Monday, April 22, 2013

Buckland, Massachusetts and the Psychology of Epidemic Disease

by Kate Corbett Pollack  

The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. —Deuteronomy 28:22 

Readers familiar with the Spaulding family might recall my September 2011 blog post, “Calvinism and Epidemic Disease in the Susanna Cole Letters”. In that post, I discussed the ways that the Calvinist religion was used by its followers in Buckland, Massachusetts, to explain the epidemic diseases that ravaged the village for over a fifty-year period. I used the letters in our archives written by the Spaulding and Pomeroy families during this time (1800-1850) as the basis for this research. Since writing this article, I have learned more about the psychology of epidemic disease and have seen parallels in reactions from Buckland villagers to disease and illness in the early 1800s to reactions to contemporary disorders such as Autism. There are also similarities with both of these responses and those to the Great Plague of London in 1665. Guided by Philip Strong’s essay Epidemic psychology: a model, this article will address what appears to be a common human psychological reaction to epidemics, regardless of the time period. Epidemic disease can also function to explain the treatment of Josiah Spaulding, Jr. (1785-1867) who was kept in a cage in the homes of his family for 57 years. 

Epidemics have, throughout history, invoked a common psychological response in humans from the Stone Age to the AIDS epidemic, even to current issues of diabetes, obesity and Autism. In the midst of a serious, ongoing health crisis, humans look for an answer, any answer, to the problem. In early 1800s Buckland, choices for an explanation of disease were limited. Today, science provides us with many more options. However, this has not stopped large numbers of people from continuing to seek the types of explanations commonly sought in Buckland or 1665 London. The powerful psychological response to illness can be difficult to sway, and manifests in similar ways throughout history. 

Autism is a current disorder that upon examination provides insight to human psychological response to epidemics. Looking to external sources and imagining a conspiracy is at work are examples. The opinion that an outside source triggers or has triggered the onset of Autism is one held by communities who are seeking an explanation to the condition and do not trust the average doctor or scientist who maintains the cause is biological and internal. These communities are largely made up of those who are either against vaccinations or in favor of a limited vaccine schedule. They argue that vaccinations are the cause of Autism, despite that claim being widely discredited by doctors, and the initial research it was based upon found to be fraudulent. There is a correlation with the rise in autism diagnoses and the rise in the MMR vaccine, but causation has been disproved.i This has not stopped people from believing that all vaccines are a potential cause, however. This reaction is a common one in the face of widespread illness. In Philip Strong’s Epidemic psychology: a model, he explores the “fear, panic, stigma, moralizing and calls to action” that seem to characterize the “immediate reaction” to an epidemic.ii

Autism is not the type of “large, fatal epidemic” Strong is referring to, but the social responses he outlines in this essay are characteristics that considerable numbers of the American, British and Australian populations have displayed in response to Autism, a condition that is arguably not an epidemic at all, but is viewed by many as being so due to the increase in diagnoses over the last few decades. This increase, doctors and scientists explain, is due to better identification, and expansion of the definition to include a wider spectrum of Autism including Asperger’s disorder. Scientists also maintain that these disorders have existed for a long time, if they are to be characterized as “disorders” in the first place. Renowned Autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen maintains that Einstein and Newton both had symptoms of Autism and Asperger’s, and that the condition can contribute to a better understanding of scientific and mathematical systems.iii

Despite increased information and positive perspectives on the condition, the propensity for “fear, panic, stigma, moralizing and calls to action” remain strong. Ideas that an outside cause in the environment, a governmental conspiracy or even religious reasons (anti-vaccination activist Jenny McCarthy frequently references a spiritual calling from God to inform people) are the cause of Autism continue to proliferate. There is fear and panic around the idea that vaccines contain harmful chemicals like anti-freeze, and that conspiratorial doctors and scientists are working together to harm children for pharmaceutical profit.iv Calls to action include anti-vaccination groups that push for changes in vaccines or to not vaccinate at all. Other outside sources have been looked to such as diet and environmental factors, for example. Dr. Baron-Cohen believes that the disorder is hormonal and develops in the womb. There is not yet a solid explanation for the cause of Autism, but there is no evidence that it is caused by vaccines. 

During the Great Plague of London, a similar reaction to the devastation of the Black Death occurred. In the medical pamphlet The Shutting Up Infected Houses As It Is Practiced in England Soberly Debated (1665), possible causes of the Black Death are discussed. (During the plague, infected people would be shut up in their own houses.) The causes are almost all from external environmental sources. Food features prominently on the list: 
23. By a Dinner of Soales in Fifth street 
24. By a dish of Eels. 
26. By a Codling Tart and Cream 
27. By a Dish of French Beanes. 
28. By Cabbages. 
29. By Turneps and Carrets. 

The list continues and includes humans (typically poor people), animals, clothing and places of ill repute like “Scurvy Tipling Houses and Bowling Allies.”v The idea that people considered undesirable or different by the rest of the population are somehow responsible for disease or that God is angry because of these people and making everyone sick is still a common reaction to epidemics. The Plague was thought of as a disease that came from the poor, and upper classes would try to hide the fact that they’d contacted it out of embarrassment. Gay people being blamed for AIDS is an example of modern day epidemic scapegoating. Profit-hungry chemists, doctors and pharmaceutical companies being blamed for producing Autism-causing vaccines is another. If a segment of the population’s influence could be decreased or eliminated, then these diseases would go away, according to this logic. 

Vaccines do not cause Autism, but what they do accomplish is to prevent a variety of life-threatening, debilitating illnesses that caused high mortality rates and suffering for most of human history. Public health and medical science have also put an end to these diseases almost entirely in the United States, Europe and many developing countries. The Black Plague decimated European cities in regular intervals for almost 300 years. The Great Plague of London in 1665 is estimated to have killed over 100,000 people. During its height, 8,000 died in London per week.vi Anyone who was able to fled the city, but most remained within city limits to die. We know today that fleas carried the disease, but during this era, the cause of the plague was unknown, as was what to do to cure it. People believed that miasma, or contaminated air was a cause, but it wasn’t known for certain. Hysteria resulted. Londoners, thinking a possible cause was cats and dogs, killed over 40,000 of the animals. The result increased the flea population, as fleas now had fewer animal hosts and turned to humans instead, exacerbating the Plague.vii

Today, the Plague is rarely seen. Nor are the diseases that were a part of everyday life for the Spaulding family and residents of Buckland, Massachusetts in the nineteenth century. These included cholera, dysentery, typhoid, tuberculosis, yellow fever and measles outbreaks. These illnesses were a part of everyday life for the villagers in epidemic years. Living with constant epidemics impacted the psychology of Buckland residents in ways much like the Plague impacted the psychology of Londoners.

Buckland residents reacted to epidemics in the way that humans tend to. What occurred was fear, paranoia, hysteria, blame and looking to an external, somewhat conspiratorial source, in this case God, as the reason. Certainly there was fear involved with this belief. The Spaulding letters repeatedly express feelings of wariness, helplessness, depression and anxiety in response to the idea that God is hurting and killing Buckland villagers for reasons that must be their own fault. The “call to action” was church revivals, penitence and an obsession with religion in all areas of life. Clearly the constant epidemics began to define the mindset of the Buckland residents. Nancy Spaulding wrote to Mary Pomeroy on March 27, 1810:  

Dear Sister…When we behold the sprightly youth whose chicks glow with beauty and whose limbs are full of activity cut down by the stroke of death and layed in the silent grave never more to be beheld by mortal eyes there to remain until the arch angel shall sound the trump of God…we one or both of us shall be numbered with the dead our bodys must be layed in the silent tomb… 

The women were in their early twenties at this time. From Deborah Spaulding to Mary Pomeroy, April 20th, circa 1814: 

 We who are now in the bloom of youth are as liable to die at any age we had ought to be in preparation for death judgment and eternity many of our fellow mortals are dying around us some in by a sudden and surprising manner… 

From Deborah Trowbridge to David and Mary Ann Pomeroy, April 17, 1839:  

God is speaking to us in accents as loud as thunder, to be also ready how soon and sudden we may be called, for we know not. Short has been the separation of your Dear Mother from your beloved child, this new wound has opened the other afresh may you my dear friends be still and know it is god that has done it… 

Stigma was directed at anyone who fell outside the category of a proper religious person. Mary Ann Pomeroy wrote in her 1850 diary when she was 14 years old of attending church almost constantly and being punished when she misbehaved by not being allowed to go, which for her was very upsetting, since she believed that she was going to die soon, as so many others around her were. Church was a possible way to protect herself. 

Epidemics and the Incarceration of Josiah Spaulding 

Josiah Spaulding, as we have seen in previous posts, was not like everyone else in Buckland. He challenged his father’s religious beliefs, for some reason did not fit in at Williams College, and wanted to spend his time in Southampton having fun instead of following in his father’s footsteps. There was also something clearly different about his mental state. It is difficult to say what exactly he was suffering from, since it was over 200 years ago and there is scanty evidence. However, Spaulding family letters indicate that in 1812 or around that year, at age 23 or 24, Josiah was put in a cage by his father, where he would live out the duration of his life. While it is possible that he became violent or aggressive, his letters to his family are very gentle-there is no evidence of violence, but there is evidence of kindness. Whatever the case, Josiah was clearly different. Death was a constant in Buckland and the surrounding area during the early to mid-1800s, as we have seen. Josiah’s sister, Mary Spaulding, almost died in 1811 after giving birth, lost a baby in 1814, and her husband in 1815, when he was only 33, and by 1816 was facing the possibility that her surviving daughter might also die. The feelings of terror that must have resulted in the family only strengthened the need for Josiah to be kept under control. 

 Around 1814 the family almost lost youngest daughter Lydia Spaulding from tuberculosis, a disease she would suffer from for the next twenty years. This type of pattern of near death and loss was not unusual for Buckland families. Nearly everyone in the Spaulding family eventually died of a now-preventable disease, everyone that is, except for Josiah. Although he came into contact with Lydia (tuberculosis) and his sister Deborah (typhoid and dysentery)on a regular basis, and in 1840 nearly all of the next door neighbors died of “Spring Fever”, Josiah lived to be 81. His niece, Mary Williams Howes, wrote to her Aunt in Southampton in 1840 of the “Spring Fever” epidemic that swept Buckland that year:  

Death that formidable adversary of mankind has snatched from our midst the man of years and the interesting youth and the bell has hardly ceased its tolling for another wrhose cold remains are waiting for the grave…You have probably heard of the deaths of Mr. Alexander Ward, Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Upton, Mrs. Daniel Bement, and Mrs. Thacher, all of whom died some time ago. But a week last Monday night this “grim messenger” entered the abode of our nearest neighbors and nipped the brightest flower of the family. The days of this mourning had scarcely passed for their little babe when a greater affliction came upon them. One remarkable for her apt evil, her uncommon rudeness, and her engaging manner has left us. But she died not as a true Christian dies, but pleading for mercy even in the agonies of death and the mortal remains of Eliza Townsly are deposited in the churchyard. 

Epidemics continued to outbreak into the 1850s, with cases of tuberculosis, then known as consumption, and typhoid fever striking Spaulding family members and Buckland area residents. 

The hysteria that resulted can be identified in almost every Spaulding and Pomeroy family letter, as indicated in the excerpts above. Josiah’s letters to his father (as written about in my 2011 post viii) indicate that he did not share his father’s Calvinist beliefs. While this type of behavior is normal today, and young people are often expected to show a certain amount of rebellion, it was not normal in 1812, and would have been completely unacceptable in the Puritan tradition. Josiah’s incarceration, which is unusual, should be viewed in the context of epidemic disease, since that is what was occurring at the time. 

There are many factors in his case that add up to the complex reason for his being kept in a cage, and some may weigh more heavily than others. But in the environment of “fear, panic, stigma, moralizing and calls to action”, someone who challenged the status quo could be looked at as a serious threat to social order. The villagers sincerely believed that God was testing them, angry with them; killing their families and friends for unknown reasons. Everyone went to the same church to listen to Reverend Spaulding talk about it; Reverend Spaulding with the very different son. Keeping Josiah confined was a way of maintaining control and order in Buckland society. Something was very out of order, because of the amount of sickness and death, and 1816’s “year of no summer”, when crop failure occurred due to weather changes. Disease and crop failure were out of the control of Buckland villagers. What they could try to control was each other. Josiah’s incarceration in the family home by his father had the support of the Buckland villagers, and Spaulding family neighbors were invested in helping to care for him. Everyone knew about Josiah. The shared mentality was that the cage was where Josiah belonged; enforced by Reverend Spaulding’s religious sermons which functioned to explain the rampant disease and death. 

In the years after Josiah’s incarceration, disease continued to be a constant, and more and more members joined the First Congregational Church of Buckland, where they were baptized by Reverend Spaulding. In 1816, the year without a summer, 16 people were inducted. In 1822, the year before his death,Reverend Spaulding inducted a record number of new congregants into the church-over 60 people, including the founder of Mount Holyoke College, Mary Lyon.ix

Eventually, the source and causes of these diseases was discovered, and medicine followed suit. Vaccinations were and continue to be a large part of staving off the types of epidemics that routinely threatened Buckland. As a result of vaccination rates falling, there has been a resurgence of the types of diseases common in the Spaulding’s era. In 2011, according to the Centers of Disease Control, incidence of measles outbreaks reached a 15 year high, and Pertussis outbreak was at epidemic levels.x It is interesting to note that the fearful and suspicious reaction towards vaccines is in fact bringing back epidemic disease to a society that has all but forgotten what life was like before them. Like the Great Plague of London, human’s suspicious reactions to cats and dogs as potential carriers exacerbated the spread of disease. Looking at vaccines as the cause of illness today is ironically leading to actual illnesses. Because of epidemic psychology, humans can unwittingly cause further harm to their own societies. 

The environment of constant disease and sickness that the Spaulding family spent their lives in made it hard to be a happy person. If their letters are any indication, they were fraught with anxiety and depression, and consumed by thoughts of death. The main comfort for them was the afterlife, where they would be reunited with their lost loved ones. This glimpse into a time when medical science and technology was almost non-existent reveals what the reality was for people who could do nothing to stop disease. It was not too far from the days of the Black Plague. Today, if current trends continue, we could be entering a new era of epidemic disease. Medical science has the power to eradicate disease, but it takes the participation of the population to work. If distrust and misunderstanding of vaccinations continues to rise, the era of the Spauldings will not be such a distant memory. 

 Further Sources: 

"Autism Risk Unrelated to Total Vaccine Exposure in Early Childhood." NIMH RSS. National Institutes of Mental Health, 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2013. 

Brodman, Estelle. "Medieval Epidemics." Journal of the Medical Library Association 41(3).July (1953): 265-72. US National Library of Medicine.National Institutes of Health.Web. 4 Apr. 2013. 

Fombonne, Eric, M.D. "What's Behind the Rise in Autism?" Interview. PBS Frontline. PBS, 29 Dec. 2009. Web. 4 Apr. 2013.

Greven, Philip J., The Protestant Temperament: Patterns of Child-Rearing, Religious Experience, and the Self in Early America. University of Chicago Press: 1988. 

Holt, D. "The Measles Lie, and the Ongoing Ad Campaign Disguised as News." NaturalNews. NaturalNews.com, 6 May 2012. Web. 04 Apr. 2013. 

Offit, Paul A., M.D. "The Problem WithDr Bob's Alternative Vaccine Schedule." The Problem WithDr Bob's Alternative Vaccine Schedule. Pediatrics, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2013. 

"The Vaccine War."PBS. PBS, 27 Apr. 2010. Web. 04 Apr. 2013 

Sears, Bob, M.D. "So Autism Is (now Even More) Common . . . Anybody Care Yet?" Lisa Ackerman Real Help Now. TACA, 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2013. 

http://www.generationrescue.org/ _________________________________________________ 

 i. Cohen, Elizabeth, and Miriam Falco."Retracted Autism Study an 'elaborate Fraud,' British Journal Finds."CNN. Cable News Network, 05 Jan. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. 

ii. Strong, Philip. "Epidemic Psychology: A Model." Sociology of Health and Illness 12.3 (1990): 249. Print. 

iii. Muir, Hazel. "Einstein and Newton Showed Signs of Autism." - 30 April 2003. New Scientist, 30 Apr. 2003. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. 

iv. Gorski, David. "Science-Based Medicine."Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, and Green Our Vaccines: Anti-vaccine, Not pro-safe Vaccine”. Science-Based Medicine, 9 June 2008. 

v. Sequence 1: The Shutting up Infected Houses as It Is Practised in England Soberly Debated :by Way of Address from the Poor Souls That Are Visited, to Their Brethren That Are Free : With Observations on the Wayes Whereby the Present Infection Hath Spread : As Also a Certain Method of Diet, Attendance, Lodging and Physick, Experimented in the Recovery of Many Sick Persons. [London] : [s.n.], Printed in the Year MDCLXV [1665]., Harvard University Library PDS. 

vi. "The Great Plague of London, 1665." Open Collections Program: Contagion,.Harvard University Library Open Collections Program, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013. 

vii. Ross, David. "The London Plague of 1665."The London Plague 1665.Britian Express, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013. 

viii. http://americanpomeroys.blogspot.com/2011/11/only-being-of-senceless-existence.html 

ix. Rev. Mortimer Blake, A Centurial History of the Mendon Association of the Congregational Ministers, with the Centennial Address, Delivered at Franklin, Mass, Nov. 19, 1851, and Biographical Sketches of the Members and Licentiates (Boston: Sewall Harding, 1853) 

x. Castillo, Michelle. "CDC: US Whooping Cough Cases Rising at Epidemic Rate." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 19 July 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2013. xi. Beasley, David. "Measles Cases Reached 15-year High in 2011: CDC." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

Friday, March 15, 2013

THE LABYRINTH OF CANADIAN POMEROYS PART II

by Alethea “Lee” Connolly 

While we continue sleuthing through old deeds, wills, journals, letters, and church records, we spend a good amount of time sifting through images on the computer screen for newly posted resources. But sometimes we find gold, just because fellow searchers come forward and share what they found. They provide the missing link that leads us giant steps forward. Much research today is about such generosity and collaboration.

THE QUEBEC PONTBRIAND/POMEROY CONNECTION IN ONONDAGA
AND OSWEGO COUNTY

Recently, these random acts of kindness came my way when I continued researching the French Canadian brothers, Louis and Germain Pontbriand, who, for some reason, changed their name to Pomeroy when they emigrated from Canada to the United States. (See our August Blog) We discovered Louis and Jeremiah had the same father, but different mothers. They were half brothers. Louis’ mother was Marie Louise Martin dit Pelland (first wife, deceased). Germain/Jeremiah was a son of Louise Preville (second wife of the elder Louis). This was a very large family, though not uncommon for the times in French Canadian families. Therefore, age differences between siblings sometimes ranged between fifteen to twenty years.

Since our August posting, I’ve received information from several descendants of these Pontbriand/Pomeroys. The 1850 federal census showed Jeremiah and family then living in Syracuse, and later in nearby Lysander, New York. One descendant of Jeremiah sent me a very clear photo of the grave stone of John and Harriett Pomeroy Pomeroy, his great grandparents, located in Oak View cemetery, Frankfort, Herkimer County, New York.1 The inscription on the gravestone shows their new POMEROY POMEROY surname identity.

Gravestone of John Pomeroy and wife Harriet Pomeroy Pomeroy
 His ancestors, are both of Pontbriand lineage, as Harriett was a daughter of Jeremiah, and John, the son of his Jeremiah’s elder brother Louis. Richard, who sent the photos, is a great grandson, of Gertrude, John and Harriett’s daughter.

Richard’s cousin, Diane, also sent us family information. She descends from Jasper, John and Harriett’s son. She told us about Harriett’s sudden death in December, 1917. It was reported a “strangulation, ” Diane explained Harriet had a condition of a goiter which restricted her throat. Tragically, one day, while doing food preparation, she choked when she ate some peas! Who would have known such a detail?

Another cousin, Jane, sent me a copy of the wedding photo of her great grandparents, Jasper Pomeroy and Maud Littlewood. Jasper and Maud married in 1906 in Frankfort, New York. Jane also sent copies of family obituaries, and Jay’s (Jasper’s) death certificate, which noted he was born in Brewerton, New York, where the family lived before moving to Herkimer County. Every tidbit of information illuminates the portrait of a family and leads to other investigations.
Wedding photo of Jasper Pomeroy and Maud Littlewood
In fact, it was a comment of Diane’s that prompted me to go back and look at the Onondaga County Poor house records. She mentioned Jeremiah had been sheltered at the poor house prior to his death. These records indicate that prior to his admission in May 1888 he had been a “salt boiler,” not an unusual occupation for Syracuse men in that time period. Some might say Syracuse, New York was the city built on salt, as this industry started early and lasted lucratively until into the early 1900s. That was a very tough occupation. In the days of corporate salt boiling “men worked in 90-degree heat and humidity, 12 hours a day, seven days a week, from April to November, boiling brine to isolate salt,” according to one journalist.2 They could produce three to four bushels in five hours. The poorhouse record confirmed Jeremiah’s birth in Canada; that he had five brothers and two sisters, and died while in the poorhouse, either in 1890 or 1891.3

POMEROY/PONTBRIANTS IN OSWEGO COUNTY

 While we knew Jeremiah and family moved between Onondaga, Oneida and Madison Counties in the 1860s, we just recently noticed he was in in Oswego County, likely not far from Louis, his elder brother, for several years. My colleague Barbara Dix, historian for the Town of Schroeppel, checked the 1855 NYS census and found PUMEROY family.4 The census taker used initials for given names, but we were still able to establish this was Jeremiah “Pomeroy”. If information on the record is accurate, especially the birth locations and ages of the children, then it seems Jeremiah and family had spent ten years in Onondaga County before coming in 1854 into Oswego County. Since all of his children were recorded as born in Oswego County, we estimate he was in this county perhaps by 1851. We now speculate that the Pontbriands arrival into this area of New York is about the year 1844.

We know that Jeremiah and family were in Verona, Oneida County in 1860, then for a few years in Bridgeport, Madison County, before coming back and settling in Onondaga County. It is here that his daughter Harriett married John Pomeroy, and where their three children Jasper, Gertrude and Wayne are born. They later moved east, to Herkimer County, and then west to Ohio, as our generous correspondents have shared. Other descendants of Jeremiah have been more difficult to trace. One daughter, Maria, married in 1883, when in her late thirties, to Brazil Pepper, and they settled in Granby. The 1900 census data indicates one child born to Maria, not then living in the household.5 It is not clear whether this child was born to Brazil and Maria.

 It is not surprising that some of Jeremiah descendants remained in the Granby area, while others went to Herkimer, and Ohio, as their uncle, Lewis Pomeroy, and their “cousins” remained there. When son Lewis Pomeroy died in 1908, his will identified him by both surnames of Pomeroy and Pontbriant.6 This discovery propelled much of our extended French-Canadian research resulting in grandchildren with the names of DAVIS and VIEW. Many of his children remained in the county. Daughters and granddaughters married into households with surnames such as MURRY, DAVIS, VIEW, WILLIAMS, ADAMS, LA BEEF and BURDEN. Perhaps now they will know that some of their ancestors were once Pontbriants from Quebec whose surname was changed to Pomeroy!

POMEROYS FROM STANSTEAD, QUEBEC THAT MIGRATED INTO NEW YORK

In the midst of digging through Quebec records for information about the Louis and Jeremiah family lines, I came across another puzzle. Several years ago I researched Judge Selah Pomeroy who, migrated from Vermont into Stanstead, Quebec in the early 1800s, where he raised his family. They were direct descendants of the Eltweed line. We knew Nancy Pomeroy, a daughter of Judge Selah’s son Hazen Pomeroy Sr., and his wife Lois Mansur, married Horace Wells in Syracuse, New York in 1847. 7 It was curious, but didn’t, at the time, prompt any intensive investigation.

Then one day, our county historical association archivist mentioned to our director that she had seen a Pomeroy name in an old diary she had been looking through. When I went to examine it, I learned the name was “Adele Pomeroy.”8 I recognized Adele as Nancy Pomeroy (Wells) sister. She was, according to this small journal, employed in 1847 as a teacher in a select school in Syracuse, which was just opened by Madame Anastasie Julia Raoul. Madame Raoul’s life had its own mysteries and secrets. By 1847, her fortune was depleted. With debts piling on her doorstep, she started a select school, and saved herself from the poorhouse.9 This meant that two sisters, Nancy and Adele Pomeroy, daughters of Hazen Pomeroy Sr., Judge Selah’s son, and wife Lois Mansur, were in Syracuse in 1847 and 1848. Had Adele read some advertisement for teachers, and taken advantage of this opportunity?

It was certainly an interesting coincidence that two families from Quebec who were, or became Pomeroys, ended up in Syracuse, between 1847 and 1850. Was there any connection of these Stanstead Pomeroys to the Louis and Jeremiah Pontbriand/Pomeroys? It was a longshot speculation, but puzzles and labyrinths are the peculiar territory of genealogists.

 I started to trace the Horace and Nancy Wells family unit. I found that in the 1850 U. S. census record they were in Broome County, and was surprised at their household members. Nancy and Horace were living in Chenango then, with sister, Louisa, and their 11 year old brother Selah.10 Further research showed that brother Charles was in the U. S. at least by 1854, when he married Mary Calkins.11 Perhaps he traveled with them, and then the siblings split up. It seemed like half of Hazen Pomeroy’s family bolted out of Stanstead for the United States!

 In tracing the descendants of the Stanstead Pomeroy sisters and their brother Charles, I found some stayed in the United States, and moved west, but some descendants returned to Canada, though not to Quebec. Nancy and Horace moved west to Illinois Her sisters, and brother Charles, married and a multitude of descendants have been traced – whose surnames are HARPER, SMITH, REED, LAFRANCE, FLETCHER and CURTIS.

Charles married Mary Calkins, but five years after their marriage (1859) he died in Michigan at age 35, leaving a wife and two children. I was able to trace descendants of his son, Charles W. Pomeroy, but not his daughter Mary. Another “act of random kindness” from Guy, a great-great-grandson of Charles W. Pomeroy, filled in some interesting family details, because his great grandmother, Nettie (Pomeroy) Curtis left family notes. Guy shared with us some of Nettie’s memories. She wrote that “when her (Nancy’s) brother Charles died, she took his little daughter Carrie to raise.” She also wrote that Horace, had a “furniture business in Troy” and “was a professional singer” of both church and opera music. Such recollections spice up a family history!

I still don’t know what motivated the three sisters (Nancy, Adele and Emily Louisa), and their brother Charles to move to the U.S., but I found no connection between the Quebec Pontbriands and the Stanstead “Eltweed” Pomeroys.

“THE STRANGE CASE OF PETER POMEROY”

Sometimes when you follow a loose string through a labyrinth, you end up somewhere in an unknown land, maybe with Dorothy in Kansas. But if you are fortunate, it may actually make sense.

In April 2012 a Pomeroy descendant contacted our director. She had traced her ancestry through a Peter Pomeroy in Illinois, but found Peter did not “link up” with our Eltweed Pomeroy family tree. She then asked a male relative to take a DNA test to help solve her “brick wall” She was surprised when instead of getting a Pomeroy match, the “markers” lined up with a PONTBRIANT line!

 Since we were doing research into the Louis and Jeremiah Pontbriand/Pomeroys families in New York State, it seemed promising to speculate Peter was somehow related to these families. It was a confusing trail, complicated by multiple marriages and half sibling relationships. There seemed to be no direct link to Louis and Jeremiah. Since sorting out these multiple marriages in the Quebec Drouin and Tanguay records was a challenging maze, I decided to push back to earlier generations and documents, and noticed that not only did our Louis Pontbriand in Onondaga and Oswego counties, marry three times, but so did his grandfather. I finally realized his grandfather, Jean Baptiste Briand dit Sansregret, was the key to unraveling my puzzle.

Louis Pontbriand, whose sons Louis and Germain (Jeremiah) migrated to New York with him (and his second wife Louisa), was the son of Jean Pierre Briand and Marguerite Lambert. 12 Jean Pierre, was the youngest surviving son of Jean Baptiste Briand dit Sansregret and third wife Marie Genevieve Cantara, born 1779. 13

However, Jean Baptiste Briand dit Sansregret was married three times. By his first wife, Francoise Jodouin, he had a son, Jean Baptiste Brilland born abt 1760.14. There was then about a twenty year difference in age between these half brothers. Descendants of Jean Baptiste Brilland emigrated into the town of Chazy, Clinton County, New York, while Louis Pontbriand and some of his family, including Lewis and Germain/Jeremiah, settled in Onondaga and Oswego counties.

Specifically, the elder half brother, John Baptiste Brilland, married Therese Perron, and their son Francois Eustache Pontbriand Sansregret married Felicite Vandal.15 A portion of this latter large family came to New York, and their surname became POMBRIO.16 One of their children was a Pierre, or Peter. Peter’s mother Felicite died in 1848, and his father remarried. In the 1850 census for Chazy, Clinton County, Peter is shown, as abt 11 years old, with his step-mother, and several siblings.17 I could not locate Peter in subsequent census records, nor in cemetery records, though other family members were located in the old St. Louis cemetery in Sciota. 18

A month ago, having already done some research in the Chazy, New York area, I came across a POMBRIO Family genealogical posting. Following this thread, I fortuitously found the genealogy work done by Susan L. Pombrio on the POMBRIO family ancestry. I received a copy of some of her research through the Northern New York American-Canadian Genealogical Society in Plattsburgh. “Pierre” is listed as the 12th child of Francois Eustache Pontbriand-Sansregret and Felicite Vandal. After his name she has noted “ b ca 1839 Sciota, NY went either west or south.”19 Oh happy day!

This was another piece in the Peter Pomeroy identity puzzle, one that supports our belief that the Peter Pomeroy in the U. S. 1860 Illinois census, is Peter/Pierre POMBRIO in the 1850 Clinton County census, a descendant, linked generations back to Jean Baptiste Briand dit Sansregret, and, therefore, linked to Louis and Germain.

 In the 1860 census of Plainfield, Illinois Peter’s place of birth is listed as Canada.20 It appears from the household that Peter is an apprentice in the John Virgil household. Virgil is a successful carriage maker, it seems, and Peter, age 21, is listed as a “wagon maker.” As he is unrelated to the family, as far as we know, it is not likely information was given to the census taker by Peter, but by John Virgil. It probably “sounded like” Peter was “French Canadian,” and certainly the head of household would have known some aspect of his origins. In subsequent census records, when Peter is head of household, Peter consistently states his place of birth as New York.

One descendant said family memoirs reported Peter never referred to his French Canadian heritage, but apparently told his adult sons he was a stowaway and came from France. Our research shows this unlikely, as do census records over the years where he himself claims his birth as New York State.

A great granddaughter of Peter Pomeroy, in writing to us, noted, according to Peter’s “Civil War Records that he was born in 1839 in New York.” The old Kansas GAR Post records in fact reported his birth locality as “Clinton City.” Well, that’s 50% correct.21 When Peter Pomeroy was 76 years old, he was listed in the 1915 Kansas State Census. He and wife Karen were living in Mulvane, Sedgwick County. He was cited as born abt 1839, in Clinton Co. NY. 22 

It seems at least, for the time being, I’m out of the labyrinth, even if all mysteries haven’t been solved. Still, part of the family story may be true. Peter may very well have run away from his Clinton County family sometime after 1850.

There is the possibility that he knew he had these half-cousins, Lewis and Jeremiah, in Oswego, and Verona, at this time. Perhaps he went as a young teenager to work with one of them, seeking an off-the-farm opportunity, especially since Jeremiah was listed as a boat captain. It would have been quite easy, from that point, to stowaway on a boat and find one’s way to Chicago. But then, that’s another puzzle.

Peter Pontbriand/Pombrio/Pomeroy died in 1916.23

 ENDNOTES

*The surname Pontbriand has been recorded and transcribed Pontbriant, Pontbrillant, in the Drouin Records of Quebec for the same person and family, but I have used the “d” spelling for consistency here. Some branches of these ancestors were recorded as Briand, and Briand dit Sansregret, as you will see, and the descendants of a branch in Clinton County retained the Americanized change to Pombrio as a surname.

1. We have used only first names of our information donors to protect their privacy. I’m using the spelling on Harriett’s gravestone, with two “ts” for Harriett’s given name throughout this text.

2. Sewell Chan, December 31, 2009, “On the Road: A Proudly Salty Reputation,” City Room, New York Times, online at: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/on-the-road-a-proudly-salty-reputation/

3. Onondaga County Poorhouse records, Town of Onondaga Historical Society, 9/27/2012, Record Books HO-2, and M/W. Volunteer look-up by M. L. Michalec. It appears Jeremiah returned to the poorhouse after a dismissal in 1889. A later entry shows he died there September 6, 1890 or 1891, the date being difficult to determine due to confusion in page numbering.

4. 1855 New York State Census, Town of Schroeppel, Second District, Family 241. Ancestry.com.

5. 1892, New York State Census, First Election District, p. 2, line 12-13. Ancestry.com; also 1900 U. S. Census, Oswego, New York, 5A, Ed 108, line19-20.

6. In the matter of the estate of Louis Pontbriant-also known as Louis Pomeroy…, Surrogate Court, County of Oswego, New York, 12 September, 1910.

7. Marriage Horace W. Well and Nancy M. Pomeroy, Onondaga Standard, April 12, 1848, p. 3. C. 3

8. See: The Anastasie Raoul Collection, Onondaga Historical Association, Syracuse, New York at http://www.cnyhistory.org/

9. Ibid.

10. 1850 U. S. Census Chenango, Broome County, New York State, P. 348, Dwelling 1796, Fam 1866.

11. Charles Pomeroy married Mary Calkins of Lowell, Massachusetts in 1854 according to B. F. Hubbard’s The History of Stanstead County Province of Quebec, with Sketches of more that Five Hundred Families, (Quebec: Heritage, 1874), p. 123-124. A thank you to Guy G. for some confirmations and interesting new information.

12. Baptism of Louis Pontbriand, July 14, 1807, son of Jean Pontbriand and Marguerite Lambert. Yamaska, Quebec. Ancestry.com Quebec, (Drouin Collection, 1621-1967) [database online]

13. Marriage of Jean Briand dit Sansregret, widow of Jeanne Voine (Venne-Voyne) to Maria Cantara, 1779, Feb 15, Yamaska, Quebec. Drouin. Source same.

14. The marriage of Jean Brilland to Therese Perron, September, 1794, cites his parents as deceased Jean Baptiste Brilland and Francoise Jodouin. Drouin. Source same.

15. (1) Marriage of Jean Brilland, son of deceased Jean Baptiste Brilland and Francoise Jodouin, to Therese Perron, Sept 29, 1794. Contrecoeur, St-Trinite´ Quebec. (2) Marriage of F. Eustache, older son of Jean Baptiste PontBrillant and Therese Perron to Felicite Vandal, Jan 11, 1820, Sorel, St. Pierre, Quebec. Ancestry.com Quebec. Drouin. Source same.

16. See POMBRIO Family Genealogy researched by Susan L. Pombrio. Before coming into this family genealogy, I had noted this surname while looking at burials in St. Louis Roman Catholic Cemetery (see ftn 18) and researching the Clinton County census records.

 17. 1850 U. S. Census, Chazy, Clinton County, New York , p. 242, line 34 Dwelling: 1659, Family: 1768, “Eustace POBRIA.” Peter is cited age 11. Ancestry. Com.

18. St. Louis Roman Catholic Cemetery, (Sciota, Town of Chazy, Clinton County, NY.) Surname of POMBRAH shows Augustus, and Phillisa (Eustache and Felicite Pombrio Pontbriant). POMBRIO also recorded. Northern New York Tombstone Transcription Project at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~frgen/clinton/chazy/st_louis.htm

19. Susan L. Pombrio, A Genealogy of the Pombrio Family in the United States, (#008), p. 45. provided by the Northern New York American-Canadian Genealogical Society Library, Plattsburgh, N.Y.

20. 1860 U.S. Census, Plainfield, Will County, Illinois, pg 164, line 1, part of John Virgil household, Family # 1223. Peter Pomeroy notes his birth location as New York in the 1885 and 1895 Kansas State Census records, and also in the 1870, 1900, 1910 U.S. census records. Ancestry.com

21. Kansas Grand Army of the Republic Post Reports, The James Shields Post 57 (1882-1937) Wellington County Sumner, Kansas records Peter Pomeroy mustered roll citing his birth location as “Clinton City.” Ancestry. Pomeroy served until the end of the war..

22. Kansas State Census Collection, 1855-1925, Reel K-1-K-271, Kansas State Historical Society, 1915 Census, p. 7, line 23, Family 10. Ancestry.com

23. Peter Pomeroy, died 1916. Kansas, Find A Grave Index, 1854-2012 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Roy Jobbins Pomeroy, Oscar Winner and Early Hollywood Special Effects Technician: The Life of an Artist.


Research by Patricia Cusick Whipple
Story and additional research by Kate Corbett Pollack


Part One.


Darjeeling, Bengal, India, April 20, 1893. A baby’s cry pierces the serene atmosphere of this mountainous town, located in the Mahabharat Range of the Himalayas. A gentle wind rustles through the lush, verdant tea leaves that line the terraced hills. Mist envelopes the surrounding jungle, home to tigers, elephants, leopards and many other exotic species. On this day, William Henry Jobbins and Jeannette Shepherd Hauser welcomed the birth of their second son, Amos Pomeroy Jobbins. William (1851-1893) and Jeannette (1862-1938), an ambitious couple living in this beautiful area of India, were British subjects. Jeannette was a direct descendent of General Seth Pomeroy, the American Revolutionary war hero, a lineage she was very proud of. Keeping with the family tradition, she included Amos’ fourth generation great-grandfather’s surname as her son’s middle name. His first name was taken from his paternal grandmother, Sarah Amos, who married Thomas Jobbins on January 17, 1847 in Coventry, England. 


William and Jeannette’s first son, Arthur, was born in Calcutta in 1891. Little Amos would spend his early childhood in India, playing with his older brother and beholding the rich culture of Darjeeling, at that time still under the control of the British Empire. William, the boys’ father, was the director of the Indian Art School in Calcutta, the capital city of West Bengal. Previously, he had taught art in Nottingham, England, and had spent time in Venice, Italy, where he shared a studio with James McNeill Whistler in a 17th century palazzo on the Grand Canal designed by Venetian Baroque master Baldassare Longhena. The two artists’ personalities clashed, and William did not enjoy working in the same space as the now legendary American artist, whom he felt was a second-rate painter with loose morals.[i]  Jobbins’ paintings of Venice are valued among art collectors today. Jeannette was born in India to American Christian missionaries, and had grown up traveling to India from her native Ohio. This colorful locale set the tone for Amos’ life, which would be a kaleidoscopic one full of adventure, mystery, beauty, and scandal.


Sadly, William Henry Jobbins died not long after Amos was born, resulting in Jeannette and the boys moving back to England. Jeannette remarried by 1897 to James Bernard Scale, and the family settled in London. Arthur and Amos were given their stepfather’s last name. Amos Pomeroy Jobbins Scale was enrolled at the Wells House Preparatory School for boys in 1897 at age five. The cold, dreary English weather [ii] and the strict school environment must have been quite a change for him after Darjeeling, and now he had a new father figure in his life.By 1901, when he was nine years old, Amos had begun going by the nickname “Roy”, based on his middle name of Pomeroy.


By 1917, when he was 25, Roy had moved to New York. There he worked as a self-employed artist,continuing to be the sole supporter of Jeannette, who had come with him. They lived at 1131 Broadway in Manhattan, in the heart of the theatre district. It was in this area of New York that Broadway hopefuls of all kinds lived, and Roy had possibly moved there to pursue a career as a scenic artist for theatre.  In the meantime, he procured a job painting advertisements for Ivory Soap, one of which included a scene in India. Roy registered for the WWI draft in 1917, and spent about a year in the air force inventing devices used for aerial photography, bomb sites, and aerial navigation. Among these inventions was a camera that could be used to render camouflaged objects detectable.


After the War, Roy began a business involvement with the Hippodrome Theatre on Sixth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. It was the largest theatre in the world at the time, and was created by the same men who founded Coney Island’s Luna Park. Their formula for success was repeated with the Hippodrome, which was built in 1904. Like Coney Island, it was an entertainment spectacle, only an indoor theatre and not an amusement park. Live animals, choruses with hundreds of people, performances by Harry Houdini, dazzling sets, acrobats, clowns and performers of all types could be seen at the Hippodrome, which became New York’s most successful theatre. More research is needed to discern whether or not Roy was employed directly by the Hippodrome, but he did involve them in a lawsuit regarding the use of a contraption in their shows that he claimed to have invented: a bubble machine, which Roy in 1919 alleged the Hippodrome used in their shows and owed him royalties for. The lawsuit alleged that R.H. Burnside, owner of the Hippodrome, had agreed to pay Roy $50 a week (about $660 in 2012 dollars) to use his machine, but had never paid him. Burnside claimed that another company held the actual patent for the device, and he had rescinded the contract with Roy as a result. The total amount Roy was suing for was the equivalent of $3,333.00 today. By 1921, after several court dates, the judgment was reversed, and Roy was ordered to pay the Hippodrome $422 ($5,410 today), which financially ruined him for a time. This would not be the last time Roy attempted, to his own detriment, to stand up to a powerful and famous man whom he felt owed him money, and perhaps respect.[iii]


Despite his issues with the Hippodrome, Roy was continuing to excel in the scenic arts, and by 1921 had partnered with a mysterious, handsome Russian stage lighting innovator and artist who had come to New York in the company of world-famous ballerina Anna Pavlova. His name was Nicholas Vladimir de Lippe Lipsky, and he had ties to English royalty and Russian aristocracy. The two men worked together on inventions for the theatre, and produced a series of photoplays, which were films of stage performances. Newspaper and magazine articles from the early 1920s lauded their accomplishments. The attention Roy received piqued the interest of a man who would change the course of his life: Hollywood producer Jesse L. Lasky.[iv]


Lasky, a San Francisco native and former Vaudeville performer who had worked with Al Jolson, was one of the founders of Paramount Studios along with his best friend Cecil B. DeMille. In 1914, Lasky and DeMille produced “The Squaw Man”, Hollywood’s first feature film, in a rented horse barn which doubled as their production studio. It was such a hit that the team went on to produce a number of early silent films, many written and directed by DeMille.  They would eventually form Paramount Pictures. Prior to 1914, films weren’t usually made in California, but New York. Cecil B. DeMille and Jesse L. Lasky put Hollywood on the map as the new capital of the motion-picture studio.


In 1920, when he was 40 years old, Lasky opened Astoria Studios in Queens, which is still in operation today. By the time he met Roy Pomeroy in about 1921, Lasky had produced over 300 films. He had an apartment on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan with his wife Blanche and their son, Jesse Jr., and frequently traveled by ocean liner to do business in Europe when he wasn’t in California, often bringing his family with him. Jesse L. Lasky was known as “the nicest guy in Hollywood”. Lasky recalled of Roy Pomeroy:


We had discovered Pomeroy as a struggling artist with an inventive mind, who had some exceedingly original and useful ideas about the employment of miniature sets and background projection to affect enormous budget savings in picture-making. I hired him and he did some fine creative work on tricks and special effects. He was the first specialist in that field and there has never been a better one… Perhaps it isn’t strange under the circumstances that he came to feel he was God…[v]


After being hired by Lasky for Paramount Studios, Roy packed up and headed for California. There he began work on Cecil B. DeMille’s epic masterpiece, “The Ten Commandments”, where he created the effect of the parting of the Red Sea using Jell-O, which is considered to this day one of the most impressive special effects in Hollywood history. Roy also created the effect of the Ten Commandments, given to Moses by God, lighting up and exploding into the sky as Moses carved them into stone tablets.


“The Ten Commandments” was the most expensive film ever made. Director Cecil B. DeMille had a life-size set built on the sand dunes of Guadalupe, California, where he re-created ancient Egypt (his 1953 version was shot on location). The set included four 20-ton statues of the Pharaoh Ramses, 300 chariots, a 110-foot high and 800 foot wide temple, 21 Sphinxes and a crew of 1,500 construction workers who labored to build it. 2,500 extras and 3,000 animals worked with the cast. It went over budget and caused constant tension between DeMille and Paramount during shooting. The film starred Estelle Taylor, a leading lady of the Silent Film era, Theodore Roberts as Moses, and Charles de Rochefort as Ramses. It premiered at Grauman’s Egyptian Theatre, which was constructed prior to his Chinese Theatre. The result of Roy’s effects was triumphant: audiences loved the film, and it was highly successful, making Paramount a fortune and dissolving any tensions with DeMille. Paramount was impressed with Roy, and he quickly rose to prominence, becoming the head of the Special Effects Department for the studio. Oscars were not yet given in 1923, so he did not win anything for his work at the time.


After the success of “The Ten Commandments”, Roy did effects for “Feet of Clay” in 1924, and that year also worked on “Peter Pan”, making the characters fly using piano wires tied to their costumes. He gained a reputation as a miracle worker; the man who could make any movie effect happen. According to Lasky, Roy was “…something of a sacred oracle… we couldn’t have treated him with more awe and homage if he had been Edison himself.”[vi]  Certainly being treated this way by the founders of Hollywood, some of the most important people in the industry was thrilling for Roy. He had finally arrived, and his creativity was given free reign and plenty of funding.


By 1927, motion pictures changed from silent to “talkies” with the success of the first talking picture, “The Jazz Singer”, released by Warner Brothers and starring Al Jolson. Competing studios knew that they would need to incorporate sound effects and dialogue into their pictures to stay competitive. Roy Pomeroy was one of the few in Hollywood who was familiar with and good at sound technology, and the only person at Paramount who possessed these skills. In 1927, Paramount released “Wings”. While the film did not have speaking parts, it did have sound effects, and Roy was in charge of creating machine gun fire and airplane engine noises. The film is about two World War I fighter pilots who are in love with the same woman, and stars Clara Bow. The effects involving airplanes were considered especially impressive and exhilarating for audiences obsessed with Charles Lindbergh, and the film was a hit, making money for Paramount. That same year Roy patented a system he invented that made it possible for films to no longer be shot on location if they required a foreign backdrop. The background film could be shot separately, and then run through the camera later. Actors and actresses would perform against a blank backdrop, and the background film added. The concept was similar to a blue-screen, and would save the studio a fortune. Roy assigned half of the patent to Paramount.


After the success of “Wings”, Paramount Studios made Roy their Director of Sound Effects in 1928. He was also head of a committee formed by several different Hollywood studios, including MGM, to study sound effects for motion pictures. It was Roy who made the decision that sound should be a part of the actual film, and not recorded on a disc, as it was for “The Jazz Singer”. It is the industry standard today. Paramount looked to him as the man who would help them enter the new era of talking pictures. Another duty given to Roy was to test the voices of all of Paramount’s stars to see if they could be cast in talking films. This further inflated his ego, as he had been given the power to decide if a star should remain in their contract to Paramount. Even the fate of Paramount’s most famous star, Mary Pickford, was in his hands. He decided to keep her on.


In 1928 Roy was promoted to Director, and began work on a film called “Interference”. Jesse L. Lasky later joked in his autobiography that “No Interference” would have been a better title, as Roy would not allow any studio executives on the set, which was guarded by a policeman. This appeared to be over the top, but a closed set was necessary for Roy to be able to control sound recording. People coming and going on a movie set could disrupt the process. However, Roy would not even allow executives on the set, and his arrogant personality was starting to make him enemies. Roy truly believed that the work he was doing was revolutionary and would change the world. In the August 15, 1928 issue of Sound Waves magazine, Roy expounded on his ideas regarding sound and film:


In a few years I expect to see a central projection plant in theatre areas… and when science has accomplished all these things it will further be on the road to accomplishing that for which religious sects and human welfare agencies have striven for hundreds of years - the universal brotherhood of mankind, for within the limitless possibilities of this scientific art lies an unbounded field for the mutual exchange of art ideals. Ideals such as only the mechanics of the screen can successfully propound. I think two or three common languages (certainly not Esperanto) will become universal because of this…[vii]


If Roy was arrogant and controlling, it may have stemmed from his beliefs that the work he was doing was too important for anyone to interfere with, since it could very well bring about world peace. He also demanded an exorbitant rate of pay, telling Paramount that he should make what would be $46,000 a week in 2012 dollars, after he had already received a significant raise after “Wings”, making over $1 million a year. These demands combined with his personality caused studio executives to become disenchanted with him. By 1929, there were other technicians in Hollywood that knew the sound game, and Roy was becoming less of an Oracle.


William C. deMille, Cecil’s brother, was appointed by Jesse Lasky to assist Roy on “Interference”. Roy was thrilled to have William, a successful director, reporting to him. However, the plan was to usurp Roy: once William learned Roy’s techniques, the studio would have no need for him. Roy may have impressed Jesse Lasky, Cecil B. DeMille, Adolph Zukor and the other Paramount executives for a time, but he wasn’t ever accepted into their inner circle. William C. deMille was part of Hollywood royalty. The founders and builders of Hollywood, including Samuel Goldwyn, who for a time was Lasky’s brother-in-law and managed his first production company, had deep roots and similar backgrounds. Cecil, William and Jesse had known each other since they were kids and Samuel Goldwyn (then Goldfish) was a glove salesman. They had built Paramount and Hollywood together. Roy had only been in town for a few years, and by 1929, his bosses were tired of him. “Interference” was a flop, and not popular with audiences, although technically it was considered a very well-made film.


1929 was the year of the first Academy Awards, held at the Hotel Roosevelt in Hollywood. Roy was slated to receive one for his work on “Wings”. He had been one of the 36 people who formed the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which still exists today. “Oscars”, then called Awards of Merit, were given out to deserving pictures. Roy was awarded an Oscar for “Engineering Effects” for “Wings”,which also won Best Picture, the only silent film to ever win in that category other than the past year’s winner “The Artist”. Another award for special effects would not be given out for the next ten years. However, Roy was not at the Hotel Roosevelt to receive his statuette, he was en route to England with his wife, Sylvia Jewell, whom he had married in 1922. He may have been receiving an award, but Roy had left Paramount and was looking for directing opportunities in England. His troubles with the studio had culminated in their refusing to give him the salary he wanted, and his former position being filled by William deMille. He had been cast out. Roy went from making $32,000 a week to being unemployed.


Unable to make anything happen in England, Roy and Sylvia returned to Hollywood, where Roy attempted to find work as a director with another studio. By 1931, Roy was receiving offers from different studios to finish directing some of their films. He had started working for RKO in 1930, directing pictures and working on effects for that studio, but it appeared to be short-lived. Roy could not continue to make money as a director, and by 1940, he had been unemployed for quite some time, according to the census. He was described as an “inventor-technician” for the motion picture industry, but he did not have any work. Had Roy become blacklisted as a result of his demanding and overdramatic behavior at Paramount? Had a similar scenario happened at RKO?


Whatever the case, it does not appear that any major studio wanted to work with him. Dejected, Roy gave up his dream of being an important director and started his own company, Pomeroy Laboratories, located at 7554 Melrose Avenue. He and Sylvia lived in a bungalow at 1626 Crescent Heights Boulevard in Los Angeles, which was a short drive away from the Laboratory. 


On September 3rd, 1947, Roy was found dead in his laboratory at age 55. He had taken an overdose of Seconal, a prescribed sleeping pill. The cause of death was undetermined, but it appeared that the once-famous director and special effects technician had committed suicide.

Sylvia was unable to tell the coroner any information about Roy’s parents, and their names are listed as “unknown” on Roy’s death certificate. Was she simply too distraught to remember, or was that part of Roy’s life a mystery to her? How much did Sylvia know about Roy’s past, and why didn’t she know his mother’s name - a person Roy had lived with and supported almost up to the year he had married his wife? It is possible that there was quite a bit about Roy’s past that she, nor any of his Hollywood acquaintances were aware of.


There is also the question of what has happened to Roy’s Oscar. In 2008, the APHGA was contacted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences regarding Roy’s Oscar statuette, which they wanted for an exhibit, and could not locate. They were hoping that perhaps we could find out where it was, or if someone in Roy’s family had it. Roy and Sylvia had no children, and as far as we can tell, there are no living descendants. After over 5 years of work, APGHA researcher Patricia Cusick Whipple did uncover the details of Roy’s fascinating life. The location of Roy Pomeroy’s Oscar, however, the first ever given for special effects, remains a mystery. 


Perhaps there are answers to some of above questions in part two of this story, coming next month: did Roy really commit suicide? Who was the mysterious Russian prince whom Roy met right before he left for Hollywood? Learn about Roy’s eccentric mother and father, and his adventuresome life leading up to his Hollywood years!

Links:
The Hippodrome:
The Jazz Singer:
Jesse L. Lasky:

More on Adolph Zukor:

Cecil B. DeMilles’ 1923 “The Ten Commandments” set: ruins still visible in California desert:



[i]The Correspondence of James McNeill Whistler, University of Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

[ii] Variety. New York City, New York County, New York, 15 Jul 1921

[iii]Dramatic Mirror and Theatre World. New York City, New York County, New York, 14 May 1921
[iv]Pawlak, Debra Ann. Bringing up Oscar: The Story of the Men and Women Who Founded the Academy. New York: Pegasus, 2011. Print.

[v]Slide, Anthony. Silent Topics: Essays on Undocumented Areas of Silent Film. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2005.  79.

[vi]"Roy J. Pomeroy, Lasky's Famed Wizard, Tells Sound Possibilities." Sound Waves 15 Aug. 1928: 4.