CHAPTER 1

EARLY LIFE AND TRAINING

Louis Sullivan's account in The Autobiography of an Idea of his life fromthe time he met John Edelmann until he was able to claim the title "Architect"as the junior partner in the firm of Adler & Sullivan is so factually distortedand devoid of many significant details that many historians have beenperplexed as to why Sullivan would single out Edelmann as his "benefactor,"a distinction he gave to no one else, not even Dankmar Adler. One can onlyspeculate as to what Sullivan was thinking about as he wrote this account. Itseems obvious that in order to portray himself as a youthful prodigy withoutany comparable peers, as he does in The Autobiography, Sullivan could noteasily acknowledge that Edelmann had already been recognized as an architectat the age of twenty-one, a full nine years before Sullivan was able to claimthe same distinction at age twenty-six, let alone admit that he had served a twoyear apprenticeship under Edelmann. After all, even if someone were to takeissue with his account, as Irving Pond almost immediately did, wrong datesand forgotten events could always be dismissed as lapses of memory on thepart of an elderly author.

It should not be surprising that Edelmann was not twenty-four years old asSullivan claimed in The Autobiography, (suggesting 1849 as the year of hisbirth) when they first met at the end of 1873. The United States Census for1900 was the first in which at least the month and year of a person's birth waslisted. It states that he was born in October 1852. With the exception of theCensus of 1870, where Edelmann was reported as being eighteen years oldon June 2 of that year, the census records for 1860 and 1880 (he is not listedin the few records of the 1890 Census that survive) do not dispute that date.However, Mrs. Sonia Clements, Edelmann's daughter, told Donald Egbert thather father was born on September 19, 1852. Since that date is relatively closeto that in the Census, it seems reasonable to assume that it is correct. His givenname, according to his father's will, was Johan Herman Edelmann. His firstname, like that of his father, was later anglicized to John.

Aside from his places of residence and religious affiliation, documentedsources provide no direct information about his early life until the year 1869.Nevertheless these sources provide clues from which it seems reasonable todraw specific conclusions about his life prior to that year.

Edelmann's father, John Michael Edelmann (Michael Edelmann, as hewas generally known) was born in Erligheim in the district of Besigheim, justnorth of Stuttgart, in the Kingdom of Wuerttemberg on September 6, 1818.He applied for permission to emigrate from Erligheim to America with hisfamily in August 1851. According to Edelmann's son, the family name wasoriginally Edelmann von Lilienthal, the "von Lilienthal" having been dropped,when they left Germany. He further stated that the reason for their departurewas that, "they fled the German revolution [of 1848] not because they thoughtit would fail but because they, members of the minor nobility, feared it wouldsucceed." Upon arrival, the family settled in Cleveland, Ohio. It may beinferred from the Census of 1860 that he emigrated with his wife, John'smother, the former Sophia Christina Ekstein, who was roughly a year olderthan him; her daughter by a previous marriage, Hannah Louise (born JohannaLouise Gaeckle) and his mother Louisa, ages 15 and 64 respectively at thetime of the Census. The earliest known residence of the family in Clevelandwas at 21 Fountain Alley in what was then a multiethnic neighborhood northof the Public Square and just east of the business district, which the Census for1870 indicates had a good number of Germans in it but was not dominated bythem. Perhaps this was where John Edelmann was born. Certainly his youngersister, Louise Sophia, was born there in 1857. On September 7, 1868, Hannahmarried Jacob Bluim. By 1870, according to the Census of that year, thecouple had given birth to a daughter and were living with the other Edelmanns,but the absence of the grandmother's name suggests that she had died. OnNovember 19, 1874 Louise Sophia Edelmann married Fred Koblenzer.

By 1866, the family had moved across town to a working-classneighborhood on Cleveland's West Side, which the Census of 1870indicates was predominantly German. There they joined the nearby GermanUnited Evangelical Protestant Church of the West Side (now the West SideUnited Church of Christ). At that time the church was affiliated with theGerman United Evangelical Protestant Church, a denomination noted for itsecumenical views (it was an offshoot of the Prussian Protestant Church, thestate church which recognized both the Lutheran and Reformed confessions).Throughout the 1870s, the family remained members of this church. That bothof Edelmann's sisters were married there and their father was buried fromthere suggests that the Edelmann family were among its stalwart members.A strong attachment to the faith this church represented might explainEdelmann's obvious fondness for the Gothic, as a specifically Christian style,and ecclesiastical work during the early years of his career.

For roughly the first two decades of his life in America, MichaelEdelmann worked as a teamster. In 1870, he went into partnership with hisstepson-in-law in a grocery business named Edelmann & Bluim. MichaelEdelmann died shortly thereafter on May 31, 1871, leaving all his propertyto his widow. After his death, John Edelmann appears to have agreed to takehis father's place as a partner in the grocery business, a decision he wouldlater have reason to regret. Having moved to Chicago within a few months ofhis father's death, Edelmann could have contributed nothing to the operationof the business. Presumably this was done to protect his mother's assets fromclaims of potential creditors while allowing a share of the business' profits tostill be funneled to her.

According to his son, John Edelmann apprenticed himself in, "anarchitect's office at the age of sixteen." This assertion is supported by theCleveland directories from 1869 through 1871, in which Edelmann is listedas a draftsman living with his parents. The 1870 Census indicates, however,that he had a much more elevated image of himself because not only did hetell the census taker that he was a year older than he actually was, but he alsosaid he was an "Architect." The rudimentary sketches for a large, otherwiseunidentified "country house designed in 1869," which he made in Sullivan'sLotos Club Notebook (now at the Avery Library of Columbia University)about six years later prove that he already had sufficient skills to make sucha claim. This is the earliest known example of Edelmann's work. Althoughthe sketch is very crudely drawn, the precise features of the design are knownbecause he managed to get it published three years later (Pl.1.). His trainingin architecture must, therefore, have begun even earlier than his son recalled,which further suggests, considering the low status of his father's occupation (inspite of his reputed noble origin) that his formal education did not go beyondelementary school. Given the pride that Louis Sullivan implied Edelmann hadin his German cultural heritage and the heavily German environment he wasliving in, it would have been natural for him to seek employment and trainingwith a German architect, and until 1872, Alexander Koehler (1831-1895) wasthe only one with an office in Cleveland. Edelmann definitely worked forKoehler in 1877, but circumstances indicate that the two had probably metmuch earlier.

In 1866, shortly after the Edelmann family moved to the West Side,Koehler began constructing a new building for the church they belonged to.This church still stands, but modern additions have now left only one sidevisible. Even though it was not particularly large, the church was so substantialthat it took roughly three years to complete and cost the then incredible sum of$40,000, leaving the congregation in debt for many years to come. Stylisticallyit was of that mixture of Gothic, Italianate and Romanesque forms generallyknown in America as "Norman," which James Renwick had popularizedin his Smithsonian Institution twenty years before. With time, Edelmannwould become known not only as an architect, but also as a very experiencedbuilder and sculptor. It is likely that he began his apprenticeship in all theseprofessions while working on this church, as an employee of Koehler.

Koehler had opened his architectural practice in Cleveland in 1863. Theonly other Germans with architectural training in Cleveland around the timeEdelmann would have entered the work force were Frank (Franz) Cudell andhis younger brother Adolph. Both had received their professional training inAachen, Germany.

Frank had emigrated to the United States in 1866. Upon his arrival, he wasbriefly employed by the Prague born, New York architect Leopold Eidlitz.Eidlitz had been one of the founding members of the American Institute ofArchitects. He was not only a noted practitioner of the High Victorian Gothic,but as Kathryn Holliday demonstrates in her Leopold Eidlitz, Architectureand Idealism in the Gilded Age, Eidlitz was also a very vocal proponent ofthe German polytechnic system of architectural education (which stressedconstruction more than the esthetically oriented French system of the École desBeaux Arts). More important for our understanding of the design approachesof Edelmann and Sullivan, is that since the 1850s, he had expounded on an"organic" approach to architecture which he would later describe in detail inhis The Nature and Function of Art, More Especially of Architecture, publishedboth here and in England in 1881. Just as the form of any natural organismis determined by its function and structure, Eidlitz reasoned that the individualspaces of any building must work in harmony with each other like the cells ofa living organism if it is to properly perform its function and that its structuralsystem must also be appropriate for that function. For industrial buildings thearchitect's task could end there. Although Eidlitz expressed no preference fora particular ornamental style whether traditional or modern, he did assert thatin those buildings where man's spiritual values required expression (churches,court houses, residences, etc.), it was the duty of the architect to perceivethe true nature of those values and express them in harmony with the rest ofthe building through appropriate ornamental embellishment. The weaknessof Eidlitz's approach was that any building designed to so precisely meet agiven program could easily become obsolete if changes were later required inthat program. Even during the short time Frank spent in his office, he wouldcertainly have been fully exposed to Eidlitz's vociferous views on thesesubjects.

After Frank Cudell left Eidlitz's employ, he moved to Cleveland to bejoined two years later by his brother Adolph. By 1871, Frank had enteredinto a brief partnership with Koehler. Prior to then, neither brother hadhimself listed as an architect. Under these circumstances, it seems reasonableto conclude that Edelmann and both brothers worked together as draftsmenin Koehler's office. Nothing in Koehler's own work at the time reveals anyknowledge of the High Victorian Gothic, the style Edelmann's earliest workswould in part be derived from. Both Cudells, on the other hand, were fullyproficient in that style. It is likely, therefore, that Frank and Adolph Cudellexerted a great influence upon the esthetic aspects of Edelmann's architecturaltraining while the three of them were working for Koehler. Furthermore, thoseideas about function and organic architecture (which both Edelmann andSullivan would later espouse) most certainly had their origin in Eidlitz by wayof Frank Cudell.

CHAPTER 2

TRIUMPHS AND TROUBLES:WORKING AS AN ARCHITECT WITH OTHERSIN CHICAGO AND CLEVELAND 1872-1880

Apparently attracted to Chicago by the need for architects and buildersfollowing the Great Fire of October 1871, Edelmann moved there shortlyafterward. The destruction caused by the fire was so extensive that most of thecity's prominent architects were suddenly overwhelmed with work. Edelmann,a skilled draftsman with practical building experience, could have easily founda position of responsibility in almost any of their offices. By May 1872, he waslisted in the Chicago directory as a draftsman working in the office of Burling& Adler, Architects. Edward Burling (1819-1892) had arrived in Chicago fromNewburgh, New York in 1843. Like most of the first generation of Chicagoarchitects, he began his career as a builder. Eventually he became prominentboth in politics and the Methodist Church. In January 1871, Dankmar Adler(1844-1900) became his junior partner. Adler, the German born son of aprominent Reform Rabbi, had gained substantial engineering experience asa soldier during the Civil War. In time he would develop important politicalconnections in the Republican Party. Therefore, the principals in the firm hadall the social connections and professional credentials required to guaranteesuccess.

Like most architects of the day, both principals appear to have regardedthemselves primarily as businessmen. That Adler certainly regarded himselfas such is confirmed by his claim to have designed only a small number of thefirm's projects. He spent most of his time performing the mundane tasks ofsupervising construction and the production of construction documents. Sinceneither Burling nor Adler appears to have had anything more than a passinginterest in the esthetic aspects of architecture, it was essential for the successof their business to employ someone, like Edelmann, who already had someexperience in that regard. Therefore, it is not surprising that Louis Sullivanwould later recall that Adler "thought highly of John." That confidencemust have been expressed early, because in the short time Edelmann workedfor the firm, he was given the responsibility of designing a residence for EliBates in Chicago and the design of the architectural treatment of the FirstCongregational Church in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park.

From Edelmann's arrival in Chicago in 1872 through 1875, all of hisdesigns were Gothic, but his interpretation of the style was more subduedthan is generally found in contemporary High Victorian Gothic work.Relying primarily on large areas of unpierced wall and the simplification ofdetail with a minimum amount of carved ornament, he nevertheless soughtto achieve strength and masculinity, that style's sought after traits. Capitalsbarely projected beyond the face of the wall they supported. Plate tracerywas generally used instead of the more traditional molded bar tracery for thewindows, and transitions in wall plane were more often achieved throughbattered belt courses than projecting cornices. In every one of Edelmann'sGothic designs he consistently repeats the same pinnacle, rosette, corbelledroof cornice, plate tracery and chimney details.

The first of these Gothic buildings, the Bates residence, was sketched byEdelmann in Sullivan's Lotos Club Notebook (Pl.2.). Edelmann's note that itwas, "designed in [18]73," and the amount of detail which he thought worthdrawing confirms that this building was his work. This house was relativelyplain with little except the engaged columns on the chimney, the dormerdetails and the roof finials to suggest a Gothic influence.

The chimney detail, which Edelmann drew in both plan and elevation, wasused again without modification as a finial at the top of the front gable of theFirst Congregational Church. That as well as the use of other details found onEdelmann's subsequent church designs help confirm Edelmann as the designerof its ornamental details. The overall arrangement of this church, however,was most likely worked out by Adler (who had designed several similarchurches during the late 1860s as an employee of Ozia S. Kinney and afterthe latter's death as a partner with his son in the firm of Kinney & Adler).Its tall spire, also a feature of these Adler designed churches, would seemto further establish a design connection with Adler, since such spires do notappear in any of Edelmann's other church designs. The fact that the church'schief benefactor, James W. Scoville, would remain an Adler client after thedissolution of Burling & Adler would seem to also confirm this connection.

By the spring of 1873, Edelmann had left Burling & Adler to work asforeman in the office of architect William Le Baron Jenney. The only workthat can be attributed with certainty to him while he was employed by Jenneyis the firm's unsuccessful competition design for a City Hall—CountyBuilding in Chicago. Jenney's firm was one among many which hadsubmitted designs in the competition. (Most of these were published in TheLand Owner in May 1873.) Edelmann was obviously the author of Jenney'ssubmission (Pl.3.) because much of its Clark Street elevation is identical tothe sketch Edelmann drew of the LaSalle Street front (on the opposite sideof the building) in the Lotos Club Notebook roughly two years later. Jenneymay have hired him expressly for that purpose because of his obvious skillas a designer of Gothic buildings. Of the published designs, Jenney's was theonly Gothic one. Its obvious source, the English architect Alfred Waterhouse'sdesign for the Town Hall in Manchester was noticed by contemporary critics.This design was the largest and most elaborate Edelmann ever produced. Afeature which first appears in it that Edelmann would frequently use later wasa battered base to visually anchor the building to the ground. Further evidenceof Edelmann's authorship is the treatment of the details on the towers whichcan be found on his various church designs after this project. Edelmann'ssketches in the Lotos Club Notebook reveal that during the intervening yearshe had given further thought to this project, perhaps because he was hopingto submit his own design if another competition for the as yet unbuilt buildingwas called for.