention of Frederick Scott Arker which made the attachment of photographs to a glass plate possible by adding a layer of collodion emulsion (Fresko 53). In the second half of the nineteenth century it became possible to print photographs on the magic lantern glass slides. pictures were initially also attached to glass and the production of these images continued for the magic lantern: the manufacturers simply cut the pictures in two in order to make them fit (Dellmann 14). There are various examples of photographic image views of Dutch cities printed on glass. These were originally meant as souvenirs for tourists visiting The Netherlands and they were manufactured and distributed by a Dutch company called Merkelbach & Co. (Dellmann 15). It is very likely that some of these pictures reached the Dutch East Indies, as the company Merkelbach & Co. also advertised in the newspapers of the Dutch East Indies as well with magic lanterns and additive pictures (Java•Bode, 21•12•1889). The pictures could have served as a means for a connection with the homeland, which became an important lantern function on colonial grounds in the late nineteenth century as further explained in chapter three, Most magic lantern shows advertised with pictures coming from Europe, indicating there was a notable trade in magic lantern equipment between Europe and the Dutch East Indies. There is some more evidence of photographic magic lantern pictures of The Netherlands in this country: a sale advertisement in the Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad from 1862 offered a device for home viewings and (02•08). It specifically offered slides with pictures from Holland, Belgium, France and Italy along with the machine. This new lantern function made possible by the invention of photography enabled the Dutch inhabitants of the Dutch East Indies to watch pictures from home away from home on a big surface. A second private magic lantern function that developed throughout the nineteenth century was showing pornography. The authors of Dutch East Indies newspaper articles mostly associated pornography with French sexual immorality. Nevertheless, different pornographic lantern pictures from the Netherlands have been preserved throughout the centuries (Wagenaar Dutch Perspectives 54). There is no evidence of these images being transported to the Indies, but that might be explained by the fact that pornography wasn’t a

20 publicly accepted phenomenon. Most traces of pornography would therefore be erased. It is still very well possible these pictures were shown communally in gentlemen’s clubs and brothels (Heard 180). Most pornographic lantern images were produced in France and some in Britain and the United States. These images varied from quite unrevealing and innocent pictures of somewhat daring half dressed women to pictures of naked women, nudes of concurred land and tribes, such as pictures of naked Zulu women and Indian dancing girls. The circulation of pornographic images was forbidden in Dutch territory but that seems to be a matter of terminology: in some papers even short soft erotic poems were published. Acceptable erotica was mostly associated with poetry, literature (women’s fiction) and dance, but there were also many erotic pictures and picture book sales in papers (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 30•05•1891). From the late nineteenth century stereoscope images with multiple erotic pictures “exclusively for gentlemen” were also available (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 08•04•1897). This could be an indication for the use of such images with the lantern as well, since stereoscope pictures were often also made for this device. Thus, pornography was a phenomenon that was exploited by different media: paper pictures, stereoscopy and the magic lantern. However, the projection of pornographic pictures is remarkable, because although the use of pornographic images probably took place in private circles, the act of projection made it accessible to a public. In the second chapter will be pointed out how film also took on pornography in the form of public projection. The nature of watching pornography consequently changed by means of the lantern from a private phenomenon to a public custom.

The lantern market of the Dutch East Indies There were several types of magic lanterns in circulation in the Dutch East Indies, which served different purposes. They came in different materials and sizes. Many advertisements report “a large and beautiful magic lantern with sail” or “a very fine and extraordinarily big magic lantern with forty­six different items”, referring to lantern slides (Javasche Courant 17•05•1837). These types of magic lanterns were fit for public shows and home viewing in small companies. The “sciopticon” was a big and advanced type of lantern, which had special slides allowing images to fade in and out and to add colour filters. This lantern was vrey popular in the Dutch East Indies. The magic lantern types fit for kids were probably smaller as the bigger ones were quite expensive and therefore not very practical for them.

21 One of the first types of magic lantern that could show a form of motion pictures, was the “dissolving views” lantern: a specific magic lantern type with two lenses placed on top of each other that could merge two pictures by slowing stopping the light on one lense and gradually bringing it up on the other (Marsh 334). The dissolving views were solely used for entertainment, mostly for phantasmagorias: the dissolvement of the pictures formed the spectacle in itself. The idea of this type of camera arose under pressure of competing devices such as Daguerre’s diorama, which also showed moving images (Marsh 335). The possibilities of movement within the dissolving views lantern were very basic: it could make transitions from day to night or summer to winter. Different types of dissolving view cameras were on the market: a sciopticon could also be a dissolving views lantern if it had two lenses. A sale advertisement in the Bataviaasch Handelsblad from 1862 offered a device for showing “dissolving views” and phantasmagorias (02­08). It was evenly suitable for private viewings as for public ones. It cost ƒ800, which was certainly not affordable for everyone. This does not have to mean all magic lanterns were this expensive at that time: this specific machine included a lot of images, as well as moving images and it was a very rare type. The magic lanterns were basically present at all places where (somewhat wealthy) people lived and where trade took place. Most advertisements of magic lantern sales and shows were from the bigger cities, but an advertisement from 1889 specifically made clear the magic lantern could also be transported to the inlands (07•01•1889 Java•Bode). Places where the magic lantern viewings took place varied from homes of people to public buildings in the bigger cities on the island of Java, depending on the nature of the show. Most magic lantern shows (phantasmagorias and other entertaining shows) took place in Batavia (Jakarta), Semarang, Soerabaja, Buitenzorg (Bogor), but some also took place in the bigger cities of the island of Sumatra. Most shows were given in public buildings such as city theaters and comedy theaters, but there were also shows in society buildings and schools. The magic lanterns were quite expensive, and therefore they were not affordable for everyone. The shows seem to have been somewhat exclusive and aimed at an upper class public at first, but became more publicly accessible as time passed and magic lanterns became ubiquitous. The first advertisement of a phantasmagoria show was written in French, which suggests the public was prosperous as only the aristocracy spoke French in the nineteenth century but it could also have been directed towards French colonists as this rubric in the paper also reports news from French cities (Javasche Courant 31•8•1839). It was

22 accessible for everyone, also children. The entrance price was ƒ3 per person; that is worth approximately €28,­ today. Tickets were a lot more expensive than in the Netherlands, so the show might have been more exclusive here or aimed at a wealthier public. Advertisements in November 1853 of phantasmagoria shows in the Java•bode announce the performance of another physicist, this time a very famous “optician” from Paris called Charles Chevalier. The show took place on Saint Nicolas day and was also accessible for children. It took place in Noordwijk, a neighborhood of Batavia. This show cost ƒ2 for officers, riders and ladies and ƒ1 for children. There were no prices mentioned for other male civilians (farmers or salesmen), which suggests they were not welcome and the show was only accessible to colonialist soldiers and officers. Later on other phantasmagoria shows were advertised, which were accessible to a different (broader) public and not only to the wealthy Dutch speaking class. In 1856 a performance of puppets and phantasmagoria images took place in the house of a Chinese man in the Chinese camp (Java•Bode 16•02•1856). It was spoken in Malay, the language of the Indonesian and Chinese inhabitants. The latter formed a big part of the society of the Dutch East Indies as well. It is certainly possible that more shows for Malay speaking people were given, but there are no reports of these shows in the Dutch papers. They might have been advertised in another way, which would make sense since the papers were written in Dutch (and some parts in French), and those people didn’t always speak Dutch. Most phantasmagoria shows had special reduced entrance fees for children. Some phantasmagoria show advertisements mention prices for children who are brought by their maids, suggesting the advertisement actually aimed at the children as a target groups. But there were also magic lantern shows especially for children. These were often cheaper: ƒ0,50 a ticket (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 28­04­1889). Some children’s festivals with different activities (games, a wizard performing magic tricks, small Dutch pancakes and music) also offered a magic lantern show. Not only the rich Dutch children were welcome to attend the phantasmagoria shows, some shows explicitly offered free seats to orphans and children that did not go to school to offer them entertainment, as a form of charity (De Locomotief: Semarangsch Handels• en advertentieblad 28•04•1881).

23 Conclusion There were different reasons to the magic lantern’s perceiving popularity during the eighteenth and nineteenth century I aimed to show in this chapter by means of the lanterns’ apparatus, its abilities to adapt to different purposes and markets and the fact that it incorporated new media instead of losing ground by their competition. I will explain shortly how these facets contributed to the duration of the lantern’s popularity. The lantern’s apparatus, as explained by Albert Wagenaar and his followers, was presumably a Dutch invention from the late seventeenth century. It was invented within the context of science, but soon became available for a larger group of wealthy consumers and soon afterwards for travelling companies, who used the device for shows. Along with the change of audience the apparatus of the lantern changed to fit its purposes: the Bull’s Eye Lantern was small and therefore easy to transport, making the device ideal for itinerary companies, while the larger ‘s Gravesande lantern suited home entertainment. Other forms of lanterns were produced to fit local markets, such as the magic lanterns that were made in Japan and could be combined with local forms of entertainment. Later on, the dissolving view lantern and sciopticon lantern contributed to the demonstration of motion pictures, which kept the magic lantern interesting for an audience that had been familiar with lantern entertainment in the decades before. With help of its transformable and adaptable apparatus, the lantern was able to serve different geographical markets and to live up to the wishes of the changing times. The abilities of the lantern to adapt to different purposes and markets is already partially explained by its apparatus. However, there were other qualities of the lantern and its promoters to suit these purposes and markets, such as new practices and ways of promotion. With help of the articles of Daniel Raichvarg and Terry Castle, I pointed out that the magic lantern in its public form suited the interests of the eighteenth and nineteenth century civilians in science and magic. As scientific shows were a trend at the time, the magic lantern appealed to the public with advertisements relating to these aspects. In order to cater this interest, the phantasmagoria was invented which was a ghost show, that was partially explained but nonetheless evoked feelings of fear and surprise. When the trend of science and magic had come to fade, the phantasmagoria shows obtained a more neutral connotation. At the same time, within private circles, the lantern was still deployed for toy use for kids and for private screenings. A particular purpose for men was that of showing pornography. But also diverse

24 local markets were served with the magic lantern. As Sarah Dellman’s article helped to point out, the use of photography as lantern slides allowed the civilians in the Dutch East Indies to look at pictures of the homeland together. By serving different goals, the position of the lantern diversified and thus its position on the market remained stable. Finally, the magic lantern adopted important new inventions or the new possibilities new devices had to offer into the apparatus in order to adapt to new developments and remain interesting and useful. When photography was invented, techniques were created to attach the photos to the glass lantern slides, which gave the lantern an enormous boost by serving new functions, such as the projection of images of other countries and more functions to follow (these will be expounded on in the next chapters). Stereoscopy was not literally a technique that was adopted by the lantern, but it still contributed to the lantern market because the stereoscopy pictures were sold as lantern slides. The addition of techniques to project motion pictures arose under influence of other devices, such as the daguerreotype, as well. By responding to these devices and adopting them when possible, the magic lantern developed along with the society and lived up to the wishes of audiences and users of different ages. Moreover, it ensured the magic lantern was not threatened by other inventions. The next chapters will explained how the lantern developed under the influence of cinema, and how these aspects of the lantern helped the device to maintain its position on the market.

25 Chapter 2: The age of showmen: transition and continuity (1896•1906)

Introduction: The first chapter explained how and why the magic lantern gained popularity in the Dutch East Indies throughout the nineteenth century. It also became clear what purposes the lantern had in this country: home use and public entertainment shows. An important observation in the first chapter regarding the transitional period from magic lantern to film, is that the entertaining lantern shows developed more and more in the direction of moving pictures: the dissolving views created transmissions in the imagery, effects were implied in order to create a sense of movement and passing of time. While focusing on the period of showmen at the ending of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, the transition of showmen with lanterns at first towards showmen with filmic devices later on and eventually permanent cinemas, will be central in this chapter. While zooming in on the early cinematic shows on Java, the similarities and differences between these two media are pointed out. This chapter focuses on the public shows, the private media use will return in the third chapter. Three concepts will play a very important part in this chapter: the concept of modernity, an extension of this concept in the form of colonial modernity and of cinema of attractions. As I have explained in the introduction, modernity is very often stated as a primary condition for the existence of cinema. This chapter will put emphasis on the implications and consequences of modernity, such as the conditions created by modernity from the technocentric perspective as presented by Popple and Kember, as well as the development of the “modern mindset” or modernism, that came forward in the theories of Elsbeth Locher•Scholten and Tom Gunning. These theories will be deployed in order to find out what facets of this idea were crucial for cinema to arise and spread, and to what extent the early film show was simply a continuation of the magic lantern show. The latter would suggest modernity might not have been so deciding for the emergence of cinema after all. Different views on and interpretations of modernity, combined with altered versions of the theory of cinema of attractions by Gunnings successor Hagener, who was also mentioned in the introduction, will provide a framework for the specific source material from the Dutch East Indies, which consists of paper advertisements and articles about magic lantern shows and cinematic shows on Java from several Dutch East Indies papers from the

26 database delpher. Information deriving from these articles will be interpreted and tested against theoretical guidelines and similar research such as Dafna Ruppin’s research about cinema in the Dutch East Indies, which functions as a touchstone as it comes to the nature of early cinematic practices in the Dutch East Indies. In order to sketch a continuation between the magic lantern shows and the cinematic shows several criteria will be used as points of comparison: apparatus, function, networks, viewing locations, modes of advertising and audiences. In terms of form this chapter goes from a macro•level: modernity in a broad sense, towards a micro•level: particular shows in the cities of Java in late nineteenth and early twentieth century in order to create a more global idea of the conditions of cinema and the development of the magic lantern in this era at first and illustrate and specify these ideas alongside the actual events in the Indies. In the following chapter the concept of colonial modernity will firstly be explained based on the theories Schulte Nordholt and Strassler as previewed in the introduction, in order to form the most relevant idea of modernity and to investigate the integration of media in the Dutch East Indies. The use of the magic lantern and the use of cinematic devices in this geographical context will be connected to this idea of modernity. Subsequently, there will the developments relating to the magic lantern shows in the late nineteenth century when cinema started to spread will be pointed out. Afterwards cinematic shows will be introduced as a continuation of the lantern shows with few alterations, making it possible for this medium to keep on developing and gaining popularity. These developments will be expounded by focusing on the period of showmen and the period of travelling companies up to the final settlement of cinematic theatres around 1905. The idea of cinema of attractions according to Hagener will prove itself a guideline in order to sketch the continuation between the lantern shows and the cinematic shows, by focussing on the continuation of the dialectics between narrative integration and cinema of attractions in respect to cinematic practices.

Modernization in the Dutch East Indies On Java at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century modernity was mostly associated with Europe and western modernity. According to Karen Strassler this resulted in the Indonesian and Chinese inhabitants adapting to Dutch standards by wearing Western•style clothes and giving their children Dutch education while maintaining their own cultural traditions and customs at the same time (196). The Dutch felt the need to bring

27 modernity to the archipelago as they had taken on a mission civilisatrice: a mission to modernize the colonies and to emancipate the local communities (Schulte Nordholt “Modernity and Middle Classes” 223). On one hand this was an idealistic movement: the education of the Indies with agricultural extension, expansion of irrigation, railways, education, healthcare and credit banking as key elements (van Doorn 111). But on the other hand it was a means to re•establish Dutch power in the Indies and therefore this mission went hand in hand with violence. The spread of Western modernity within the context of ‘civilization’ had multiple implications for local communities: in a political sense this oppressive behaviour of the Dutch ruler resulted in thoughts of independence, nationalism and the right for self•determination, but on the other hand as it comes to consumer culture the combination of cultural tradition and modernism caused for new modes of media use, in line with Strassler’s standpoint. Although the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Dutch East Indies at the ending of the nineteenth century still belonged to the lower, working class (approximately 19,5 million of 20 million inhabitants), some of the features of modernity were clearly present in the society of the Dutch East Indies: transportation networks, growing welfare and the connection to a worldwide network of production, distribution and consumption. The inhabitants of the Indies were aware of and influenced by consumer culture spread by product advertisements such as Philips lamps, Lux soap or Colgate toothpaste (Schulte Nordholt “Modernity and Cultural Citizenship” 440). These advertisements were not only directed to the Dutch upper class, but also to the inhabitants of Indonesian origin; many of the advertisements were in Malay and referred to people in typical Indonesian clothes. The Indonesian and Chinese citizens took on the use of modern media as well, but they didn’t use them in the same manner. In photography for example Chinese pictures served as performative statements next to the use of documentary records in the tradition of western photography (211). Not only were there specific modes of photography, displaying photography seems to have been specific for some ethnical groups as well. Strassler refers to a comment of a Javanese man: “Don’t make your house like a Chinese person’s, with photographs all over the place” (214). Apparently the Chinese and the Dutch used to decorate the house with tons of pictures, which was something some Javanese people used to condemn. Different ethnical groups dealt with modernity in different ways and found

28 different applications for modern inventions. The same dynamics increasingly applied to cinema as this chapter will point out later. One of the features of Popple and Kember’s technocentric visions of modernity: the multiplication of networks contributed largely to the connection between the Dutch East Indies and the rest of the world: Railways connected the inland and the cities. The port cities connected the islands to the shores of the rest of the world through steamships (Ruppin 10). Next to those transport networks were infrastructures of communication, newspapers and an infrastructure of electricity. Although it seems likely that these newly formed, modern networks formed a basis for cinema to reach the Indies, this was not entirely true. In the late nineteenth century there was an entertainment circuit that had been developing during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, which of lanternists along with itinerant theatres, operas, circuses and vaudeville in Souh•East Asia. The people in these travelling companies were often from European descent and brought European entertainment to South•East Asia. In the next paragraph the source material will serve as guidelines to describe how these itinerary companies introduced cinema to the Dutch East Indies while several aspects of modernity caused for the medium to settle and expand.

The magic lantern in the light of modernity Initially the earlier mentioned modern developments such as networks, growing opportunities for leisure activities and a modern mindset of different ethnical groups who were willing to incorporate modern media in their culture was a positive development for the emergence of the magic lantern. Moreover the magic lantern had found its place in the sphere of popular entertainment in the course of the nineteenth century as the shows were increasingly visited by working class citizens (Fresko, 54). Lanternists easily travelled through South•East Asia and not only ticket to lantern shows, but also magic lanterns themselves became more affordable and accessible for a larger group of people due to economic emancipation. But paradoxically the growing accessibility of the magic lantern might on the other hand have been initially a contributing factor to the devaluation of the magic lantern show, which forced the medium to develop into another direction. In the second half of the nineteenth century the magic lantern had been associated with high technology. According to Edward Schneider in his article “The Demise of the Magic Lantern Show” this had to do with the following reasons (14): firstly it was an

29 expensive device, especially the models with dissolving views. Secondly someone with skill and experience was required to operate the device. Thirdly it was an object of which the state of the art was continually in transformation. Due to these reasons the magic lantern had had a very high status in the nineteenth century. The same article provides reasons for the decrease in the medium’s shows deriving from a paper that served as a guide for lanternists from 1889 to 1902, The Optical Magic Lantern Journal (Schneider 15). These reasons seem to have been closely connected to the growing popularity of the medium: lower cost lanterns made their entrance on the lantern market on a large scale. This made it possible for amateurs, who didn’t know how to operate the lantern properly to buy the equipment and deliver shows, that did not necessarily live up to quality standards, or as the paper puts it “From one or two good, we jumped to 50 fair and indifferent to bad shows” (Schneider 14). Amateur lanternists, opposed to professional ones, had very poor knowledge of their subjects, because they mostly bought and showed prefabricated slides they weren’t very familiar with (Fresko 54). The increasing use of unskilled showmen threatened to damage the reputation of the lantern show. Nonetheless the professional shows were still visited in large numbers and some of the professional lanternist still found ways to reinvent the techniques the lantern could offer. The dissolving view camera was very popular and variants with three lenses entered the market, extending the possibilities of dissolving even further (Schneider 14). Photographic lantern slides formed a very popular trend among lanternists, creating a more detailed and realistic sense of reflecting the outside world, especially when it came to travel themed shows, a genre that flourished in the late nineteenth century (Fresko 54). , the famous inventor of the zoopraxiscope, was also a lantern showman. According to Fresko’s article, “Muybridge projected scenes of animal locomotion in their consequentive phases as arrested by instantaneous photography and then thrust them into movement with the aid of his animated apparatus, the zoopraxiscope” (48). This is yet another example of the magic lantern was combined with other inventions to keep developing and in order to stay interesting for a broad public. It also shows how the lantern opened its doors to motion pictures, although it is unclear whether these inventions were all brought into practice by more lanternists. The paper articles from the Dutch East Indies show an enormous increase in private sales of magic lanterns (with moving images and dissolving view cameras), but a slight decrease in lantern show advertisements in the late nineteenth century. There was one

30 lanternist, the “great magician” mr. Calabresini, who had a tour of lantern shows on Java from 1870 up to 1891. In these decades he travelled around the island and performed in Batavia, Semarang and Surabaya. In 1873, in line with Fresko’s article, a report of one of the many shows Calabresini’s gave this year was published, in which the writer mentioned a number of spectators who said they themselves could have made a better performance (De Locomotief 28•06•1873). This is an example of the democratic status the lantern show had obtained. In 1881 a reporter of the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad writes Calabresini’s show was far more popular in Singapore than in the archipelago, “a prophet is not properly honoured is his homeland” (4­10­1881). Around 1890 the dissolving views were no longer the main attraction on itself of Calabresini’s show. The reason for visitors to attend his shows was supposedly “the newest science has to offer”, but after the addition of the phonograph to the show, no more advertisements were published. Although the quality of the medium increased and more spectacular features were added (the lantern Calabresini used was a Sciopticon lantern, which projected high•quality dissolving views), people had become very familiar with the lantern and were a bit fed up with this form entertainment. Initially the inhabitants of the archipelago felt privileged to enjoy the new inventions of Europe, which seemed so far away. However the democratisation of the medium, illustrated by the increasing number of lantern sales advertisements and the people criticizing Calabresini’s shows believing to be better performers themselves, contributed to the lantern being a medium that was easily accessible to everyone, everywhere and at any time. This sentiment is reflected in a 1899 paper article: “We really need some cheerfulness here, because lately there has been not much to do. Tonight there will be one of those flickering magic lanterns again that nobody will watch” (De Locomotief 23­05­1899). Interest in other new media such as the phonograph and the daguerreotype arose but didn’t endure and never became as popular as entertaining devices as the lantern. In this sense, modernity caused for the lantern show to be less special because of mass production and omnipresence because of means of transportation, but it did allow the magic lantern to move towards another direction, which will be reflected upon in chapter three.

The arrival of cinema – the era of showmen (1896•1897) Malte Hagener rethought Tom Gunning’s theory of cinema of attractions and stretched it out over other aspects of cinematic practices. He let go of the purely textual and formalist

31 description of Gunning’s theory and instead “aims at the dynamic interchange between spectator and screen” (Hagener 266). In his article he focuses on the dialectics of attractions and the dominance of narrative and applies this on 1920s cinema programming in Germany, England and The Netherlands. His main field of research is the avant•garde screening practice in this era and not the film text itself. In the following paragraphs I seek to deploy the term cinema of attractions in a similar manner: to take the idea of cinema of attractions out of a textual context and connect in to late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century screening practices. This research stresses the idea of dialectics between narrative integration and cinema of attraction and adds the facet of the magic lantern show as a grand inspiration for the cinematic show. Throughout the eighteenth century there had been narrative lantern shows as well, where the lanternist connected all the images by means of oral narrative. In the course of the late nineteenth century lantern show advertisement changed focused from lantern plate subject matter to advertisement of the show without mentioning the content. This was reflected in the advertisements of the lantern shows of Calabresini: In 1870 the show was advertised as follows: “The most ravishing dissolving views lit by means of electrical light. Beautiful moveable colour images”, followed by the names and subjects of all twenty­four images that were to be displayed, which shows an interest in the actual subject matter and not only in the medium itself (Java•Bode 14•03•1870). Twenty years later, in 1890, an advertisement of Calabresini’s show only promoted the “dissolving views”and does not mention any of the subjects that would be shown (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 25•07•1890). Moving on to early cinema, this way of advertising will continue up to a period shortly before the permanent establishment of cinema, when emphasis was in fact put on the program instead of the various cinematic devices. The became and consequently the programs existed of less and less films with less variation in subject matter. Some subjects became very popular and returned during the years. Throughout the period of 1896 up to 1905 the reason for spectators to visit a cinematic show changed from watching a new and modern spectacle towards visiting a specific show with specific subject matter. At the end of the nineteenth century cinema was introduced in a very similar form as the magic lantern: operated by a ‘showman’ who travelled around with this medium and performed to small audiences within the context of a fair or local festival. The first cinematic showmen appear to have followed very similar routes and operated in very similar ways as

32 the lanternists had done. It was not uncommon for lantenists to trade their lantern for a cinematic device, such as the in this period either (Popple and Kember 85). Due to the similarities between these media and their showing contexts (in terms of technique, operators, geographical locations, settings) cinema seemed to have seamlessly followed up the entertaining role of the lantern. Nonetheless cinema was capable of keeping the attention of the spectators and therefore maintained a role in the entertainment circuit, because it developed in a different direction. It became a less personal device which required a passive role from the spectators making it fit for large scale urban entertainment. The Dutch film industry from 1900 to 1910 involved some Dutch professionals such as Albert Frères, but was dominated by foreign films from foreign makers and distributers, such as the brothers Lumière and Alex Benner (Blom 26). This might be the reason why Instead of through Dutch trade, cinema arrived the Dutch East Indies through the network of lantern showmen from a very different direction: the South•East Asian transportation networks. These evolving networks mostly run through neighbour colonies from France and the United Kingdom. The context of the first cinematic exhibition was rather similar to the showing context in Europe nonetheless: travelling individuals, companies and fairs. Few sources of early cinematic showmen in the Indies have been retained. One of them is an Indian showman called Abdulally Esoofally, who travelled through South•East Asia with his ‘bioscope’ (Barnouw 8). He brought film from Indian through the South­East Asian continent. From 1901 he had shows in Singapore, Burma and Ceylon, but also on Sumatra and Java. He travelled around with a tent, but finally settled back in Bombay in 1914. Few records of his presence have been kept leaving only evidence of his presence in the Indies but no information about his shows in the archipelago. There were two other early showman of whom more records have been preserved: Louis Talbot and Dr. Harley. Dr. Harley had a kinetoscope, an invention by one of cinema’s pioneers Thomas Edison. Like Esoofally he came from India (Calcutta) through Singapore to several cities on Java. He had a show with illusionary and facial entertainment, allowing people to have a look at his kinetoscope. The public had to look through a slot on the upper side of the machine to watch “for example ballet dancers and ballerinas in all their movements” (De Locomotief 20•8•1896). It is remarkable that the advertisements in the papers put the kinetoscope itself in the point of focus and not anything that the device shows. This is in line with the advertisements of the magic lantern and the idea that the people

33 wanted to see the most modern inventions, the latest developments in the world of science. The fame of Dr. Harley didn’t last long however: he came to Java in 1896 and he offered the device for sale among other “magical devices such as the phonograph” in 1897 (Java•Bode 7•1•1897). The fact that the kinetoscope was seen as a magical device also corresponds with how the magic lantern and lanternists were perceived. On this point the features of the cinematic shows still correspond with the lantern shows and there were no signs of friction. Louis Talbot was originally a French photographer (Ruppin 37). He didn’t have a kinetoscope like Dr. Harley, but a so•called scénimatograph (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 27•2•1897). The advertisements were in the Dutch papers as well as in the Malay ones. He was the first showman of film to show local images (from the countryside of the archipelago) instead of exclusively imported ones. His shows took place in Batavia, Surabaya, Semarang, Solom Yogjakarta and Bandung (Ruppin 53). The large number and size of advertisements of Talbot’s shows suggests they might have been very popular. This idea is stressed by his viewing locations: he performed several times at the theatre in Batavia and in the other big cities of Java, while the previous showmen had performed in smaller and less established venues like the soos, the local society club. An article in De Java•Bode from 1897 maps the development from magic lantern to scénimatograph in a modern•oriented manner:

“What progress the optics have made since the first magic lantern! At that time one saw the simple images of animals and humans from glass plates as a wonderful miracle to look at, and now the kinetoscope and its improved edition: the scénimatograph by the genius Edison make that miracle of the children’s room vanish into thin air. When Edison learns how to make the phonograph and the scénimatograph work together, he will have produced an even bigger creation of his imagination” (29•03).

While the scénimatograph shows were not provided with additional music, they were in fact accompanied by live music from special musicians with instruments like the citer or the modern electric bow lyre (De Locomotief 29•03•1897). The relatively big popularity in the Dutch Indonesian papers of Talbot’s shows compared to those of Dr. Harley has several possible causes. First of all he was already a quite well known and well respected photographer and painter in the archipelago. The Dutch inhabitants of Indonesia respected his French background and he was known to have been

34 working in ‘Parisian houses’ (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 19•12•1895). France was associated with high•class culture, something the Dutch upper class of Indonesia wanted to identify itself with. Secondly, advertisements of his photography had been in the papers for several years (for example Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 23•07•1894). The people who assembled the articles as well as most readers had therefore already been used to his advertisements. When he started with his “living photographies” he already had a name and a record of articles, making it easier for him to place new advertisements. A contributing factor of another kind might have been that he had a ‘true French scénimatograph’ instead of a kinetoscope. The kinetoscope could only be watched by a few people at the same time as the spectators had to watch inside the device through a peephole, while the scénimatograph made projections, allowing its shows to be watched by much more people at the same time. Another additional benefit of having a scénimatograph instead of a kinetoscope, was that it was the latest and most modern invention according to the advertisements, which was the main interest of late nineteenth century Dutch Indonesian civilians and the fact he showed pictures of their own country with this new device, which made it even more special. Notice that this was also a continuation of the lantern trend of the late nineteenth century: the travel shows. From 1898, the early cinematic shows in this particular form appear to have stopped. The early cinematic travelling shows took on another form moving further and further away from the magic lantern resembling type of showman show with a single man (or woman) performing and travelling around with a single device, which was the attraction in itself. It is unclear why this type of shows stopped. A possible reason could be that while the apparatuses were getting bigger and more difficult to operate, they had probably become more labour•intensive and expensive making it harder for showmen to proceed individually. As a result the exhibition manners turned away from the tradition of the magic lantern shows towards a bigger type of show, run by companies. The only type of show that remained in tact was the film show as a part of a bigger program of entertaining elements built on the type of show Miss Meranda had run.

Travelling companies: from fairs towards film theatres (1897•1905) Up to the establishment of permanent cinemas in 1905 three cinematic companies dominated the filmic landscape of the archipelago from 1899 onwards: Harmston’s Circus, The American Biograph and The Java Cineograph Company. In the development of these

35 companies there is a clearly visible line from mobile spectacle shows towards longer program focused shows on a permanent location. This had several side effects: the shows became more and more massive and consequently less personal. There was a decreasing role for the operator in terms of promotion and recognition. On the other hand the advertisements put emphasis on the composition of the program and the change of programs instead of the device itself. Consequently some program items became outstandingly popular and were repeated over time. Harmston’s circus was a traditional circus, which existed from 1891 up to the 1930’s. It originally came from England but went bankrupt there. They set sail to East•Asia and travelled around the archipelago and other South•East Asian countries, such as Singapore, India, the Philippines and Vietnam (Cohen 18). On Java they visited the usual big cities, Batavia, Surabaya and Semarang but they also regularly passed by the smaller cities of the island like Solo, Kediri, Modjokerto en Madioen (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 29•07•1897). They had ‘normal’ circus acts: wild animals, acts with horses and several kinds of acrobatic and comic acts (Java•Bode 28•08•1895). In 1897 they decided to add a ripograph and a ‘gigantic’ scénimatograph to their regular program. This last machine was supposedly thirty feet (more than nine meters) high (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 08•07•1897). The cinematic show took place in a separate tent within the circus. The advertisements of Harmston’s Circus’ consistently mention the names of the prominent faces of the circus: “Robert Love’s scénimatograph and ripograph”. Perhaps due to the context of the circus, the personal factor of the cinematic show had not yet been lost and in this sense Harmton’s Circus’ shows were still traditional. Harmston’s Circus only travelled with the scénimatograph and the ripograph in the Indies during July, August and September 1897. In August and September there were several reports of lowering visitor rates, which was probably the reason for Harmston’s Circus to change program. On the other hand Harmston’s Circus always changed program every few months, so it might not have had to do with the popularity of the cinematic devices. What the Circus had achieved in this short period of time, was that many people had come into touch with cinema: people from local communities in the very smallest cities of Java and of different classes from society. The Java paper articles repeatedly report the presence of natives at these shows. For these Indonesian natives, there was a reduced entrance fee of ƒ0,25 (a quarter of a “normal” ticket). In other respects the show advertisements still

36 resembled those of the showmen shows: the cinematic devices themselves were the central point of attention and there was no variation in this show during the short showing period. From 1899 there was another company that became very popular: The American Biograph. Within the shows of this company the big changes towards a modern twentieth century cinematic experience started to unfold for the first time. Firstly: the names of members of the company are never mentioned in the advertisements. This is a clear sign of the depersonalisation of the cinematic show. Another new development was the regular advertisement and changing of program. They already started to do so in the first weeks of their arrival in Batavia. Their advertisements read: “Again change of program. Always variation, new numbers every week. Go and see the new numbers, amongst others The Automobile Fire Engine, Waterpolo and The electrical tram riding through sea” (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 16•05•1899). These changing programs allowed the company to stay on one place for a longer period of time as visitors could come back to see new films. Consequently the company stayed for months in Surabaya for example. This is a great difference from the previous shows, those of the showmen and of Harmston’s Circus, who promoted the cinematic device itself as the show. Once the public had seen this device once, it didn’t need to come back. Here the dialectics between cinema of attractions and narrative integration becomes visible: the attention on the spectacularity of the device shifts to subject matter. By the regular change of program the public had a reason to visit the same cinematic company multiple times.This is a clear continuation of the lantern show dialectics: once the lantern images had become normal, the public had also attended the lantern shows for the special program features. On the other hand the first signs of modernization of the cinematic show become visible: there had never been enough public and enthusiasm as it came to the lantern shows for the program to change weekly and therefore the regulation of lantern shows had never been set in motion as the cinematic shows had done in 1899. A development that persisted was the attendance of the Indonesian original inhabitants and reduced entrance prices for this group. Initially these tickets were only meant for the accompanying natives and not necessarily for the Indonesians, who didn’t come along with the Europeans (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 5­5­1899). A few months later all “foreign orientals” and original inhabitants were allowed at reduced entrance fees: ƒ0,25 for the natives and ƒ0,50 for all other Asians (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 16•5•1899). These visitors were supposedly as enthusiastic about the shows as the European citizens: an article

37 mentioned there was a show in the Chinese Camp which the writers’ “brown brothers and sisters” attended in large numbers as well (De Locomotief 23•8•1902). Apart from the changing programs and the integration of all population groups of the Indies, a large part of the popularity of the American Biograph can once again be linked to the sense of modernity, but also follows up on lantern show aspects. An article in The Sumatra Post of the 21st of February 1900 showed interest in the modern inventions making the biograph show possible. It put emphasis on the way the company used electricity at the different locations it visited: what newest types of engines it used, in what other ways electricity could be produced if there were no connection points and how many devices the company used for this means. But not only the electricity was an object of interest for the writer, but also the lighting (equally electrical) and the film itself. The article on the length of the film and how rapidly the projections were operated:

“the films are each of twenty pictures, and each of a common length of two kilometres. Now if one calculates that thirty images, each as big as eight times eight centimetres are projected on the screen within one second, 1250 separate pictures that follow each other in an enormous pace are needed to make a short show of a little less than one minute. This considerable rapidity is needed to prevent the images from inconveniently vibrating and this scourge has been overcome by this company at most of the images.”

By the detailed and amazed manner in which this article is written, the writer clearly shows a high interest in the technique behind the scénimatograph as being the most modern of cinematic devices. On the other hand the interest in technique was an important part of eighteenth century phantasmagorias as well, when emphasis was put on the scientific background of the shows, as the first chapter has pointed out. This aspect of the early cinematic can thus be seen as a combination between the lantern show tradition and modern inventions that allowed cinema to deploy such a rapid sequence of pictures. A third late nineteenth and early twentieth century cinematic company took the development towards permanent cinemas and away from the classical lantern show one step further: the ‘Java Cineograph Company”. This company with yet another new cinematic device arrived at Java some years later than its predecessor the American Biograph: in 1901. An article in De Locomotief, the local paper of one of Java’s biggest cities Semarang,

38 announced the arrival of the cineograph and mapped the benefits this device would have over its predecessors the biograph and the kinematograph. An important criterion was the naturalness of the images. The cineograph would produce more natural images due to the further reduction of vibration of these images to a point up to where the vibrations were ‘less than not there at all’ (De Locomotief 07•05•1901). As one of the articles about the American Biograph had done, this article also put emphasis on the electrical light and mentions the possibilities to vary with pictures. A newly mentioned advantage of the cineograph was the actuality of the images: the ‘topics of the day’ could be shown, which was at that time the war in South•Africa. At this time the programs were displayed at every advertisement. This gives insight in what program items were indeed topics of the day, which ones returned several times (popular thematics) and to what kind of audiences the programs appealed. As the reporter of De Locomotief had predicted, the war in South•Africa or the Second Boer War (‘Transvaalsche Oorlog’ in Dutch) was a recurring theme in the projections of the cineograph. This war lasted from 1899 up to 1902 and considering the article in De Locomotief was written in 1901, it took a short time for the images to be produced and reach the Cineograph Company in the Indies. This allowed the program to remain up to date. Other kinds of topics (not based on news items) were shown as well; the shows were mostly very varied. From 1902 there were more and more pictures from different countries of the world and some of Dutch and Dutch­Indonesian descent as well, for example “The Marital Procession of Her Excellency the Queen” (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 26•07•1902) and “In and through Borneo”(Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 01•03•1905). Most of these pictures showed special happenings or images of the countryside. Other shows were directed towards particular audiences. Among these shows the children’s shows were the most popular. The children’s shows had special programming such as “Aladin and the Wonderlamp” (De Locomotief 10­05­1902). There are even some reports of special “gentlemen’s shows” with a soft­pornographic character. Titles were shown as: “Adultery Caught in the Act”, “The Nude Model of the Painter” and “Scenes from the Moulin Rouge’(Het Nieuws van den Dag voor Nederlands•Indië 12•12•1901). These shows were free for servicemen and not allowed for adolescents under eighteen. Concluding: there was a large diversification of programming and there was something to see for everyone.

39 The Passion Plays were the most frequently returning on the program. This show was interpreted and conceived in different ways. A report from Het Nieuws van den dag voor Nederlands•Indië probably of a show in Batavia reports a disrespectful performance of the Passion Plays while the orchestra played “Ta­ra­ra­boum­deay” during the crucifixion of Jesus (08•07•1901). The reporter blamed this on the lack of interest in the Christian belief of the native inhabitants. According to the same article, the natives didn’t understand the Passion Plays. They believed to see an image like every other image. A report of a show in Semarang of a year later was very enthusiastic, especially about the contributing ecclesiastical music played by “the best corps of native musicians” (De Locomotief 07•04•1902). Possibly the director took the critics of the first report on board and changed the music. This case is interesting in social respect; it shows images were interpreted in different ways by different social groups and not every subject was interesting for every group or class. At this time there had been gender and age based diversification but not based on class, social group or descent. The natives had access to the same shows as the European citizens, even against lower admission fees than beforehand: natives could attend a show for ƒ0,15 and sometimes even ƒ0,10. From 1903 there was a special entrance fee for “Chinese and Arabs”: they had to pay ƒ0,25 (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 04•07•1904). Towards the permanent establishment of cinemas there is an increased amount of attention for special cinema for different social groups. The Java Cineograph was the last travelling company which continued its shows up to the moment the first permanent cinemas settled in the cities of Java. A few developments from the last showmen to the first permanent cinemas have moved cinema away from the lantern show into a direction of its own. A lot of these developments have to do with scale: cinematic shows became more and more frequent, the projections were becoming larger, the companies themselves became larger. These elements were in interplay with the frequent change of program and the direction of certain program elements towards different target groups. While the magic lantern had developed very slowly throughout the years, the cinematic devices developed very quickly, which kept it interesting for the audience to keep attending the shows.

40 Conclusion Modernity as a late nineteenth century development in the area of culture, industry and globalization and as a change in mindset can not be seen as the sole condition of the emergence of cinema, although it did contribute to the popularity and sustainability of the medium. This chapter showed, that early cinematic shows in most respect followed magic lantern showed an developped in a different direction after a few years. Popple & Kember’s vision of modernity: industrialisation, urbanisation and growing transportation networks initially barely played a part in the spread of early cinema, as cinema spread through the networks that had been used by magic lantern showmen for ages. Even afterwards the locations of early cinematic shows were similar to those of the lantern shows up to the semi­permanent and permanent settlement of the medium. Locher­Scholten’s “modern mindset” or Gunning’s “modern spectatorship” neither proved themselves crucial to the spread of cinema, as the last chapter shows cinematic shows were promoted very similarly to the previous lantern shows. Deploying Hagener’s dialectics in cinema practices based on Gunning’s cinema of attractions, a clear alternation between narrative integration and focus on attraction in lantern promotion stresses the continuity between the shows of the two media. Nuancing this idea, modernity did play a part in the development of cinema: modern inventions that allowed electric light and rapid sequence of images, depersonalisation, rapid program change, diversification and definite settlement allowed the medium to stay popular. In addition colonial modernity was not a necessity for cinema to arrive and root in the Dutch East Indies, but it did contribute to the interest in the medium of groups with different social and cultural backgrounds in society. Because of the mission civilisatrice as explained by Schulte Nordholt, the Dutch exported the Western consumer culture to the Dutch East Indies and tried to implement this culture in this society by addressing the original inhabitants by means of commercials and advertisements in Malay. Strassler showed these inhabitants took on this culture by combining them with their traditional customs and habits. This process is reflected in the advertisements of the early cinematic shows: the attendance of locals is increasingly mentioned in the paper particles and special entrance fares were added and altered for these groups. On the other hand it is still questionable to what extent modern developments were the cause of these groups attending the shows. The first chapter showed there were also magic lantern shows for native and Chinese citizens, and while cinematic shows could be seen as a continuation of these lantern shows, interest of these groups in this

41 medium seems natural. However due to the restrictions of the source material which was written by and directed towards Dutch speaking citizens, it is hard to tell to what extent the lantern shows were popular with the original inhabitants and Chinese citizens of the Dutch East Indies and it is therefore impossible to estimate the influence of these shows on the visitor rates of these groups at the cinematic shows on the basis of these paper articles. The magic lantern shows have been more clearly influenced by modernity: mass production changed the role and status of this medium completely. Fresko’s article showed the medium still developed and changed as it had done ever since its invention: in the late nineteenth century photography, extended forms of dissolving views lenses were regularly added to the oeuvre of lanternists and Muybridge even experimented with his zoopraxiscope making the medium move more towards motion pictures. Due to mass production the shows were accessible for a growing group of people and even the device itself became obtainable for an increasingly large group of amateurs. While the lantern show had been growing in popularity in the second half of the nineteenth century, its popularity reduced from around the 1890s, but rather because of its own large scale production than of the introduction of cinema. Schneiders article showed the reputation of the lantern show had been damaged due to the growing amount of amateur shows. The Dutch East Indies paper articles showed the people were mostly fed up with the medium. However this did not merely meant the end of the magic lantern, it just moved into a different direction, which created an even larger market because of its accessibility. And the disappearance of the magic lanterns within the entertainment industry cities did not mean that the lantern shows were not present anymore either in the villages. In fact, the picture on the front suggests the contrary. Nonetheless it is impossible to find out the quantity of lantern shows in villages on the basis of the Dutch East Indies’ paper articles, and it is questionable if any evidence of those shows has been contained.

42 Chapter 3: Lantern use: a new paradigm (1904•1910)

Introduction As cinema had completely taken over the function of an entertaining show and the showmen had disappeared, the magic lantern had lost an important part of its raison d’être. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century audiences had become weary of the relatively few developments relating to lantern shows and they simply has seen too many of them. On the other hand, as the last chapter shows, film could be seen as a continuation of the lantern shows, but with motion pictures instead of still images. From that point of view, the magic lantern had not completely vanished from the entertainment circuit. But the magic lantern in itself was not lost either. While the magic lantern failed to keep on serving the public entertainment market, it flourished as an illustrational device at lectures and as a projection device at home, in churches and at schools. Somehow, the lantern succeeded to adapt to the wishes of the modern fin de siècle and early twentieth century within that market, thereby maintaining an important role in society. This chapter will focus on why and how this continuation was possible. Some themes and points of view from the previous chapters will return in this chapter to serve as guidelines. In the first place the public and private lantern use explained in the first chapter will be further elaborated in this chapter. The focus hereby lays on why the lantern disappeared partially from the public sphere but became increasingly popular within private circles. This issue has already partially been discussed in the second chapter by the negative influence of modernity on lantern spectatorship. In this chapter the concepts controllability and agency will provide further analysis. The lantern was a far more usable object than the cinematic devices, especially the ones that came a bit later and created bigger pictures, like the scénimatograph. One could also easily make images for the magic lantern, whereas for cinema this was much harder and very expensive. Furthermore, I will use theories on scientific lantern use by Jennifer Eisenhauer and toy lantern use by Meredith Bak in order to create an understanding for lantern use within these areas and to create a framework for lantern use in the Dutch East Indies. Subsequently, the two modes of lantern use around 1900 will be more closely investigated, starting off with the use of the lantern at lectures. I will focus on the question of which lantern developments

43 made the use of the device became increasingly popular within this context. Emphasis will also be put on the specifics of this kind of use within the colonial spheres of the Dutch East Indies, as the lantern might have served different goals than in the Western world. This difference will be explained based on Schulte Nordholt’s concept of the mission civilisatrice. Then, I will shift to personal lantern use. Although it is harder to recover the specifics of personal use because less source material has been preserved, different developments can be distinguished within this mode as well. I will seek to find out how personal use related to the matters of agency and controllability and whether the entertaining function of the lantern persevered within this specific context. The methodology of this chapter will be similar to chapter two, but with slight differences. Within the theoretical frame, that has already been pointed out, the Delpher paper articles will serve as sources for cases of specific modes of lantern use and contemporary reactions to this phenomenon. Pleas from early twentieth century scientists expounding on the benefits of the use of the magic lantern at science lectures will be deployed to find out the developments of the lantern and what made the device attractive within this context. At the same, time the uses and gratifications model will be deployed to find out the criteria of which lantern could or could not serve audience gratifications. Finally in this chapter discourse analysis will be deployed more than in the last chapters, because remarkable changes of terms come up in the context of this chapter relating to the magic lantern. Discourse analysis can help to find out what consequences these changes have for the way the lantern was perceived and for its role in society.

The magic lantern, new perspectives When the lantern lost popularity in a context of entertainment in the late nineteenth century, the reputation of the lantern had slowly shifted from a device that was mostly associated with showmen, into the status of a sophisticated device, which was industrially produced and it now carried the name of “scientific lantern” (Bak 112) or “optical lantern” (Eisenhauer 199) in English speaking countries. In The Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies the name toverlantaarn (magic lantern) remained intact mostly within the context of home use, although there was an increasing use of the words projectielantaarn (projection lantern) from 1900 and lichtbeelden (light images) for the lantern projections from the late nineteenth century. All these words point towards a new paradigm for the magic lantern: from its

44 association with magic, wizardry and spectacle it obtains a more neutral and scientific connotation. This fits in the the movement away from the show and entertainment business back into the scientific world but this time in the world lectures as an illustrative device, while its functions at home remained in tact. The development of the lantern returning to its original scientific environment fits in with a theory of Errki Huhtamo, one of the major contributors to the development of media archaeological theory. He pointed out media topics tend to work cyclical and return to recurring topics: topoi (Parikka 11). In this sense, the context of science can be seen as a topos. Two scholars have placed these uses in longer cultural developments related to Zeitgeist and traditions. In her article ““Ten Dollars’ Worth of Fun”: The Obscured History of the Toy Magic Lantern and Early Children’s Media Spectatorship”, Mererdith A. Bak focuses on domestic use of the lantern and more specifically lantern use among children, this is a lantern function I will return to in the next paragraph. Jennifer Eisenhauer wrote an article about the transformation from a magic discourse to a scientific discourse and how the magic lantern related to this spectrum, called: “ “Next Slide Please”: The Magical, Scientific and Corporate Discourses of Visual Projection Technologies.” She states, that the worlds of science and magic had been interwoven as it comes to the lantern for a long time, which clearly corresponds with my findings in chapter one. Eisenhauer grants a large role to mechanical improvements as an important reason for the increasing scientific interest in the lantern and an expanding role of the lantern in scientific discourse, such as improved sources of illumination and finally electricity and the invention of photography (201). This last invention improved the quality of the slides, made multiplication of slides a lot easier and shaped them up to realistic perfection. This contributed greatly to a facet of the slide I want to focus on in this chapter: the ability to control and manipulate the lantern, making it perfectly fit for individual and private use. This ability lead to new perspectives on the use and place for the magic lantern. As the previous chapter has shown, there were many similarities between the early cinematic show and the entertaining magic lantern show, that had been popular in the first half of the nineteenth century. However, there were major differences in the operating system of the lantern and the cinematic projector that did not directly show. Lantern shows consisted of a series of images fluently sequencing each other by the hand of the lanternist. In this process the lanternist played a crucial role: not only did he need skill and expertise to operate

45 the lantern in the right way without causing flaws and discontinuities in his shows, he was also the central figure as it came to the narrative. The lantern pictures never spoke for themselves, while cinema developed towards a form which did explain itself. Nevertheless, in early cinema the operation process functioned in more or less the same way: cinema operators could be renowned for their ability to switch quickly from scene to scene (Kember 42). But as cinema developed and bioscopes started to come to existence around 1906, the projectionists and projection devices quickly moved to the background and became invisible for the spectators. The main difference would remain in the principle of agency and controllability. At the lantern shows, the lanternist had agency. He had to operate and lead the lantern show and he was also the face of the show. Due to technical developments and developments in matters of narrativity, the operator in cinema moved to the background. This difference of agency can be seen as the key explanation for the different developments in the functions of the magic lantern with respect to cinema in the early twentieth century. Film wasn’t easy to operate due to technical reasons: one could not just stop a film, rewind it or fast•forward it, like its consumers are used to nowadays thanks to inventions such as television, the remote control or even digital projection. The magic lantern needed someone with expertise to make a show with the device. However if it wasn’t that important to let the images dissolve fluently, to make a narrative out of the images or to show special tricks, the narrator didn’t necessarily need to be skilled, As the last chapter has showed, amateur lanternist were ubiquitous at the ending of the nineteenth century. And as it came to presentations and lectures the operator of the magic lantern had all the time to change the slides without having to dissolve the pictures or another trick. This matter of agency can also be perceived in another very important difference between the magic lantern and cinema: it was relatively easy to produce one’s own lantern slides, whereas it was hardly possible to make your own film and show this with your own device. Sellers of new lanterns in the early twentieth century often even provided material for the self•production of new lantern images along with the device (De Locomotief 30•01•1901). Facilities to produce lantern images were also sold separately, along with products to develop pictures, which were mostly used as lantern images (Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 19•06•1911). The ability to produce lantern images made it possible to use the magic lantern in any way the user wanted: the user could either choose from prefabricated

46 lantern images or make his own images. This wasn’t as easy when it came to cinema: the spectators could only choose between the films, which the French and American production companies brought on the market. As it comes to the magic lantern and the cinematic projector the public had a very different role: one could choose to be an active user or a passive spectator at a presentation in the case of the magic lantern, while one had to be a passive spectator when it came to cinema. In this research a very active role has been given to the spectator or user, who has been granted the most power as it comes to why media have gained popularity and why some media didn’t sustain. This partially had to do with the trends of the time, which influenced the spectator to be more interested in more quickly developing and new media. Uses and gratifications studies suggest every medium has three specifics that can form an attraction in its unique combination: (a) characteristic content, (b) typical attributes and (c) typical exposure situations (Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch 514). Characteristic content of the magic lantern were slides with loose images of all sorts: at first drawn, then also photographic, and documentary as well as staged or fictional. Early cinema was more or less the same: animation as well as filmed, documentary as well as fictional short films. The only difference in content laid in the principle of motion: film was always in motion while motion in lantern images was barely possible. The typical attributes were handy glass plates with easily producible prints for the magic lantern and large rolls of celluloid film that were fabricated elsewhere for the early cinematic devices. Here is the first major difference between the two devices: citizens of the Dutch East Indies could easily produce their own lantern images while they could not make their own films. This attributes to the use of the lantern in the private area and film in the public area, which brings us to point c: typical exposure situations of film and lantern shows. These overlap for a large part: especially in the period of showmen both media were exhibited in theatres, societies and other public locations such as riding schools and school buildings. But the lantern was probably mostly found at home and later on in areas where lectures were given, while cinema obtained its own special location in film theatres. The gratifications of media to the spectator within uses and gratifications are mostly based on underlying psychological and social processes and environmental circumstances (Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch 517). While Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch predominantly point out social structures that lead to the appeal of mass media, which don’t prove useful to this

47 research, the social and psychological factors can form an inspiration to find reasons for watching cinematic or lantern shows. What were the social and psychological gratifications of watching lantern images? These images weren’t printed on a large scale, so they didn’t connect the viewers to a bigger network. Because they were one of the first types of projections, they had a social function, similarly to cinema later on. The lantern projections made it possible to listen to a story together, accompanied by impressive images. The viewers could be surprised by the images or experience a sense of wonder, especially when it comes to kids shows or phantasmagorias. The lantern images were also used to experience nostalgia or create a travel experience by showing pictures of Europe or elsewhere. Within the context of lectures the magic lantern served a sense of clarification. Most of these sensations were taken over by cinema with the exception of the clarifying role and with addition of a new feature: connection to a bigger network. Film was copied and distributed in many countries at the same time. Watching a film could create a sense of connection to the modern world, something that felt very important to the inhabitants of the archipelago.

The emergence of lantern use at lectures The most popular and commonly known use of lanterns in the beginning of the twentieth century was as an illustrational device at lectures. Some English and American paper articles about the benefits of lantern use at scientific lectures were written around the beginning of the twentieth century. Some early ones even derive from 1890, which shows that this phenomenon had come to life before the introduction of cinema. Two articles about lantern use at lectures correspond perfectly with the idea that it were the lantern’s attributes that allowed it to develop a new status during the beginning of the twentieth century outside of the entertainment business. The first article was written by a lecturer named Ernest H. Jacob in 1891. It contained a plea for the use of lantern images in pathological lectures. Jacob mentioned mostly practical and economical arguments to purchase a lantern for this purpose: the lanterns were very cheap (he wrote there were lanterns on the market for £2) as well as the devices to create lantern images (for £6) (Jacob 83). Sheet diagrams, on the contrary, were very expensive and textbooks would never contain so many pictures for financial reasons either. Besides, the lantern images were very easy to produce and using a lantern was easier than one might think: there was no need to darken the lecture room completely beyond shading the screen (Jacob 83). This shows how simple and accessible the medium was and

48 how democratic the use had become. On the other hand it was apparently still necessary to argue for the use of the medium at lectures. An article written by William Herbert Hobbs from the University of Michigan about twenty years later (1908) is a hundred percent in line with Jacob’s article, especially in terms of the reasonable lantern price, but he argues for lantern use within another field of research: histology, petrography and paleology (180). In his opinion a teacher that did not use a magic lantern at his lectures neglected “an opportunity for reaching the student’s mind through the eye”(180). In his argument he contradicted some possible practical and substantial reasons not to use the lantern. He wrote that some people did not want to use the lantern, because this caused more superficial subject treatment and caused the loss of attention for themes with more depth that were not that appealing to the eye. Hobbs said this problem could be solved by the cooperation of an experienced lanternist with attention for acquisition and selection (181). Another reason for not willing to use a lantern was in his point of view the storage and arrangement of the lantern slides. For this problem he suggested multiple storage solutions and new storage systems making it easier to store and organize the slides. Both articles show that there was a clear interest in lantern use, and they suggest that when lecturers did not use one, it was mostly for practical or financial reasons, which the authors tried to contradict. It did open new possibilities for the illustration and structure of lectures and once again the lantern proved itself as a very controllable and handy device. In terms of content, an important reason for showing lantern images in the colonies or European countries that had colonies, was to make its citizens familiar with the country overseas. A 1904 article in the English magazine Journal of the Society of Arts set out the preparations for a committee to implement lantern images on colonial schools to educate the children about the lands and cities of the United Kingdom; their homeland (“Lantern Lectures” 34). The other way around the government wanted to teach the English school children what the colonies looked like. The process of getting the right pictures to the schools was taken very seriously: it began on a small scale in order to make sure that when the project would start, the pictures and the letterpress were the best possible. Professors at the university were appointed to supervise the development of this project. In terms of colonial modernism, this process can be seen as an extension of Schulte Nordholts mission civilisatrice: the colonizer wanted to educate the colonies and teach them about the perks of western civilization.

49 Returning to the Indies, a very similar mode of lantern use became dominant: the lantern was deployed on a large scale to generate more information about other countries in an anthropological or geographical context. This wasn’t a new phenomenon in the early twentieth century: lectures with lantern images of this sort were already given in the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1883 sir de St. Pol Lias gave a lecture in Surabaya about local tribes in Suriname and about several tribes in Atjeh (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 09­10­1883). He showed lantern images of photo’s he had made himself. Here the both aspects came together: the suitability of the lantern for private use with the possibility of producing the images by yourself and the educational ability of the lantern to make the user and spectator familiar with other countries. The lantern was also deployed to educate the Dutch people about the colonies or other overseas territories. The Dutch Royal Geographical Society regularly held meetings in Amsterdam with lectures about colonial lands. For example, mister Doyer showed lantern images of pictures he made himself in North•Sumatra (De Locomotief 30•01•1897). The other countries that had part in the history of the imperial Netherlands were discussed within this group as well: in 1900 there was a lecture with images of the cities and countryside in South•Africa (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 30•03•1900). A journalist of the Java•Bode wrote in a special lecture for deaf and dumb viewers: “A magic lantern kan shed her light images on the white screen and transport everyone to far away countries among foreign peoples” (08•08•1896). Similarly to the example of the use of the magic lantern as a means of education in the colonies of Great•Britain, the Dutch use of the magic lantern within the Dutch East Indies fits within the mission civilisatrice. The education and civilization of the local communities took place on many levels and the magic lantern was deployed as an instrument to teach these communities how they are supposed to live. This happened in particular within a religious context. Gunning, a Dutch prominent in the mission explained in a lecture in Rotterdam why his work contributed to the mission civilisatrice: “It is the Government’s will to favour and protect the natives and to treat them in good will, however this can succeed in essention only where the mission lends her a helping hand” (De Locomotief 14•02•1902). In order to give these missions a better chance to succeed in bringing Christianity to the peoples of the archipelago, missionaries took on the magic lantern to create an image of Jesus Christ and the Bible. This might have been particularly useful, because it was not always easy to communicate with local tribes. On the other hand the magic lantern was also deployed to

50 generate income to make it possible to fulfill the missions. Gunning used lantern images to show the effects of his missionary work on the islands of the Indies in the Netherlands to get financial as well as moral support. On Java he combined these elements, both showing pictures of Jesus Christ and other biblical stories and pictures of countries he had been for missionary work (De Locomotief 24•12•1895).

Home use: a growing market Next to the large role of the magic lantern as an illustrative object at readings, the device became increasingly popular during the second half of the nineteenth century as a domestic instrument. It is hard to estimate the scale of home lantern use as not much evidence of home use has been preserved. This is conceivable; public use such as the lectures and the shows were meant to appeal to a public, and were therefore advertised. Home projections were not promoted and most lantern slides that were made within this context remain in private spheres or have been lost during the centuries. Nevertheless there were many advertisements of lantern sellings, means to create lantern images yourself and memorials of lantern use at home (mostly of toy lanterns), so there is reason to believe this market was at least as big as the market for public use. Home use had become attractive due to the controllability of the apparatus as mentioned before. The market adapted to the growing demand of the private customers by facilitating them with multiple possibilities of do•it•yourself aid for amateur lanternists. Among these possibilities were several handbooks. An internationally renowned book of which copies have been preserved was called The Book of the Lantern: a Practical Guide to the Work of the Optical (or Magic) Lantern written by Thomas Cradock Hepworth in 1888. This was a handbook for all aspects of the magic lantern: from an explanation of the systems to lighting screen use and different ways of preparing lantern slides. It is not certain whether this book was available in the Dutch East Indies as well, but that was not a problem for the citizens of the archipelago as the book had several imitations or successors that were certainly available in the Indies. One of these books was: Theoretisch en praktisch handboek der projectie (translated: ‘Theoretical and practical handbook of projection’) which shed light on the exact same aspects of lantern use. This book was advertised in the paper of Surabaya (Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 05•05•1900). This shows all facilities were offered to help users of the magic lantern to create their own set of lantern slides.

51 Deriving from the sales advertisements, the lanterns that were fit for home use were more or less the same lanterns as were used for lectures: big lanterns with sails. Some of these lanterns were offered together with accessories for the home production of lantern slides. At the same time, there were also lanterns that were offered with fixed lantern images. This was already the case in the early nineteenth century, probably due to the fact that photography did not exist yet, making it very labour•intensive for the new lantern owners to make all the images themselves. Moreover, the knowledge and means for home lantern production were not available until the late nineteenth century. The tradition of using prepared images maintained, probably for using the lantern as a means for home entertainment. There were even additional books on the market to create stories around a fixed set of lantern images. An example of this book is Lantern Journeys: A Series of Descriptions of Journeys at Home and Abroad, Including the Centennial Exhibition, for Use with the Magic Lantern or Stereoscope by Edward L. Wilson in 1878. This book contains an explanation and a list of different countries corresponding with image numbers. At each number there is a short description of what is depicted on every picture. It is written from the perspective of the writer, making it possible for the viewers to come close to experience a journey like his themselves. Compared to the travel shows, that were popular at the same time, this allowed the amateur lanternist to give his own lantern show, moving the show aspect into the private sphere. Next to the lanterns that adults used, there were also special types of lanterns on the market for children; toy lanterns. About the use of these lanterns, Meredith Bak states that domestic lantern use is mostly connected to nostalgic and affective discourses (112). This is caused by the fact, that many twentieth century writers and academics had a lantern at home during childhood and wrote about the memory of this lantern in their publications in the second half of the twentieth century. This illustrates the grand role the home lantern had for children: although the lantern was most present as a scientific lantern in lecture halls, schools and churches, the memory of it was preserved mostly within the context of the home. Bak comes up with two reasons for the popularity of home lantern use: the increasing culture of domestic media spectatorship (Bak 113) and the growing market of very cheap toy lanterns, made possible by the improvements in technology. An article in the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad from 1940 about the history of toys, contributed a paragraph to the magic lantern (12•09•1940). The author wrote that the magic lantern had been a popular toy for

52 centuries and was only then (in the 1940s) replaced by a small toy film device. According to the article, the glass plates for the toy lanterns used to be a lot bigger, while the lenses were from much poorer quality. Apparently there was also development in this section of lantern production. The toy lanterns didn’t have the quality nor the design of the scientific or adult lanterns that were on the market. The toy lantern designs had a lot of decorational details resembling the older, artisanal lanterns which were used by the showmen of the seventeenth and eighteenth century (Bak 115). This is particularly remarkable because it conflicts completely with the idea of modernity and everyone wanting to engage with new technologies because of modernity. On the other hand, new developments always bring along a sense of nostalgia as a counterpart, such as the retro fashion and interest in vintage media, that has been going on for decades now. Another contributing factor could be that the industrial design of the scientific lantern did not appeal very much to children. The parents (and fabricants) had reasons to make the toy lanterns more attractive to children as they were partially meant to fulfill an educational function. Similar to owning a pet or playing shop, the lantern in many respects prepared the children for aspects of adult life. It encouraged children to play several roles, such as showman, business manager or exhibitor (Bak 114). At the same time it taught children how the dynamics between a performance and an audience functioned and how to build a story around images. In other words, in Meredith Bak’s view the lantern helped to practice presentation skills. I am not certain the parents thought of the educational values of the lantern, but I do think this device was appealing to children as it allowed them to show something themselves with a machine, putting them in control of the show.

Conclusion The lantern moved from a context of entertainment and wizardry back into the scientific spectrum and developed in ways that fit this regained environment. Mechanical improvements such as improved sources of illumination, electricity and the invention of photography turned out to have been important reasons for the lantern to be increasingly fit for the academic market and other forms of educational lectures, because they made the individual use of the lantern for different purposes a lot easier. While cinematic operation systems moved more and more to the background alongside the settlement of cinema around 1906, the lantern’s operating system became its

53 biggest selling point. For cinema it was a great advantage to be as independent from the hand of an operator as possible, in order to create a show that could run smoothly by itself. For the lantern on the other hand, the possibility to create and project your own slides, at your own pace, adapted to specific audiences, appeared to be an enormous advantage within other contexts. Agency of this medium lay with the person that controlled it, and not with the medium itself. This aspect was stressed by the easily obtainable facilities for customers (teachers, clerks, hobbyists) to create their own lantern slides. All choices and controlling functions were reserved to the operator of the lantern, who could decide whether to use his own images or those of someone else, the order in which they would be projected and what kind of narrative to build out of these images if any at all. The operator could also create a projectional show by order of a particular person or institute. The uses and gratifications model helped pointing out some typical characteristics of film and the magic lantern, stressing the idea of agency and controllability and generating additional outcomes when it comes to the benefits of both media. On the one hand it shows the benefits of the lantern have indeed mostly to do with the easily producible slides, on the other hand it turned out that film connected the viewer to a bigger, global network, which related to modernity. The lantern contributed to the modern society in a different way: the integration of media use within the context of the home and the democratization of media. The sense of connectedness related to cinema played no role as it came to scientific lectures, and the magic lantern became a very popular device within this context in the Dutch East Indies as well as in the rest of the world. The article of Jennifer Eisenhauer served this research to point out the change in paradigm between from the lantern as a “magic” machine, to the lantern as a “scientific” object. The hesitation to use this device within this field seemed mostly connected to the appearing difficulties in slide storage and preparation, but had soon been overcome. Thereby the lantern appeared to be very useful within the context of geographical and anthropological amateur lectures and the connection between the citizens of colonial grounds to their homelands and vice versa. Regarding the Dutch East Indies, the Dutch used the lantern as a tool to help their mission civilisatrice succeed. The medium proved to be ideal to make a connection between colony and homeland, because it could show pictures of the one country, creating a bigger awareness in the other.

54 The easily producible slides proved also extremely useful when it came to domestic use. Customers did not need to worry about the difficulty of home production, since all means were provided to make this process easy. Nevertheless, within the context of domestic use the entertaining function did not completely disappear either, as ready•to•use slide sets were also on the market to facilitate home entertainment. As Meredith Bak has shown, the children were provided with their own low quality lanterns that were entertaining on one hand and educational on the other. Altogether the lantern proved itself to be able to adapt to the market after all, which allowed it to maintain a unique position within the context of media use at lectures and domestic media use, up to the 1950s when the modern slide projector was invented, which had the same functions put a different apparatus. In this way the magic lantern and cinema have long been able to co•exist while they both served their own market and terrain.

55 Conclusion The magic lantern proved itself to be a very flexible and adaptable device, Allowing it to stay on the market for almost three decades. When answering the main question, why and in what way the magic lantern persevered after the emergence of cinema in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, these qualities of the magic lantern can provide the answer for the most part. In this thesis I have expounded upon the qualities of this medium, and I showed under what conditions the device has transformed during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. When cinema arrived at the end of the nineteenth century, the magic lantern was already in the verge of transforming towards a medium fit for lecture use, under the influence of new technologies and mass production. Cinema did not take away the lantern’s function of public entertainment, although it might have accelerated this process by offering an alternative that remained interesting for the public due to its permanence, rapid change of programming and diversification. Nevertheless the lantern maintained a public function at lectures, a logical direction after its deployment of photography and the intermediate stage of non•fictional travel shows. Its entertaining function also remained in tact within private circles and as the front picture suggests the magic lantern remained in this function at the countryside, where not many alternative forms of entertainment were reachable. The first chapter showed how the lantern came to existence and how it thrived within different social circles and with different purposes at a very early stage. It did so, by deploying literature on lantern apparatus by Albert Wagenaar and his followers. In this chapter I have also pointed out how the marketeers of the magic lantern shows made sure it fitted within the two most fashionable subjects of that time: magic and science, not seldomly in combination with each other. With help of Daniel Raichvarg’s article, I pointed out this had to do with the popularization of science and based on Terry Castle’s theory I explained how this had to do with a broader trend in society relating simultaneously to the rational by focusing on the scientific aspects and on the irrational by calling the effects “magical” and by not entirely revealing the process. These two components soon split ways, and formed the basis for entertaining lantern shows on one hand, and scientific lantern use on the other at a later stage. While the lantern became a popular device in Europe, and while Dutch colonialism resulted in Dutch trade posts and imperialism at different countries all over the world, the magic lantern spread on the market of the Dutch East Indies as well. There it

56 fulfilled similar purposes as in Europe during the first half of the eighteenth century. One function was probably more popular among the Dutch citizens in the archipelago than in Europe: the function of using the lantern to watch pictures of the homeland together, which was made possible by the invention of photography and the possibility of making photographic lantern images. The second chapter explained how early cinema related to the magic lantern show and how both of these types of shows responded to modernity. The magic lantern thrived under influence of modernity, since mass production made the device accessible to a large group of amateurs. In line with Fresko’s article I pointed out the medium kept developing in this era while it offered more possibilities in the direction of motion pictures. Nonetheless the lantern show fell out of favor. Schneider related this to the lower status of the lantern show due to a large and sudden increase of amateur lanternists. The Dutch East Indies papers offer another explanation, which appears to be more relevant for this region: the audiences had become worn out with the lantern show, which had been a main source of entertainment for a long time. The early cinematic shows have taken over the role of the lantern shows a couple of years later: not only did cinema arrive in the archipelago through the same networks, the shows were also promoted in a very similar way. Moreover, with help of Hagener’s vision on the dialectics between cinema of attractions and narrative integration I pointed out a continuity in this process between the lantern shows and the cinematic shows later on. In this chapter I also concluded the technocratic vision of modernity as described by Popple and Kember, and the modern vision mentioned by and Gunning and Locher•Scholten barely played a role in the spread of cinema and even the contribution of these visions of modernity to the development of cinema was limited: only electricity, rapid image sequence and depersonalization played a noticeable role. Colonial modernity is summarized by Schulte Nordholt’s concept of mission civilisatrice and Strassler’s vision on the integration of western influences within the traditional customs and habits of the original inhabitants Dutch East Indies. These aspects might have lead to the growth in popularity of cinema under Asian groups in the archipelago. However, the influence of colonial modernity is hardly measurable because it is unclear whether this group had visited the lantern shows in large numbers throughout the ages, as evidence of their attendance is the limited based on the paper articles

57 I used, which were written in Dutch and directed towards the Dutch speaking elite of the Indies. The third chapter focused on the role of the magic lantern after its role within public entertainment had diminished. In this chapter is shown how the lantern ended up in a completely different paradigm again, namely that of science, which can be best seen as a continuation of its role in chapter one: it was created within the world of science and early shows were promoted as science shows which also appealed to the rational application of the medium. With help of the article of Jennifer Eisenhauer I have showed how the magic lantern thrived within the context of public lectures as an illustrative medium, which was now also referred to as ‘science lantern’ or the more neutral ‘projection lantern’. The pleas of scientists Hobbs and Jacob showed there were hardly reasons not to use the lantern at lectures: not only was the use of images seen as a useful way to illustrate the stories, the use of the lantern was also very cheap and easy and there were sufficient solutions for lantern slide storage. While it was possible to create lantern slides oneself, amateur and home use remained very popular. Guides were offered to help with slide production, but instant lantern slide sets were also still available. Former public travel shows were now held at home or within the more science oriented context of geographical or anthropological societies. Meredith Bak focused on lantern use of children in her article, which fits within this research as the only function that has remained in tact throughout the ages: this type of lantern looked like a showman lantern and was used with entertaining as well as educational purposes. The reasons why the magic lantern has been able to outlive the invention of cinema and why it might have been the longest can thus be summarized in three qualities: diversity in functions, transformational qualities and controllability or the fact that the device was easy in use. The magic lantern’s functions during its existence contributing to the versatility of the device have covered four areas: private use, public use, entertaining use and educational use, which all overlap each other. While the public entertainment function diminished, the lantern was still able to cover the other areas, because no other device could take over all the functions of the lantern at once, up to the slide projector. In terms of transformational qualities the lantern not only changed from a scientific to a entertaining device and back, the apparatus of the lantern changed in order to match all the different uses of the machine: there were big lanterns for shows, small lanterns for at home and very small lanterns of cheap material for children. The apparatus also changed in order to live up to the modern wishes of

58 society: the candlelight was replaced by limelight which was replaced by electrical light. Cameras with more lenses came on the market during the nineteenth century to create different effects such as dissolving views. And photography was incorporated in the apparatus to create different kinds of projections. But the advantages of the lantern compared to cinema lied mostly in the quality of controllability. Film devices were quite difficult to operate, especially when it comes to the second generation of cinematic devices, which were bigger and able to project on outside screens. More people were necessary to operate one device, and this required specific operating skills. At this time, the magic lantern had completely been democratized and nearly anyone could operate a magic lantern. But even more importantly, one could not simply make one's own film, while it was very well possible to create your own lantern slides. In this research I have reflected on the developments of the magic lantern and early cinema along the lines of media archaeology as stated by Jussi Parrika and mentioned in the introduction of this research. I have showed the magic lantern and cinema have existed parallely and that while film took over some of the lantern’s functions and followed up on lantern practices, it had qualities on its own, while the lantern moved into a different direction. The two media have influenced each other simultaneously but did not threaten the existence of the other. I also challenged the idea of modernity as the prime condition of the emergence of cinema, by focussing on the different backgrounds of this medium, and by laying bare different origins of cinematic practices by comparing them to lantern practices. I also showed how the focus on cinematic newness by late nineteenth century audiences was in fact not a state of mind, which can be completely assigned to modernism, since eighteenth and nineteenth lantern practices have showed audiences of all times wanted to experience new media. And finally, I have tried to oppose positivism by showing the qualities of the magic lantern opposed to those of cinema as being different, but not necessarily less good or useable. The limitations of this research laid mostly in the methodology in the form of use of the source material: the Dutch East Indies’ paper article written in Dutch. These were meant for the upper class of the archipelago, and show little information about the use of the lantern and about cinema visits by the Chinese and the original inhabitants. Dafna Ruppin has done research on cinema•going by the natives of the Indies. In order to find out the influence of modernity and colonial modernity on this group of people compared to existing practices,

59 follow up research on this thesis and the work of Dafna Ruppin could exist of research on lantern shows visits and use of other traditional media, such as Wayang by the original inhabitants based on different sources, preferably in Malay. It is possible the influence of modernization on this group was larger, based on the growing interaction between the colonisers implementing their own culture on colonial ground in the form of the mission civilisatrice and the adoption of western media. This group was more remote from western media traditions, and as a result this group might have adopted new media in a completely different way.

60 Bibliography Bak, Meredith. "Ten Dollars' Worth of Fun": The Obscured History of the Toy Magic Lantern and Early Children's Media Spectatorship.” Film History 27.1 (2015): 111•134. Barnouw, Erik and S. Krishnasawamy, Indian Film. New York: Colombia University Press, 1963. Blom, Ivo. Jean Desmet and the Early Dutch Film Trade. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003. Castle, Terry: “Phantasmagoria: Spectral Technology and the Metaphorics of Modern Reverie.” Critical Inquiry 15.1 (1988): 26•61. Cohen, M.I. The Komedie Stamboel: Popular Theatre in Colonial Indonesia, 1891•1903. Leiden: KITLV Press. Dellmann, S. “To and From the Magic Lantern: Reappearing Photographic Images of The Netherlands in Various Media.” The New Magic Lantern Journal 11 (2013): 14•16. Doorn, J.A.A. van. De laatste eeuw van Indië: ontwikkeling en ondergang van een koloniaal project. Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2013. Eisenhauer, Jennifer F. “Next Slide Please: The Magical, Scientific, and Corporate Discourses of Visual Projection Technologies.” Art Education 47.3 ( 2006): 198•2014. Fresko, David. “Muybridge’s Magic Lantern.” Animation, 8.1 (2013): 47•64. Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant­Garde.” Wide Angle 8.4 (1986): 63•70. Gunning, Tom. “The World as Object Lesson: Cinema Audiences Visual Culture and the St. Louis World’s Fair, 1904.” Film History 6.4 (1994): 422•445. Hagener, Malte. “Programming Attractions: Avant•Garde Exhibition Practice in the 1920s and 1930s.” The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded. Ed. Wanda Strauven. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006. 265•280. Heard, Mervyn. “A Prurient Look at the Magic Lantern.” Early Popular Visual Culture 3 (2005): 179•195. Hepworth, Thomas Cradock. The Book of the Lantern: Being a Practical Guide to the Working of the Optical (or Magic) Lantern. With Full and Precise Directions for Making and Coloring Lantern Pictures. With Seventy•five Illustrations. New York: E.L. Wilson, 1889. Hobbs, William Herbert. “The Use of Lantern Views with Scientific Lectures.” Journal of Geography 7.1 (1908): 180•186.

61 Jacob, Ernest H. “The Use of the Lantern in Pathological Lectures.” The British Medical Journal 1 (1891): 88. Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler and Michael Gurevitch. “Uses and Gratifications Research.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 37.4 (1973): 509•523. Kember, Joe. “Productive Intermediality and the Expert Audiences of Magic Theatre and Early Film.” Early Popular Visual Culture 8.1 (2010): 31•46. “Lectures (Lantern) on the United Kingdom on the Use in the Colonies.” Journal of the Society of Arts 53 (1904): 34. Locher Scholten, Elsbeth. Women and the Colonial State: Essays on Gender and Modernity in the Netherlands Indies 1900•1942. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2000. Loughridge, Deirdre. “Haydn’s Creation as an Optical Entertainment.” The Journal of Musicology 27.1 (2010): 9•54. Mackenzie, Scott. "A Screen of One's Own: Early Cinema in Québec and the Public Sphere, 1906•1928." Screen 41.2 (2000): 183•202. Marsh, Joss. “Dickensian ‘Dissolving Views’: The Magic Lantern, Visual Story­Telling and the Victorian Technological Imagination.” Comparative Critical Studies 6.3 (2009): 333•346. Parrika, Jussi. What Is Media Archaeology? Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012. Popple, Simon and Joe Kember. Early Cinema: From Factory Gate to Dream Factory. London: Wallflower, 2004. Raichvarg, Daniel. “Science on the Fairgrounds: From Black to White Magic.” Hermes: Cognition, Communication, Politique 56.2 (2010): 105•112. Robinson, D. Iconography of the Magic Lantern 1420•1880. London: The Magic Lantern Society, 1993. Ruppin, Dafna. The Komedi Bioscop: The Emergence of Movie•going in Colonial Indonesia 1894•1914. New Barnet: John Libbey Publishing, 2016. Schneider, Edward. “The Demise of the Magic Lantern Show.” Performance Improvement 45 (2006): 13•16. Schulte Nordholt, Henk. “Modernity and Cultural Citizenship in the Netherlands Indies: an Illustrated Hypothesis.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 2011: 435•457. Schulte Nordholt, Henk. “Modernity and Middle Classes in the Netherlands Indies Cultivating Cultural Citizenship.” Photography, Modernity and the Governed in

62 Late•colonial Indonesia. Ed. Susie Protschky. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015. 223•254. Strassler, Karen. “ Modelling Modernity: Ethnic Chinese Photography in the Ethical Era.” Photography, Modernity and the Governed in Late•colonial Indonesia. Ed. Susie Protschky. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015. 195•222. Wagenaar, Willem Albert, Lodewijk Wagenaar and Margeet Wagenaar­Fischer. “The True Inventor of the Magic Lantern: Kircher, Walgenstein or Huygens?” Dutch Perspectives: 350 Years of Visual Entertainment Based on the Research of Willem Albert Wagenaar and Annet Duller. Ed. Willem Albert Wagenaar et al. London: The Magic Lantern Society, 2014. 13•23. Wagenaar, Willem Albert, Margeet Wagenaar­Fischer and Annet Duller. “Dutch Lantern Workshops.” Dutch Perspectives: 350 Years of Visual Entertainment Based on the Research of Willem Albert Wagenaar and Annet Duller. Ed. Willem Albert Wagenaar et al. London: The Magic Lantern Society, 2014. 27•53. Wagenaar, Willem Albert, Margeet Wagenaar­Fischer and Annet Duller. “Festive Illumination and Illuminated Peepshows, the Presecursors of the Projected Image.” Dutch Perspectives: 350 Years of Visual Entertainment Based on the Research of Willem Albert Wagenaar and Annet Duller. Ed. Willem Albert Wagenaar et al. London: The Magic Lantern Society, 2014. 75•104. Willis, Karl D.D. “A Pre­history of Handheld Projector­based Interaction.” Personal and Ubquitus Computing 16.1 (2012): 5•15. Wilson, Edward L. Lantern Journeys: A Series of Description of Journeys Home and Abroad, Including the Centennial Exhibition for Use with Views in the Magic Lantern or Stereoscope. Philadelphia: Edward L. Wilson, 1878.

Delpher paper articles sorted by name of the paper

Chapter One Anonymous advertisement. De Amsterdamsche Courant 12 January 1805, 4. . “Alleen voor Heeren.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 8 April 1897, 8. “Photografiëen.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 30 May 1891, 4. “Advertentie.” Bataviasche Courant 18 April 1818, 6.

63 “Glas­ Pleet­ en Porceleinwerk.” Bataviaasch Handelsblad 9 August 1884, 1. “Wordt te koop aangeboden voor f80.” Bataviaasch Handelsblad 2 August 1862, 3. “Theatre Allemand dans L’Amstelstraat.” Le Courrier d’Amsterdam 2 May 1811, 4. “Advertentie II.” Groninger Courant 26 December 1806, 2 “Vendu­departement.” Javasche Courant 17 May 1837, 3. “La Fantasmagorie du Physicien Robertson.” Javasche Courant 31 August 1839, 5. Anonymous advertisement. Java•bode: Nieuws, Handels• en Advertentieblad 7 January 1889, 4. Anonymous advertisement. Java•bode: Nieuws, Handels• en Advertentieblad 26 April 1889, 3. “Eene Voorstelling van Marionetten en Fantasmagorie.” Java•bode: Nieuws, Handels• en Advertentieblad 16 February 1856, 3. “Fantasmagorie Amusante.” Java•bode: Nieuws, Handels• en Advertentieblad 16 November 1853, 1. “Merkelbach & Co.” Java•bode: Nieuws, Handels• en Advertentieblad 21 December 1889, 11. “Vendutie wegens vertrek.” Java•bode: Nieuws, Handels• en Advertentieblad 23 April 1881, 1. “II.” Leydse Courant 4 December 1815, 3. “J. Altheer.”Leydse Courant 26 January 1824, 4. “Kinder­Voorstelling door Olman en Saxe.” De Locomotief, Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 28 April 1881, 3. “Zärtliche Verwandten.” De Locomotief, Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 22 March 1884, 5. “Samarang.” Samarangsch Advertentie•blad 16 March 1855, 3. Anonymous advertisement. Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 28 April 1889, 2. “Met vergunning van den resident nog ééne voorstelling.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 1 March 1884, 3.

Chapter Two “American Biograph.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 5 May 1899, 6. “American Biograph.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 16 May 1899, 4.

64 “Gemengde Berichten.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 29 December 1897, 12. “Harmston’s groot circus en menagerie.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 27 August 1895, 8. “Medaille d’Or.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 23 September 1894, 4. “Met toestemming van den resident.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 25 July 1890, 4. “Nederlands­Indië.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 27 February 1897, 1. “Te Koop.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 7 January 1897, 3. “Vendutie.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 19 December 1895, 2. “Groote Soiree Amusante.” Java•bode: Nieuws, Handels• en Advertentieblad 14 March 1870, 2. “Cineograaf.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 7 May 1901, 2. “De Eerste Voorstelling.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 28 June 1873, 1. “N.V. Java Cineograph Comp.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 7 April 1902, 8. “N.V. Java Cineograph Comp.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 10 May 1902, 8. “Uit Djocja.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 23 May 1899, 3. “Uit Soerabaija.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 23 August 1902, 3. “Vermakelijkheden.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 29 March 1897, 2. “Verspreide Indische Berichten.”De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 20 August 1896, 3. “Stuitend.” Het Nieuws van den Dag voor Nederlands•Indië 8 September 1901, 3. “Uit Djocja.” Het Nieuws van den Dag voor Nederlands•Indië 12 December 1901, 3. “Harmston’s Circus en menagerie.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 29 July 1897, 3. “Met toestemming van het bestuur: Harmston’s Circus.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 8 July 1897, 3. “Nieuwtjes van het Soerabaijasch Handelsblad.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 4 October 1881, 2. “N.V. Java Cineograph Co.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 26 July 1897, 7. “N.V. Java Cineograph Co.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 4 July 1904, 8.

65 “Spoedig!! Spoedig!!” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 1 March 1905, 8. “The American Biograph.” De Sumatra Post 21 February 1900, 6.

Chapter Three “C.J. Loriaux Senen, Weltevreden.” Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 19 June 1911, 6. “Lie Hoeng Tsjang in Nederland.” Java•Bode 08 August 1896, 1. “Nieuws uit Nederland.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 30 January 1897, 1. “De Zending.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 14 February 1902, 6. “Nederlands­Indië, Java Commité.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 24 December 1895, 1. “Uit Amsterdam.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 30 March 1900, 1. “Uit de hand te koop.” De Locomotief: Samarangsch Handels• en Advertentieblad 30 January 1901, 4. “Nederlands­Indië, Twee boeken voor kiekjesmakers.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 05 May 1900, 5. “Speelgoed was er al 2000 jaar geleden.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 12 September 1940, 6. “Uit de mail tot 4 september.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 9 October 1883, 1. “Zuid Afrika.” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad 30 March 1900, 9.

66