Russell Potter has recently published two very interesting posts on his blog 'Visions of the North' relating to the Daguerreotypes taken of members of the Franklin Expedition just before they departed in 1845. I've just posted a note on his second story and I'm posting a similar piece here, though I would be staggered if anyone who reads this blog hasn't already read it on Russell's!
The problem is this: we are told that two copies were made of each subject on the Franklin Expedition. I have seen it said that two sets were made, and I also recall reading that there are twelve portraits in one set and fourteen in the other. It is certainly the case that Fitzjames was ‘snapped’ twice as he has a different pose in each picture. But I have a problem, because I’ve been trying actually to track down the two sets so I can make high quality reproductions of the two Fitzjames Daguerreotypes for my book.
Generally it is said that one set is at the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge, and the other set is generally said to be either at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich or at the Derbyshire County archive at Matlock. I have been in touch with all of these places and I can confirm that while there is one set at Cambridge, there are NO DAGUERREOTYPES either at Greenwich or at Matlock. This means that unless someone else can find tell us where the second set is, then as far as I can see they have been lost.
I didn’t want to place this comment until I was absolutely sure, but can we set up a Sherlock Holmes style search for the second set of Daguerreotypes? One thought which crosses my mind is this. We know that two Daguerreotypes of Fitzjames were taken because of the well-known differences in his pose between the two, but how many others do we KNOW were taken twice? What is held at Matlock are what appear to be very early, and very small, photographs of Daguerreotypes. They are mounted on card and look to me like the model for the Illustrated London News prints which were published of the Expedition members in, I think, 1851. They seem to have been catalogued mistakenly as Daguerreotypes when they were entered into the Derbyshire archive. Perhaps there never were two sets of Daguerreotypes? Perhaps Fitzjames was the first sitter, with two taken of him, and then the others one at a time. What makes me suspicious is that the only Daguerreotype I have seen of Franklin is very over-exposed. Surely if a second had been taken it would have been better exposed? Perhaps the set of prints at Matlock might be photographs taken as early as 1851 which were mistakenly referred to as Daguerreotypes?
It's strange because these Daguerreotypes are very famous, and yet there still seem to be mysteries about them which we have not yet solved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
William,
ReplyDeleteA fascinating post! I have seen the SPRI dags, but not, except in reproduction, those at Matlock. As to your theory that the Matlock images were framed and mounted for use in the Illustrated London News, I would point out that the order of the images is different -- the ILN's top row consists of Couch, Fairholme, Osmer and Des Vouex, whereas in the mounted card it's Le Vesconte, Couch, Des Voeux, and Sargent. I would also note that the ILN did not generally employ photographers or use photographs as sources for its engravings until the early 1850's; the two small engravings published in 1845 when the expedition sailed are clearly based on other sources, with their "Franklin" looking a good ten years younger and far more trim (the other engraving is of the desk in Fitzjames's cabin, as I recall).
But if the images at Matlock are not originals, how do we (as you say) account for the different Fitzjameses? There must at least have been an original for both? I'll try contacting Bill Schultz, who wrote about them in the Daguerreian Annual; he would be able to tell us about that particular set, as it was the source for his article.
But there ARE no dags at Matlock... and there never have been!
ReplyDeleteWhen you say there are no dags at Matlock, I'm not quite clear what you mean -- that there are no photos there, or that the photos there are not daguerreotypes. You've mentioned to me that they do have a set of fourteen small photographs which are framed and matted, and which includes the version of Fitzjames smiling slightly with telescope in hand. If these are not daguerreotypes, I would be curious as to how they were indeed produced, as the array of photographic processes available in 1851 was still quite limited, and the manner of reproduction could tell us a good deal.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify: The archive at Matlock contains small, and apparently very old, photographs.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming these are the ones matted on a single sheet. They appear also to be the source for the many contemporary reprints of the Franklin daguerreotype images, which are credited to the National Maritime Museum -- I am not sure why book publishers always go to the NMM instead of SPRI for their sources! This makes it hard to compare the images from the two sources; I've just been through my whole shelf of Franklin books and every one of them lists an NMM credit and negative number.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to copy a daguerreotype is to take a photo of it, using some process that produces a positive. If the images at Matlock were indeed made for the Illustrated London News's engraver c. 1850, they would have to have been either copy daguerreotypes, calotypes, or wet-plate collodion (the last is unlikely as it was only invented in 1851). If they were made by any other process, then they must have been made later, and for some other purpose. If the archivist there would allow it, they should be examined by a photographic expert.
I should note that Huw Lewis-Jones's recent book Face to Face has a lovely full-page full-color repro of the SPRI daguerreotype of Franklin, rosy cheeks and all. As to the apparent overexposure, this seems to follow along a line which intersects with Franklin's shoulder -- I suspect it's due to light exposure long after taken.
If the images on this page http://www.antarctic-circle.org/stein.htm by Marty Stein are from the SPRI set then it would suggest thet the Matlock set is a copy. The spots in the background of the Crozier portrait match in both cases and I can see no difference in the pose. I'd really like to know what are the sources for the story of a second set being presented to the Admiralty or being retained by Beard. Two images on one plate sounds like stereography or Disdéri's "carte de visite" system which both date from the 1850's. The caption has no hint of worry and the ranks of Fitzjames and Gore are correct for 1845 so the Matlock album may be a product of Beard's studio using the calotype process on the original daguerreotypes before they were put into their glazed cases.
ReplyDeleteIt may be of more significance to the history of photography than has previously suspected. By the way which one of Fitzjames is supposed to be smiling?
Russell Potter has kindly passed on an email from Bull Schultz:
ReplyDeleteHere are Dr. Bill Schultz's comments, verbatim, which he's given permission for you to post:
Russell - Wow - what an interesting inquiry. First off, two articles on Beard's studio have been published in The Daguerreian Annual (1994, 2007). I haven't gone over them in detail yet, but perhaps they can make it clear whether Beard took two images of each sitter. I would not be surprised because it was common practice in many larger studios. In my collection I have had a couple examples of two images taken of the same individual at the same sitting - the only clue being a minor change in angle or hand position. I went back to look at the image we published which did come off the composite print. If you look at the composite you will notice that all the images are corrected, i.e. the reversed image made from the original daguerreotype plate has been corrected (when you look at the uniform buttons you see that they open correctly). I am sure that the originals were daguerreeotypes - you can see the dark borders of solarization along the mat border on all of them and on a couple I can see scratch lines. Obviously the composite print was taken from the originals, possibly some five or more years later. One possibility is that the original plates were laid out or copied individually as calotypes (salt prints) in order to have the composite made - perhaps for publication as an etching or block print in a newspaper or journal. The calotype originally comes out as a negative from which the corrected prints were probably made - normally the caotype negative is printed as a positive which would have again reversed the images. Fascinating stuff !
Hope this helps, Best, Dr. Bill Schultz-
It's a coincidence that I (William, that is) am visiting the Scott Polar Research Institute on Friday and I hope I'll be able to see their Dags then. Withe the help of experts like Prof Potter and Dr. Schultz, maybe we can get to the bottom of this. Like Peter I'd like to know the provenance of the suggestion that 'two Dags were tken'...
One more snippet - The Derbyshire Record Office has extensive archives of the Gell family. Clergyman John Philip Gell (b. Matlock 1816) married Sir John's daughter Eleanor Isabella in 1849. It would seem reasonable that the presumed calotype copies were made for Eleanor and passed down through the Gell family. Aged 21 when the expedition set off, she would fit the description of the patient, diligent, but untrained archivist.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's another "twist" -- examining the images as printed in the Illustrated London News, I see that they are reversed -- that is, unlike the images mounted on the card at Matlock, they have not been corrected for left-right orientation. This could mean that they were made from the original daguerreotypes, or it could also mean the the ILN's engraver simply copied the orientation of the corrected images, which would have, in printing, reversed them again. It seems clear, in any case, that since the Fitzjames in the ILN is the same as on the card at Matlock, it was that set -- in original or copied form -- which was the ILN's source.
ReplyDeleteCuriouser and curiouser!
Someone who just posted on my blog alerted me to the fact that the officers are shown with their promotions (the original rank being in parentheses) on the Matlock card. Just looking at the Mates up top, all three were "gazetted" (promoted in absentia) within two years of the sailing: Sargent on August 15th 1846, Des Voeux on November 9th 1846, and Couch on May 24th, 1847 (he was the last officer of either ship to be promoted). Since the new ranks are noted on the card on which the images were mounted, this fact is most useful, as it proves that it could not have been assembled prior to the end of May, 1847! There is one other point, which is Fitzjames being listed as "Commander (Capt 'Erebus')" -- Fitzjames was indeed promoted to Captain on December 31st 1845, but does "Capt. Erebus" imply something more? It would seem somewhat unfitting to say that he was the Captain of that vessel while Franklin was yet believed to be alive; if we can rely on this (admittedly conjectural) point, then the arrangement of the photos must have been made in 1859 or later ...
ReplyDeleteI believe in a few weeks we will, collectively, get to the bottom of this Daguerreotype business. In the meantime, a small point regarding Fitzjames 'captaincy'.
ReplyDeleteHe seems colloquially to have been referred to as 'Captain Fitzjames'. I think the reasoning was that he had already captained his own ship, HMS Clio, for over a year before taking up the Erebus appointment so was, in the vernacular, a 'captain' even though only ranked as a Commander. There also seems to have been a sense in which Franklin was the overall commander of the Expedition, with Fitzjames as his de facto 'flag Captain'. I realise this was not a formal appointment, but if we consider it, it helps explain another minor puzzle. That is that after Franklin died, Fitzjames became 'Captain, HMS Erebus', whereas Franklin's instructions requested his second in command Crozier to become Leader of the Expedition AND Captain of HMS Erebus, with Crozier's 2 i/c then to take over as captain of HMS Terror.
My mistake on the dating, I read "Lieut: Graham Gore", thought 1845 and looked no further. Interestingly the Navy List (the John Murray version at least) lists the officers with their original rank first then the promoted rank in brackets after the name eg "Commander....James Fitzjames(Captain)", "Mates ....Robert O. Sargent (Lieut.)" etc. The Matlock album reverses this order for the three promoted mates by leading with the promoted rank and following with the original rank as in "Lieut: Couch. (Mate)". I haven't seen the Illustrated London News version but I can see that the same inconsistency occurs here http://www.ric.edu/faculty/rpotter/gleasons.html which I expect is derived from the ILN.
ReplyDeleteThe ILN version, which is reproduced in my book on pages 74-75, is inconsistent on this count: with Couch and Des Voeux is puts "LIEUT." before the name and "(MATE)" after, but with Gore it still has "LIEUT" before and "COMMANDER" after. Since this parallels the inconsistency of the card with the photos at Matlock, I think it very likely one was made with reference to the other, though which came first is still hard to say. The usage "COMMANDER FITZJAMES (CAPTAIN -- 'EREBUS')" is also used in the ILN I see, so that definitively establishes that such a designation would have been though proper as of 1851.
ReplyDeleteMy best guess would be that the duplicate copies were made for the use of the newspaper, and that once the engravings were complete the photos were given back to the family; the hand-labelling could have occurred before or after. The fact that the ILN engravings are in a different order suggests they were made before the photos were mounted, but it's not conclusive.
Hello William,
ReplyDeleteOn the Facebook Group site :Remembering the Franklin Expedition: a gentleman by the name of Allan Hunter has put a picture of the Dags in the photo's section,it is very interesting as it has a central picture of Franklin with the Officers filling the rest of the frame.It looks original but the names are a bit mixed up.If you look at it you will see what i mean,curiously the ranks are not given. Maybe you or Russell might be able to shed some light on the subject
I'm afraid this is simply a very careless composite put together by a publisher -- Hutchinson -- as one of the glossy plates in Roderic Owen's book The Fate of Franklin (1978) -- it appears just the same way in my copy of this book.
ReplyDeleteFascinating stuff all of this - always been a big fan of your research William, right back in your Roman water pump days. Keep it up.
ReplyDelete