Part I - Why Circuits Began
In the latter part of the 19th century, the old stock theater system gave way to stars who traveled from theater to theater. That eventually developed into “combination” units, where it was not just the star of the show who traveled, but the entire cast, along with all the scenery and whatever was necessary for the performance of the play. It quickly became apparent that it was in the interest of the traveling show to have some order to its travels. That is, it was obviously better to go from New York to Philadelphia to Pittsburgh to Chicago, for example, than to go from New York to Pittsburgh to Philadelphia to Chicago. Likewise, it was in the best interest of the theater manager to know he could rely on a show appearing when it said it would, and not risk having an unexpected empty theater. Soon small groups of theaters began to work together, and then larger groups organized. Middlemen appeared, those who neither owned theaters nor produced shows, but who did know how to move a show from place to place reliably.
​
Very briefly, here is one concept how it all started. In the late 1800s, then as now, New York City was the center of the theatrical world. Each year theater managers (or owners, etc.) from all over the country had to go to New York and meet with the producers or stars of shows they wanted to appear in their theater the following season.
​
Many of these meetings took place in offices, but they also met in bars, on the street, or any place a theater owner could find someone in charge of a show he wanted. It was a slow, inefficient, hardly organized way of doing business.
​
At some point, so the story goes, two out of town managers got to talking, and one says to the other, "As long as you are in New York, how about you find some shows for my theater too? I'll pay you for your efforts."
​
And thus, the first two-theater circuit was born. It was effective, it saved time and money, and the idea spread and grew.
​​
It was good for producers too, as now they had a group of theatre owners they could talk to all at once.
​
_jp.jpg)
The Southwestern Opera House Circuit, as of August 1884. Note that a producer would have to contact the manager at each theatre to book his show.
​​Problems remained. Some of these early circuits were still loosely organized and not very disciplined. Contracts were casually applied, and there was difficulty enforcing them. What kind of problems arose? Say the manager of the Palace Theatre (wherever) booked the new play, "Popular Show." When he learned later that "Big Hit Show" was suddenly available in his market, he would cancel "Popular Show" and book "Big Hit Show." What happened to "Popular Show," he reasoned, was not his problem. "Popular Show" would suddenly find itself with a company and no place to perform; that is to say, earn any money.
​
So the next time "Popular" was on tour, it would book itself into two theaters for the same time, figuring at least one of the theaters would not cancel. What happened to the second theater that suddenly found itself without an attraction? Why next time it would be sure to book two shows for the same time period, just to make sure one of them showed up.*​
Sometimes the small cities and towns that lay between two larger cities did not have theaters large enough to draw the interest of larger circuits. What they did offer was a way to break up a long jump between major stops by offering attractions one night at their theater, and an opportunity to pick up some ready cash, that is, box office receipts.
The size of these circuits varied widely, but some were quite small. E.S. Brigham was the booking representative for six theaters in Kansas and one in Missouri. Ira W. Jackson, lessee and manager of three theaters in Connecticut, put together his own circuit of theaters, “Forming a Circuit comprised within a radius of twenty-three miles. Handsomest Theatres in Eastern Connecticut. Playing Leading Attractions only." Two theaters, one in Burlington, Vermont, and one in Plattsburgh, New York, got together and created what amounted to a two-theater circuit.
Still, some managers felt that belonging to a circuit was not in their best interests, and believed remaining truly independent was the way to go. The Atchison Theatre in Atchison, Kansas, advertised itself as “Independent of Any Circuit.” Perhaps they had no choice about it, because if there were other theaters nearby, the other theaters might be newer or larger, and therefore of greater interest to established circuits.
Sometimes, it sounded like the managers were almost pleading: “Managers of first-class attractions should not forget Marietta, the best one-night stand [in Ohio],” read the ad for the Auditorium theater (seating capacity 1,200) in Julius Cahn’s theatrical directory for 1897. Still, all was not without hope for the Auditorium, as it did book shows managed by Julius Cahn, Smyth and Rice, D.W. Truss, and Klaw & Erlanger. All of them running their own circuits.
Similarly, the Crawford Grand Opera House in Wichita, Kansas (seating capacity 1,500), advertised itself as “Independent of Any Circuit.” The Crawford managers claimed that they “CAN PUT ON THE LARGEST ATTRACTIONS TRAVELING. FOR THEM, WE BILL AND DRAW FROM TWENTY TOWNS. WITH THEM, WE CAN PACK THE HOUSE. HAVE DONE IT. CAN DO IT AGAIN.”
Or were they really independant? In their 1896 Cahn ad, they directed shows to their representatives in New York: Frohman’s Exchange and Klaw and Erlanger’s Exchange, among others.
* As described by Jerry Stagg in "The Brothers Shubert."