Letters of R. Derek Wood, 1990s Part II

Contents of Part II

  • 4. Ste Croix in London, Birmingham, and Liverpool
  • 5. The Daguerreotype to New York
  • 6. Dorothy Draper Daguerreotype
  • 7. Captain A. Lucas and L'Oriental
  • 8. François Lucas and the Justine in the Pacific

    ||  Top of Page   ||   Letters of 1990s:  Contents List  |   Part I  |   Part II  |   Part III  ||  
    ||  Home Page    ||   Letters of 1970s:  
    [webpage in preparation]      ||  

    4. Ste Croix in London, Birmingham, and Liverpool

    9 June 1991, RDW to Peter James, Photographic Development Officer, Central Library, Birmingham.

    In your letter you mention ‘the visit of St Croix to Birmingham’.  I still have some unpublished and uncompleted research on the first two years of the daguerreotype in London including St. Croix's visit, but it is of great interest – and entirely unknown to me – that a visit was also made to Birmingham. .

    18 June 1991, RDW to Peter James, Central Library, Birmingham.

    The advert in Aris's Birmingham Gazette of 28 October 1839 concerning St. Croix's visit to Birmingham is certainly of great interest.  I feel sure John Percy must be of considerable significance regarding St. Croix's visit to Birmingham. Particularly as, according to the article in the DNB , he studied Chemistry in Paris and I think returned to England early in 1839.  I have a note regarding Dr.Percy's visit to Kew (in attempt buy Niepce's heliograph from Mr Cusel) in Nature, vol.XV1, p.501 (October 11th, 1877) and also a reference to an article by George Shaw (the early Birmingham photographer) and Dr John Percy on the theory of the Daguerreotype  published in December 1843 in the Philosophical Magazine.

    11 August 1991, RDW to Peter James, Central Library, Birmingham.

    I have never given a great deal of weight to the often reported statement that Miles Berry obtained an injunction in October 1839 to stop the demonstration [by Ste Croix] and use of the daguerreotype. The main source is the weekly London Saturday Journal of 2nd November 1839 which qualifies the report with ‘we understand that’ which I think shows that the reporter is being careful to avoid making a simple definite statement. Also although the title of the daguerreotype patent had been sealed on 14th August 1839 there remained the usual six months gap before the full specification would be enrolled 14 February 1840. Until the enrollment it is difficult to see how any threatened injunction could have any standing. Furthermore although the Court of Chancery records at the public record office are not easy to search (and easy to miss items) I was unable to find any record of such an injunction. By the way, the same London Saturday Journal report mentions that ‘M. de Ste Croix, a French gentleman...being unacquainted with our language, was assisted by an English Lecturer who explained the process as it proceeded’.  Certainly an advert placed in The Times of 28 September, 2 October and 4 October clearly states ‘legal proceedings have already been taken against certain parties’ but the weekly gossip column in the Athenaeum reported on 26 October 1839 that ‘Mr. St. Croix, at the Adelaide Gallery, was for a time stopped, he has now resumed his exhibition’. You may have accurate local information on when Ste Croix arrived in Birmingham. As far as I can see the best that can be said about when he left London is from The Times of Thursday 17 October 1839 announcing the daguerreotype at the Adelaide gallery ‘will only be shown during the present week by M. De St.Croix ’, and the comment quoted above from the weekly Athenaeum of 26 October. I think the form of the name as Ste Croix is correct rather than St Croix.

    When writing to you in June I said John Percy ‘studied chemistry in Paris and I think returned to England early in 1839’. Having now looked up the DNB article on Percy I find I was wrong that he came to Birmingham directly from Paris. It appears he was in Paris for two years April 1834 to 1836. He went on a tour of Switzerland and south of France going to study in Edinburgh in 1836. Graduated in 1838 before getting to Birmingham in 1839. It is very significant that he became a friend of Edward and James Forbes. The latter, along with John Herschel and John Robison visited Daguerre in May 1839. Robison and Forbes have never been given the attention they deserve regarding the events of 1839: the University Library at St Andrews holds the manuscript correspondence of J. D. Forbes which must be a great source to investigate Forbes' involvement especially as he definitely corresponded with several people such as Herschel and Talbot important in the widest sense. It would certainly be worth while checking to see if any correspondence with John Percy has survived in the Forbes collection regarding Ste Croix in England. There is certainly a little about the visit to Paris in May 1839 in the Life and Letters of J. D. Forbes 1873 but I cannot remember ever looking through that volume apart from having photocopies of the pages 241–3 concerning the May 1839 events, and I think W. J. Harrison' History of Photography has something on Forbes and Robison.

    20 August 1991, RDW to Peter James, Central Library, Birmingham.

    It would not be too difficult for me to produce an introductory article about St. Croix in London (as in 1979 I had done about half of such an article) which could form a prologue to a separate article by you on St. Croix in Birmingham. I am also prepared with at least one illustration, ie a copy print of a daguerreotype of St  Martin's Church in London presumably by St. Croix in the Science Museum Collection accompanied by permission, dated January 1980 !,  from the museum for me to publish it in History of Photography !  Such an article could end with something like the paragraph following: ‘These are the sequence of events in London known to us regarding to St. Croix's part in the history of the daguerreotype. If anything was recorded about the man by the people who met him in London then nothing has survived. So it has been quite simple to assume that St. Croix must have disappeared from history by returning directly to Paris from London at the end of October 1839. Yet, as we can now learn from the work of Peter James, St. Croix went in the opposite direction.’

    The French Journal des Débats in October 1839 (following a report in the London Sun that I have never seen although it may be held in the BM Newspaper Library) reports the first London demonstration of the Daguerreotype by ‘M.de Sainte–Croix, artiste français’. So it could be he had more contacts with art circles than scientific. An entirely unstudied group of artist/engravers in London took an interest in photogenic drawing early in 1839, ie Wiiliam Havell and James T. Willmore ( literary Gazette 1839 pp 187, 203–4,215, 236) and especially John Pye with an antagonistic concern about the daguerreotype patent:see Gernsheim's History of Photography for example and the main source enclosed. The point here is that Pye (and Willmore) were from Birmingham originally. Maybe Pye provides the link for St. Croix being in both London and Birmingham or links with art and engraving circles in Paris, London, Birmingham.

    4 September 1991, RDW to Peter James, Photographic Development Officer, Central Library, Birmingham.

    Thanks for your letter of 30 August and the copy of the Birmingham Journal 26 October 1839 which is certainly a very good item regarding St. Croix. Who do you think ‘Martin himself’ refers to? Could it be the painter John Martin (1789–1854)? It will certainly make a good Fig.1.

    I have been burning some midnight oil to tackle the article which is going very well because I am happily surprised at how much I had roughly drafted in 1980. My then provisional title I have only slightly revised to ‘The first year of the Daguerreotype: St. Croix in London,1839'.  Does that sound OK ? – There is no reason why you should match up your title in any way.  Something like ‘The daguerreotype in Birmingham: St. Croix,1839’ would be quite good for the first of a series! The problem with my article already seems to be...  speculation about how St. Croix  might fit into the events of August 1839 before he left Paris in a (vain) attempt to identify his background.  All the evidence I have points to St. Croix's daguerreotypes being half–plate (approx 4½ x 6 inches). The evidence is contradictory about the possible source of his camera, but the size might be significant and so if you come across anything in that way could you let me know.  It is important that the possible visit to Liverpool is not left up in the air. There is a need to confirm from Liverpool publications.

    29 September 1991, RDW to Pierre Harmant, Charenton Le Pont, Val–de–Marne

    On p.7 [of enclosed draft of article on St Croix], I wonder if St. Croix could have been connected with Lerebours. In 1979 you wrote to me mentioning a report in Journal des Débats 17.09.1839 saying ‘Nous apprenons que M. Sainte–Croix a l'intention de reproduire...les plus beaux édifices et les restes précieux d'antiquités que possède las Grande–Bretagne’.  This might support the idea of a connection with Lerebours but I have not put that quote into my article as I wonder if you might like to write to the History of Photography to discuss ideas you might have about St. Croix?

    22 October 1991, RDW to Pierre Harmant, Charenton Le Pont, Val–de–Marne

    Enclose a revised version of the end of my article [on Ste Croix in London] that depends mainly on your remark about the Fête de Ste. Croix.  Especially, is the quote ‘un agent publicitaire occulte de Daguerre/Giroux’ suitable or would you like to change the words in any way?  Also I am sure the information you have recently sent me about the palais du Quai d'Orsay accompanied by the map of 1834, and your ideas about  ‘un agent publicitaire...en 1839...donc la nécessité de presenter des preuves’ would be of great interest to the readers of History of Photography.

    3 November 1991, RDW to Pierre Harmant, Charenton Le Pont, Val–de–Marne

    As you say, my hypothesis that Ste Croix = Gouraud seemed to be ‘audacieuse sinon fort séduisante’: but, alas, it is a disaster. The idea seemed to make sense because Beaumont Newhall clearly said on page 32 of  The Daguerreotype in America that the British Queen (on which Gouraud reached New York on 23 Nov 1839) sailed on November 1, 1839 from Liverpool. But (‘vérifier les sources’!) Newhall is wrong: the ship sailed from London and Portsmouth. I have searched The Times (London) for information on The British Queen and find that it had only just been built. Described in The Times 15 July 1839,p.5, the first voyage from London and Portsmouth(left 12 July 1839) reached New York 27 July 1839, and the return journey  was 1 to 14 August: second voyage departed London in Sept, Portsmouth 3 September 1839, arrived in New York 20 September. Return journey was from New York 1 October, arriving Portsmouth or London 15 October. The third voyage departed London (Blackwall) 1 November, Portsmouth 3 November and arrived New York at 18.00 hours on 23 November 1839 (The Times, 21 October, 31 October p.1, 17 December 1839, p.6). French passengers from Le Havre joined the British Queen at Portsmouth. I only have information about the second voyage when 20 French passengers from Le Havre joined the ship at Portsmouth on 3 September (The Times, 9 September, p.5) to go to New York. Taft believed that Gouraud arrived in New York on 20 September, but I have not been able to check his source and he may have been confused, although he does mentioned a Passenger List which would be important if it does exist). Newhall quotes a report from New York Observer, ‘November 30, 1839’that Gouraud arrived 23 November. Obviously if Taft is right then it would have been impossible for Ste Croix to be Gouraud. But Newhall was wrong to say the British Queen left from Liverpool, so it looks as if [maybe] Gouraud joined the ship at Portsmouth on 3rd November probably coming from Le Havre.

    24 January 1992, RDW to Pierre Harmant, Charenton Le Pont, Val–de–Marne

    You wrote that Ste Croix had been mentioned in a Leeds newspaper.  Could it be that it was a mistaken report regarding the fact that Ste Croix in London (not Ste Croix in Leeds) was mentioned in the Leeds Mercury, 21 September 1839? 

    17 March 1992, RDW to Pierre Harmant, Charenton Le Pont, Val–de–Marne

    In your letter to me dated 30 Janvier you mentioned the need to verify the existence of any item about Ste Croix in any magazine or newspaper of 19.10.1839.  I have been able to look at three Leeds newspapers and can confirm the item cited by Adrian Budge as in the Leeds Times, 19.10.1839, p.6 does mention Jobard but not Ste Croix:   ‘Improvements in the Daguerreotype – Amongst the numerous improvements proposed in the daguerreotype is the following, by M. Jobard of Brussels, for taking portraits a l'heliography :– Paint in dead white the face of the patient ; powder his hair, and fix the back of his head between two or three planks solidly attached to the back of an armchair and wound up with screws’!

    9 August 1992, RDW to  Peter James, Photographic Development Officer, Central Library, Birmingham.

    There is a lot of supposition [in your article] but when new research is being presented then such a situation is bound to arise. You have not called the article ‘Ste Croix in Birmingham’ but ‘Ste Croix and the daguerreotype in Birmingham’, so it is perfectly legitimate (as there is no definite evidence as to why Ste Croix went there) to explore the general situation in Birmingham at the time to set his visit in context. So the article is fine and can be sent off to Mike Weaver, he gets the next issue of the journal off to the publisher by 1 September.

    September 1992, RDW to  Peter James, Photographic Development Officer, Central Library, Birmingham.

    I am sorry that I have only just been able to get a copy of  Nature 11 October 1877 that mentions Dr. Percy's visit to Kew and Richmond early in 1839 hoping to buy one of Niepce's heliographs, for it certainly shows his early interest in the subject and that he was visiting the London area that year.

    Many thanks for your letter of 19 August with the final draft of your article which it is very nice to have. I have not written before now as I was uncertain when you returned to Birmingham after your holiday and visit to Edinburgh, but I must say that I very much appreciate your kind thoughts expressed in your letter.  Our contributions to History of Photography, will certainly now be appearing in the Spring issue of 1993, are very much worth the effort. Of course, if you had not written to me in the Spring of 1991, my research on Ste Croix would certainly have remained unfinished and unpublished. Due to you and to Mike Weaver I would not have ever bothered to again research or publish on the subject again. It has been quite enjoyable to return to some research. I am sending off to Mike Weaver in a couple of weeks a long 10,000 word article on the Diorama which he says will be published in the Summer 1993 issue. Also, you will see in the coming Winter issue a very short note by Pierre Harmant and myself about Daguerre's public demonstration in Paris in September 1839. That note I put together from my correspondence with Pierre as it seemed to me well worth reaching a wider audience.

    Mike Weaver telephoned me on the August Bank holiday Monday when he was doing the copy editing on our articles to say that he would have to cut the end off mine – to remove the part concerning my ideas about Ste Croix fitting in with Giroux's agent in America, and all that I said about New York. This also means that the follow–up article that I did concerning the steamship British Queen and the arrival of the daguerreotype in New York will not now be published. I entirely understand his reasons for doing this, but it is still annoying to have the article sitting around for six months and then not have the chance to tidy–up the butchered ending.  So this cut does mean neither you nor I have discussion about possible reasons for Ste Croix going to Liverpool.

    27 November 1992, RDW to Peter James, Photographic Development Officer, Central Library, Birmingham.

    At the British Museum Reading Room, I had a look at a Brochure published in 1825 that describes the two dioramas being displayed that year at the Diorama in Regent's Park. The first of these was one of Daguerre's most well known dioramas of Holyrood Chapel in Edinburgh: ‘Ruins of Holyrood Chapel. This Chapel, whose celebrated ruins M. Daguerre has represented, is situate to the east of the  ancient monastery of Sainte–Croix ...’ !     Well it would seem pretty incredible if this could also have any significance with regard to the Ste Croix in England with the daguerreotype in 1839, but maybe it is worth looking out for anything about that monastery in Edinburgh and any people associated with it at that time.

    ||  Top of Page   ||   Letters of 1990s:  Contents List  |   Part I  |   Part II  |   Part III  ||  
    ||  Home Page    ||   Letters of 1970s:  
    [webpage in preparation]      ||  

    17 January 1993, RDW to Pierre Harmant, Charenton Le Pont, Val–de–Marne.

    Daguerre painted both a picture and a diorama of ‘Holyrood Chapel [Edinburgh] by moonlight’ in the 1820s so it was obviously a favourite subject for him: so a thought – could this even provide a link with Ste Croix in 1839!  For, ‘holyrood’ means ‘holy cross’= ‘St Croix’.  Holyrood Abbey in Edinburgh is said (in the  Blue Guide to Scotland ) to be on the site of an earlier ‘Monastery of Saint Croix’.  Just a coincidence?, or could it suggest that Ste Croix was connected in some way with Daguerre, or alternatively connected with Edinburgh where Daguerre's 1820s dioramas (including ‘Holyrood Chapel’ shown for a year June 1829 to May 1830) were shown from 1828 to June 1839?

    1 December 1992, RDW to Pierre Harmant, Charenton Le Pont, Val–de–Marne

    As you will see, my article on Ste Croix has now been set up by the printers and will be in the Spring 1993 issue of History of Photography.  It is a pity that the editor cut off the end, changed the title, and also took out subheadings of the different parts of the article so that it reads continuously, but otherwise I am pleased to see it in print.  I have added to footnote No.33 because it is conceivable that Ste Croix could have been at that meeting at the Société d'Encouragement on 4 Septembre when Daguerre gave his talk and answered questions.  Gouraud could not have been there because the meeting took place after he left France to go to New York.  I will have to spend some time looking through the  Bulletin d'Encouragement ... to see if there is a complete list of their members anywhere.

    20 January 1992 to Helmut Gernsheim, Castagnola, Switzerland

    I enclose a copy of my draft article on St. Croix in London [submitted for publication in History of Photography]. As you will see, I have set out the various ideas that have needed exploration regarding Ste Croix, keeping the article as an introduction without a definite conclusion. However, the strongest evidence points, I think, to Ste Croix being Giroux's agent in England. Since submitting the article I have researched Liverpool Newspapers and found an advertisment at end of October 1839 that without mentioning St. Croix reports demonstration in Liverpool of ‘Daguerreotype [apparatus] manufactured under the superintendance of M. Daguerre’ adding weight to the argument about Giroux's camera in London. I have recently re–read what you have to say about St. Croix and realised that my former reading of one particular sentence had been too superficial: on page 144 of your Daguerre, ‘St Croix,...who had brought a Giroux outfit and some daguerreotypes and, after attending the first of Daguerre's demonstrations at the Quai d'Orsay, came to London with the intention of introducing the process’. I have presumed you have said St Croix brought a Giroux outfit because that is a perfectly satisfactory informed  assumption from what might be called indirect evidence rather than from a direct primary source statement. What has made me wonder if I have missed some very important primary source  about St Croix are your words ‘after attending the first of Daguerre's demonstrations at the Quai d'Orsay’.  This is most interesting and I wonder if, to set my mind to rest, you could let me know your source for him being at Daguerre's demonstration.

    5 July 1996 to W. David McIntyre, Professor of History, University of Canterbury, NZ.

    P. D. Coates in The China Consuls: British Consular Officers, 1843–1943 (OUP 1988), on pages 11–12, 108–9, 495, 565,  speaks of a Nicholas St. Croix who was appointed consul at Whampoa by Pottinger soon after the signing of the Treaty of Nanking where he remained until 1847, and there were several other related persons of that name, merchants or custom officials, it seems, in China and Hong Kong in the 1840s, a family who in spite of their name were based in England not France. Coates writes that N. St. Croix was formerly Captain of an Indiaman and ‘who had lost by speculation a fortune gained in many voyages, had come out in his own ship’.  I am particularly interested in obtaining information about this family because the above Nicholas St Croix's father (with the same christian name) according to the records seen by Coates was resident in London, and I have come across (in an entirely unconnected historical context) a St Croix who visited London apparently from France in September 1839 and would like to find any connection between these various men who, after all, have a name not at all common in England either then or now. The intriguing problem is that P. D. Coates (who I have not been able to contact) gives information about the St. Croix in China in the 1840s citing an anonymous source and carefully stating with regard to that source: ‘Distance ruled out use of a massive diary now in New Zealand. The holders of this material do not wish to be identified. Statements deriving from it are marked in the text by an (a).’   In these circumstances I would be very grateful if you could let me know if you have already come across any St. Croix in the history of eastern Asia or your part of the world during the 1840s, or if you might have any clue about the whereabouts of the mysterious diary mentioned by Coates.

    [No reply to this question]

    21 September 1993 RDW to Mike Weaver, editor of History of Photography.

    Thanks for your letter of Sept 12 and the enclosure of the letter from M. G.  Jacob to be published in History of Photography.  I  notice that the letter is printed with the form of St.[sic with period and no e] Croix, but you decided when our articles were published  that the (.) period should not be used (and that it was more consistent to use Ste rather that St).  The variant forms of [De] St[e] Croix maybe should have been commented on in my article, but it seems to me that two lines on page 106 of my article ‘ The name of Ste Croix (or “De Ste Croix” or “St Croix” as he was also often called) ...’  should have made it obvious to readers along with quoted texts that variant forms of the name were used in the various original sources of 1839.  There is no way of judging which is correct or if the christian name initial letter of M.[monsieur]  S. de Sainte Croix (Mike Jacob is confused in his last paragraph about this in paying attention to the M. but not the S.) used on one occasion by a journalist in 1839 has any substance.  When the subject matter is St Croix it seems of no point for Michael Jacob to quote the reporter's visit to Cooper at the Polytechnic.  You will remember that in my original article I did briefly discuss the possibility that it might be thought that St Croix could have taken a ship to USA, but you rightly decided to delete that final section at the very last stage of production because it did not then link well with Peter James' following article and was therefore confusing and unnecessary, being more worthy of discussion in another separate article ... on ‘Arrival of the Daguerreotype in New York’ .

    30 September 1993 to Michael  Jacob, Spoleto, Italy

    Mike Weaver has kindly sent me a pre–publication proof of a letter from you to be published, I presume in the next [Winter 1993, pp. 397–8] issue of History of Photography. I have written to Mike to say  that I do not want to add anything in print on this matter. It so happens that the two main points you raise about the name Ste Croix and the possibility of raising a hypothesis that he might have gone to Liverpool to sail to USA were only points  that could have been made because of decisions out of my control that had been about my article by Mike Weaver!  The variant forms of [De] St[e] [Sainte] Croix maybe should have been commented on in more detail in my article, but I had expected that two lines on page 106  ‘... The name of Ste Croix (or ‘De Ste Croix’ or ‘St Croix’ as he was also often called)...’   would have been enough, along with the variant names in the quoted texts, to draw enough attention to the fact that variant forms of the name were used in the various original sources of 1839. There is no way of judging which of the various forms of the name used in 1839 was correct. Nor is there any way of judging if there is any substance to the single use by a reporter of the Morning Herald of an S. initial letter of a christian name ( ‘M. [monsieur] S. de Sainte Croix’). You mentioned in your letter the M. but not the presumably more relevant S.   I am certainly not concerned with ‘philogically more correct’ usage.  Indeed in my original article I used various forms of St[e] Croix which was not liked either by the editor or maybe the publishers, although I did agree with them that if consistent spelling was necessary then Ste was better that St.    I also noticed that the [Mike Jacob] letter is to be printed with the form of St. Croix whereas the editor or printers had on the contrary decided when our articles were published that the (.) period should not be used!

    But now the reason why I am sending you the enclosed pamphlet titled Two Voyages... . In my original article on St[e] Croix I did briefly discuss the possibility that it might be thought that St Croix could have taken a ship to USA, but Mike Weaver decided to delete that final section at the very last last minute proof stage because it would not link well with Peter James' following article and he considered (probably rightly) it was therefore confusing and unnecessary, being more worthy of discussion in another separate article. Mike Weaver did telephone me about this the day he sent the final Proofs back to the printers so unfortunately I was not given time or opportunity to tidy up the ending in any way so as to briefly tell the reader that further consideration was to be given to the possibility that Ste Croix might be considered to have sailed from Liverpool to USA.  You will read what I have to say about this in the first essay ‘Arrival of the Daguerreotype in New York’ in the enclosed pamphlet issued to the ESHPh at their symposium in Spain held 28 to 30 June [The essay was published in January 1994 by the American Photographic Historical Society]

    21 October 1993 to Michael Jacob, Spoleto, Italy

    It would appear there is still some misunderstanding remaining on [De] St[e] Croix, or De Sainte Croix. Four or 5 different names do appear throughout the published sources in 1839. There is no way of knowing which was correct (ie we have no evidence about the way the man himself spelt the name). Because Gernsheim used the form St. Croix it does not mean it was the correct form. I would guess that Gernsheim's source for what he wrote about [De] S[ain]t[e] Croix was derived from John Timbs Curiosities of London (1855 and later editions), who quoted The Times of 14 Sept 1839 that happened to be an occasion when the form St. Croix was used. If one looks at the full range of articles and adverts that appeared in 1839 then that form of the name is not the only or dominant one used. I did, by the way, send 5 illustrations to Mike Weaver, not just the most important one actually reproduced, which included adverts which contained variations of the name.  It would not have bothered me if it had been the decision of History  of Photography  to consistently use St Croix or De Ste Croix or De Sainte Croix instead of Ste Croix (which they did decide), because the wish to use a consistent name is merely the product of editorial tidiness without any historical basis.  Whatever form is used for the sake of editorial tidiness in 1993 is likely to mislead the reader because it provides a more definite identity than truly exists. Were the variant names used in 1839 merely due to a typical parochial lack of concern by English reporters or printers over foreign names, or is it an indication that it was not a real surname? The most precise name given in 1839 was written by a reporter of the Morning Herald: ‘M.[onsieur]  S. de Sainte Croix’), so maybe this rare precision by that reporter means it is more likely to be true. Looking at my typescript sent to History of Photography  I find I used St. Croix, (there was a History of Photography decision not to use the .[period]) mainly, I think, because it has been commonly used by Gernsheim etc and because I started the article with The Times advert, but moved towards the end of the article into Ste Croix. But indeed, if pushed, I would have to say that ‘De Ste Croix’ or ‘De Sainte Croix’ is more likely to be the form used by the man himself. Various hypotheses are possible on the subject  –  it nags at me that one of Daguerre's dioramas was of Holyrood Chapel:  Holyrood = holy rod = holy cross = St[e] Croix !

    23 May 1992, RDW to Peter James, Photographic Development Officer,Central Library, Birmingham.

    I am writing now because you will see from the enclosed that the problem of the passenger list of the British Queen has now been solved to show that my idea that Ste Croix might have been the same person as ‘Daguerre's agent in America', Francois Gouraud is untenable. Ste Croix could not have been Gouraud who according to Beaumont Newhall left Liverpool on 1st November 1839 because Gouraud arrived in New York from Portsmouth on 21 September when Ste Croix was still in London.

    9 July 1992, RDW to Peter James, Photographic Development Officer, Central Library, Birmingham.

    Thanks for your letter of 4 July with the latest draft of your ‘Ste Croix and the Daguerreotype in Birmingham'.  I am a little uneasy about Shaw. The history of photography is filled with interpretations made on slight reports written many years after the event suggesting that various people started photography at early dates, but which later prove false when any contemporary evidence becomes available, and the two quotes you give about Shaw for me ring alarm bells. Altogether your article says all that is necessary: it states well the available facts about Ste Croix in Birmingham and provides a good conclusion regarding Dr. Melsom, so it has a good balance about it.  I think it worth adding (on page 6 before you deal with Melsom ) a small summary of Ste Croix's time in Birmingham so that the reader can immediately (without having to work it out from the adverts) grasp that SC was there for 6 days. And in the same place could follow (before dealing with Melsom) something very brief about Liverpool, something like the following: 

    Liverpool:  It is beyond the scope of this article to deal with the reasons or consequences of Ste Croix's visit to Liverpool on 29th October 1839, but a preliminary search has revealed that during that fourth week of October an advertisement appeared in three Liverpool newspapers saying orders for Daguerreotype apparatus could be placed with a local optical instrument maker named Abraham and the camera and a view of Paris were being exhibited at 58 Castle Street, Liverpool:

    ‘DAGUERREOTYPE EXHIBITION – Pictures taken from nature, by a Daguerreotype, manufactured under the superintendance of Mons. Daguerre, with a view of Paris from the Quai de la Megisserie, and the process of using this interesting Instrument. Exhibited daily from Eleven till four o'clock, at 58, CASTLE–STREET, adjoining the Courier–office.  Admission – One Shilling.  Orders for the Daguerreotype received at the Exhibition, or by A. ABRAHAM, Optician and Mathematical Instrument Maker, 20, Lord–street.’  {The Liverpool Mercury, Friday, 25 October 1839, Vol.29, p.345; also a very similar advertisement in Liverpool Courier, Wednesday, 23 October 1839,Vol.32, p.341, and Liverpool Chronicle, Saturday, 26 October 1839, p.1} 

    This advertisement , with slight variations, appeared on three days between 23 and 26 October which, it will be observed, was during the time that Ste Croix was still in Birmingham. It is not clear from the advertisement whether the process of taking pictures was actually being demonstrated or if only information on the process was available.  However, in the next issue of The Liverpool Courier on Wednesday, 30 October, a brief comment (without any more details) was made about an announcement to be made of ‘ An opportunity... offered for witnessing the interesting experiment of obtaining sketches from nature by means of the Daguerreotype’ (The Liverpool Courier, Wednesday, 30 October 1839,  Vol.32, p.352).  This preliminary search of Liverpool sources has not revealed anything after 30 October and it will be noted that Ste Croix's name is not mentioned in the limited items mentioned above.

    1 October 1993, RDW to Frederic Luther, Deer's Mill,  Indiana

    [Concerning] your letter dated 30 August regarding Egerton Smith in Liverpool.  It is fascinating, is it not, that you have written your letter with regard to Egerton Smith and J. B. Dancer after reading my article on the Diorama in Liverpool in the 1820s, when I would not have been entirely surprised to have read similar information from you after you had read the two articles, by myself and by Peter James, on Ste Croix in 1839! You will see, by the way, from the enclosed booklet, that I do not think that Ste Croix went to Liverpool to sail to USA. I think more likely that Ste Croix was involved in some way with ‘Philosophical Instruments’. Although it is not entirely impossible that someone had links both with the Diorama in 1820s in Liverpool and the Daguerreotype there in 1839. It nags at me that one of Daguerre's dioramas was of Holyrood Chapel (and the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool have a easil painting by Daguerre of that subject, it was purchased while on a visit to France in 1864 by a local (beat) sugar manufacturer named Arnold Baruchson in 1864): Holyrood = holy rod = holy cross = st[e] Croix !

    I find the source items on Egerton Smith in February and March 1839 of particular interest. When I get the chance to be at the British Library Newspaper Library I will certainly look in the Liverpool Mercury of 8 Feb and 8 March 1839.  You will see from my enclosed draft project on possible links between Ste Croix. A. Abraham, and Dancer [now Smith should be added], that I had looked for material in Liverpool sources of the last half of 1839 but indeed had never had the time to look back earlier in that most significant year. Egerton Smith certainly was an interesting man who deserves an attention from local historians that he does not appear to have received.

    28 November 1993, RDW to Frederic Luther, Deer's Mill,  Indiana

    You certainly have more on Abraham Abraham than I have been able to obtain, but with the notes I sent to you last month do not yet add up to a co–authored contribution on the subject. You mention in Ref. note 15 of your letter a work by Cecil Roth. I have been able to find this book in the British Museum and the entry on ‘Maurice, son of Jacob Abraham formerly of Bath, who died on his voyage home from Melbourne and was buried at Sea, 1862’ is on page 69 of  The Rise of Provincial Jewry...1740–1840, by Cecil Roth, London: Jewish Monthly 1950. Also in that book is reproduced a silhouette of Jacob Abraham(s) who was also an Optician and Instrument Maker in Bath and Cheltenham. The issue of Manchester City News  mentioned in your Ref. note No. 5, is Saturday, 22 May 1886, p.2, but this letter from Dancer is not titled Early Daguerreotypes but ‘Early Photography in Liverpool and Manchester'. It was reprinted shortly afterwards in The British Journal of Photography, 11 June 1886, vol. 33, pp.372–3 and I enclose a photocopy of this reprinting.

    I am rather doubtful about the possibility of Egerton Smith having been an optician in the 1820s or that it must have been him who raised the point about a curved back for cameras because the references No. 2 and 5 that you cite are anonymous reports.  Although they may possibly or probably have been by him they were not necessarily so. The obit. of Egerton Smith in Liverpool Mercury, 26 November 1841, vol.31, No.1596, p.396 says ‘he departed this life on the 18th instant ... a native of this town, born on 19th June 1774.’  This does carry more weight than the  Manchester Guardian obit report of his age. The letter in  Liverpool Mercury, 8 March 1839, vol. 29, No. 1452, p.78 about his alleged ideas about the camera obscura and silver salts about 1823/4, to which you draw attention in your letter of 30 August is extremely interesting. I have looked at the main source in the  Mechanics' Magazine and enclose photocopies of the complete correspondence involving Thomas Oxley, Egerton Smith and John Turmeau, and an entry in DNB on Turmeau. Unfortunately found nothing about this Thomas Oxley in the obvious biographical sources such as  DNB.  Knowledge of the light sensitivity of silver salts and use on paper to produce simple photographic images from engravings was such a common part of the general body of knowledge that it would not be commented on greatly in print (Thomas Brande in his Manual of Chemistry, the most widely used book on the subject in England in the 1830s described this way to copy engravings, without, of course, saying anything about fixing).  The correspondence in Mechanics' Magazine is a nice example of this widest diffusion of knowledge of the light sensitivity of silver salts in the decades before the ‘invention’ of Photography.  I would be happy to combine with you in sending something about this Liverpool episode for publication in History of Photography.  You could send a revised letter about Egerton Smith concentrating on the publication of his letter, and quoting extensively from it, in the Liverpool Mercury of 8 March 1839 (your valuable paragraph about John Smith regarding the Magic Lantern also retained), and I could then add a brief comment on your interesting letter with additional information from Mechanics' Magazine.

    ||  Top of Page   ||   Letters of 1990s:  Contents List  |   Part I  |   Part II  |   Part III  ||  
    ||  Home Page    ||   Letters of 1970s:  
    [webpage in preparation]      ||  

    5. The Daguerreotype to New York

    25 May 1994 to George Gilbert, Editor of Photographica, New York

    When I wrote my article on Ste Croix I found it necessary to consider possible reasons why he was going to Liverpool at the end of October 1839. If Beaumont Newhall had been correct about Gouraud's supposed departure from Liverpool, then identification of Ste Croix as Gouraud would have made sense. But as Newhall was wrong, then I was forced to write something about that situation as it seemed likely that someone might draw the wrong conclusion. I did, infact discuss this at the end of my article on Ste Croix in History of Photography but the editor rightly decided at the very last moment to cut that end off due to problems of leading awkwardly into the following one by Peter James on ‘Ste Croix in Birmingham’.  Of course, a longer separate article was truly needed to tackle the complications of Gouraud's arrival in America.  It so happens that American published sources of the 1839 period are very lacking in England – for example the British Library Newspaper Library has three issues only of only one American newspaper for the year of 1839 while many other countries can be fairly well represented.  So obviously what I can do here in London is very limited. But at least I can provide something of use from this side of the Atlantic when transatlantic considerations are of relevance. As the central requirement of my article was to look at Gouraud's arrival and the British Queen, the first version of my article as I issued it last June at the symposium of the European Society for the History of Photography was inadequate with regard to Seager as he was only a side issue.  So this last section about Seager has been revised and the discussion on him extended.  Except for recording that Seager was certainly not on the British Queen when it arrived in New York in September 1839, it has not been possible for me to do other than set out the uncertainties that surround him. This uncertainty can be nothing new to you all in America.

    15 March 1994, RDW to Howard R. McManus, Roanoke, Virginia.

    As to the publication of Arago's lecture and Daguerre's Manual. In American writing on this subject there seems to have been continual problems about this. Yet it seems to me an unnecessary continual problem because the solution is obvious: Even if the original contemporary sources are not easily available, making the effort to get them will advance the subject while simply repeating the earlier second and third hand unsatisfactory accounts leads nowhere. For example page 23 of the photocopy you sent of the Rineharts American Daguerreotype demonstrates such a problem where they say ‘On that same day Le Moniteur [sic], another Paris newspaper, carried an advertisement  – headed Le Daguerreotype in bold type – announcing ... booklets explaining and illustrating his process’. Now Le Moniteur Universel (note the last word of the title was omitted by the Rineharts) never had advertisements, but in the editorial text on 20 August 1839, p.1666 has ‘M. Daguerre s'occupe en ce moment de populariser sa belle découverte par la reproduction de ses ingénieux appareils; il vient, sous sa direction d'en confier l'exécution exclusive à M. Alphonse Giroux’.  So the Rineharts make the regretably common mistake of citing an item that infact they have never seen and are merely perpetuating confusion handed on unverified from a previous secondary source writer who they should really have cited. You will notice that the Rineharts version of something they have never seen says much more than the true contemporary source.  I have compiled a list of contemporary sources referring to Arago's lecture of 19 August 1839, to Daguerre's public demonstrations at the beginning of Sept 1839 and text and first advertisments for daguerreotype apparatus in Paris and London at that time. The apparatus and manual were usually mentioned together in the same advertisements and an advertisement appearing  20 to 25 August in Paris refers to ‘Il y sera joint une notice explicative du procéde’ i.e. ‘An explanatory notice (or leaflet) about the process WILL be added’ and as Pierre Harmant has pointed out in History of Photography (Jan 1977), the advert then says ‘register for it’, (not buy it now) at Giroux's shop, and other evidence confirms that the manual was not available in Paris until 5, 6 or 7th September. (see reference  notes 23 and 33 of my article on ‘Ste Croix in London’  in History of  Photography, Spring 1993). Three months later Daguerre described how he had been surprised when he gave his public demonstration on 7th September to see other people had copies of the manual that he himself had not yet seen, and produced by Susse not Giroux: ‘Le jour de ma première séance au quai d'Orsay, je fus fort étonné, alors que je n'en avais pas moi–même un exemplaire, de voir ma brochure dans les mains tout le monde, avec l'address de M. Susse, qui n'aurait dû être servi qu'après MM. Alphonse Giroux’.  So there can be little doubt that the Manual could not have arrived in USA during September. Any attempts to produce daguerreotypes in USA that month must therefore have been done from reports of Arago's lecture. But does it matter that the manual was not yet available?  Maybe all we can now say is that the less technically competent person would have delayed their venture into trying the technique for a few months. It is not a straightforward story. A more exact knowledge of the arrival of the manual in USA might however help to avoid too early a date being estimated for any early daguerreotypist (such as Morse) for whom there is some evidence might exist that they truly began their work with the help of a Manual. The Mechanic's Magazine (London) reprinting of a report of Arago's lecture was from the Literary Gazette of 24 August 1839, No.1179, pp.538–9. The Mechanics' Magazine of 28 September 1839 reprinted, in a slightly abridged form, the technical description part of  Daguerre's Manual, with excellent reproduction of all the diagrams.

    24 April 1994, RDW to Howard R. McManus, Roanoke, Virginia.

    Thanks for your letter of April 17.  You are absolutely right to find that the article on the ‘Arrival of the Daguerreotype in NY’ as sent you in the little pamphlet was at fault regarding lack of discussion about the Great Western (and other ships ) and even more about my over–stated rejection of Seager's later dating of Sept 16.  I did indeed amend slightly the ‘New York’ article when intended for publication (now withdrawn) in the Daguerreian Annual in exactly those points made perceptively by you. But with regard to the date of Seager I have certainly only modify the emphasis, (although if I did ever think in the future of reviving the article in some way to reach publication, no doubt would again reconsider the best way to balance and phrase the evidence) because his writing a few weeks later saying 16th Sept is in conflict with the original report of the NY Morning Herald of Sept 30 about Seager's daguerreotype being displayed at Chilton's shop : ‘Mr. Segur...on this description, set to work his powers, and, about three days ago, succeeded in making the experiment’.  All things considered (to long to deal with here), there needs to be much stronger evidence, and better reason, to demonstrate that the Morning Herald time scale might need to be proved to have been wrong.  Both pieces of evidence have to be borne in mind, and any historical writing will always have to record both possibilities, but the Morning Herald report makes better sense to me.

    I do have considerable sympathy with your comment about Gouraud arriving in September ‘doesn't feel right’, or at least doesn't feel entirely right. Yet he DID write in his letter of Nov 29 1839 that ‘I came from Paris by the British Queen’, and although no name similar to his appears in the arrival list of that ship on Nov 25, a badly written name related to his does appear as a passenger on that ship arriving on 21 September. Of course against this it is also necessary to conclude that the French daguerreotypes he exhibited did themselves arrive on the later voyage. The date of Giroux's advert about Gouraud as agent in New York appeared in Journal des Débats of Paris on 10 Nov, does not provide a straightforward piece of evidence, but probably indicates more that Gouraud had written back to Giroux before the advert was inserted rather than placed before he had arrived in NY. With an arrangement with Giroux, it would have been possible for Gouraud to leave Paris at the end of August with a camera, but without examples of daguerreotypes exposed in Paris. The NY Observer of Nov 30 reported the COLLECTION of daguerreotypes ‘just arrived from Paris’ was in Gouraud's hands.  Beaumont Newhall (in his Daguerreotype in America 1976, p. 28) says Gouraud exhibited some thirty pictures ‘To the French subjects, Gouraud added a few taken by himself in New York’.  If correct then such NY daguerreotypes might indicate that Gouraud had been there for some time.

    The paragraph you quote from Silliman's American Journal of Science on the last page of your letter, rings warning bells for me, especially the last section saying ‘but is not able as yet to fully arrest them’. It indicates a type of uninformed comment showing low grade involvement and limited understanding of the stage reached in photography. The statement has the flavour of the type of comments made early in 1839 by people who had been vaguely aware of the common knowledge that silver salts could be used to produce pictures and fondly imagined that therefore they were in possession of knowledge that fully answered to the recently announced discoveries of Daguerre, Herschel and Talbot: as you say ‘just a fragment and could mean anything’.

    24 February 1995, RDW to Howard R. McManus, Roanoke, Virginia.

    I think you... will have received the APHS printing of my essay shortly after you wrote to me.

    In this essay on The Arrival of the Daguerreotype in New York it has only been possible for me to set out the uncertainties that surround not only Gouraud but Seager as well – an outsider's review of the situation as set out in the standard histories which might be useful in providing a different perspective (especially as I could provide more exact background about the release of details of Daguerre's technique, publication of his Manual and availability of the Giroux Camera in France) and help focus attention on the areas of most relevance. Really I feel uncomfortable in intruding on American history because in this case I have no adequate opportunities to look for better contemporary sources which is very much at odds to the way I usually research. If Beaumont Newhall had not made a mistake about the British Queen leaving from Liverpool instead of London, I would not have ventured to discuss anything about events your side of the Atlantic. I think I expressed before to you that I do have considerable sympathy with your own response about Gouraud arriving in September ‘doesn't feel right’, particularly as all the evidence that I have been able to assemble suggests that the information released by Arago's lecture of 19 August was not adequate for trials of the technique to get underway until cameras and processing equipment and the manual became available at end of first week of September. So when you say in your letter that ‘I don't really like the idea of Gouraud in America on Sept. 20. How unfortunate we can not always get history to work the way we want!’, then I can assure you this is entirely my own stance. The historical situation set out in the essay published by APHS does indeed provide me with considerable unease (thankfully in contrast, by the way, I do get much more satisfaction from the companion essay on ‘Captain Lucas and the Daguerreotype to Sydney').  Any evidence that can be put forward for Gouraud arriving in America at the end of November 1839 is not entirely convincing and the evidence that can be put forward for Gouraud arriving in America in September 1839 is also problematic!. Indeed no matter which of those periods is true, in each circumstance there would remain surrounding contradictions presented by our present state of knowledge of the daguerreotype in France, England and America in August and September 1839.  Yet what worries me more is that there is apparently a wide complacency about the usual story of the beginnings of the daguerreotype and photography in America. Therefore in spite of (or because of) my unease, the essay on ‘The Arrival of the Daguerreotype in New York’ did need to be published because more people should share that unease. I hope it will stimulate a search for better primary sources. I have plenty I want to do this side of the Atlantic, but if I could get some funds then I would be very tempted to come over to do some necessary searching myself. The Bureau of Customs records  of international shipping and any other records of coastal shipping from September to December 1839 do still need to be searched very meticulously at the National Archives. For one thing, the photocopies (made from microfilm) I was sent from the National Archives of the British Queen Passenger lists of 20 September and 25 November were not of good quality and I would certainly want to look at the original list of 25 November to confirm absolutely that no name relating to the daguerrreotype was listed, and on one place on the microfilm two sheets are slightly overlapped, where it is not entirely impossible that two or three names were not reproduced. It would also, for example, be helpful to know when the mysterious Abel Rendu arrived in America. Not only Passenger lists of ships from London need to be searched but also others (such as The Liverpool) arriving in USA from Liverpool in November and December 1839 require attention. There does not seem to be good evidence for Gouraud taking a few daguerreotypes in New York before he exhibited the images from France  – so many questions – problems – need attention!

    I agree with you that the two passages relating to Gouraud that you quote in your letter are of considerable interest.  My source for the text of Gouraud's ‘short historical introduction’ has not been from his actual pamphlet (reprinted as you say by the Arno Press in 1973) but from a reprinting in New Daguerreian Journal (Columbus, Ohio) october 1971, vol 1, No. 2, pp. 8, 10–12  ‘as published in the Boston Daily Advertiser and Patriot of March 26th 1840’.  I agree that this acount by Gouraud does provide a feel that Gouraud had been in Paris during September and I certainly had not noticed that the phrase ‘Within fifteen days’ might well be of significance with regard to it providing a possible indication of an early date for Gouraud leaving France.  Chamberlain's letter saying that ‘they had seen a French plate that a French man brought out in the Steamer & he is here now in progress of lecturing’ is still ambiguous, for ‘brought out’ can also still mean that the French man was already in the USA when the plate was brought out in the steamer and ‘here now’ is just as likely to mean here now in Boston rather than here now in USA.  These ambiguities are so frustrating!  Yet I must emphasis that my own interpretation of the time scale of events in France in August and the beginning of September 1839 means that it would suit my own interpretation much more that Gouraud did NOT go to USA at the beginning of September!  In contrast to earlier versions of events written by Gernsheim, Newhall, Taft, etc, I believe there was little chance for persons to adequately learn the daguerreotype technique in Paris until mid–September.  So [inspite of the evidence of the British Queen] if you or anyone else could prove that Gouraud did not arrive until the end of November I would indeed be very happy.  The whole situation is full of contradictions!   The situation with regard to Seager successfully producing a daguerreotype in September 1839 also particularly makes me uneasy. Can you imagine yourself getting together the equipment necessary to produce a daguerreotype so quickly as Seager must have done from a only a generalised description of the technique?  Surely he must have been experimenting with a camera with other techniques before September?

    28 February 1995, RDW to Howard R. McManus, Roanoke, Virginia.

    After posting off my letter to you on 24 February I continued to think a little more about the quotation you made from Gouraud ‘Within fifteen days after the publication of the process of M. Daguerre...’ and realised that although it might be considered as evidence that Gouraud left France at the beginning of September it does not provide any evidence that he arrived in September or November in USA.  The passenger arrival lists in USA indicate that he arrived in September and was not on the British Queen at the end of November. Yet I did rather fancy the hypothesis that Ste Croix could have been Gouraud and so would have liked Gouraud to have arrived at the end of November rather than in September!  So ‘within fifteen days’ indicates Gouraud left France at beginning of September to go to USA: it could also, considered in isolation, indicate that he left France at beginning of September for London, went to Birmingham and Liverpool and arrived in USA at end of November! So textural analysis of this passage would not necessarily be in contradiction to the letter written by Chamberlain that you place along side in your letter of January 12 in dating Gouraud's arrival in USA!  Another indication that textural analysis can be just as frustrating and waste of time with regard to the history of Photography as it is in fundamentalist bible studies. We just cannot escape the requirement for time to be spent on looking for better primary sources relating to Gouraud, Abel Rendu, and Seager if progress is to be made.

    Of course with regard to the idea that Gouraud could have been the same person as Ste Croix, it was unlikely because Gouraud would surely have shown daguerreoypes he had taken in London and used the fact of demonstrating the technique there to boost his status when advertising in USA.

    25 February 1995, RDW to Dr. Ron Polito, University of Massachusetts.

    Because of your special knowledge of early photographers in Massachusetts I am writing to draw your attention to a possibility that D. W. Seager who appears to have taken the first daguerreotype in USA in September 1839 might conceivably had some family connection in the Boston area in the 1840s. The reference that I have come across concerns a person named Seager in Boston in the 1840s who was originally from England (like, it is said, D. W. Seager) being a miniature painter who produced silhouette portraits. As this work obviously has some similarities with the daguerreotype portrait trade, then I wonder if, at least, the ‘Englishman’  D. W. Seager who made early attempts to daguerreotype in New York, and the Boston silhouette artist might have been related in some way? Reference to the man in Boston is from Emily Nevill Jackson, Silhouette: Notes and Dictionary, London: Methuen 1938, p.144:

    ‘Seager circa 1834. [Silhouette] Cutter, North Street, New Bideford  [sic.  New Bedford, south of Boston], USA.  His price was one dollar for portrait profiles bronzed. He was born in London and visited Canada as well as the United States. He taught drawing and painted miniatures as well as Silhouettes, was in Halifax, N.S.. in 1840, and in Boston 1845–50.   An example of his work is in the Essex Institute, USA.’

    E. M. Jackson's footnote to this paragraph on Seager cites a silhouette by Seager opposite p.116 of Shades of our Ancestors [reprinted in 1968 as A History of American Silhouettes], by Alice van Leer Carrick, published in USA [Boston], but is a work I have not found in London libraries. If it were not for the fact that there is evidence that D. W. Seager was in Mexico City as a Dentist in 1847, probably since around 1841, the above entry concerning a Boston Seager might reasonably have been supposed to well fit the background of a man who was at one time trying–out the daguerreotype technique in New York in 1839!  But maybe they could at least have been related in some way?  Is it possible that some information on the silhouette artist is recorded in local Boston Directories or local newspapers of the period?

    15 May 1995, RDW to Dr. Ron Polito, University of Massachusetts.

    It is kind of you to take the trouble to look for information [in your letter of May 8] on the existence of the silhoutte artist named Seager in the Boston area [Essex County] in the 1830s and 1840s. The photocopies of pages from the books by Carrick and Belnap  you have sent are very welcome, especially the item on Seager by H. W. Belnap [Artists and Craftsmen of Essex County, p 22] as it is obviouly the source used by Carrick herself.  But even more your own search of the Boston Directories (I appreciate how long and troublesome such open–ended searches can be) is already a considerable advance on the work of both Carrick and Belnap in providing a Christian name of Edward for the artist Seager at Boston [from 1841–50] .  Does it not make you wonder why Belnap did not make such a search before writing of Seager that ‘Christian name is missing’ when he surely must have had the same local Directories to hand? Although she did not have a christian name for this silhouette artist, Emily Jackson (Silhouette: Notes and Dictionary, London: Methuen 1938, p.144) still seems to have had some other source of information on Seager when she wrote that ‘He was born in London and visited Canada as well as the United States..., was in Halifax, N.S.. in 1840’.  Apart from a family having a background of miniature artist and commercial silhouette production being likely to become involved with the daguerreotype, an English background of the Salem and Boston artist does provide some indication that he could have had some family connection with the D.W. Seager who is also said to have had English roots. Where it is now possible to go from here to investigate these two Seagers is not clear. If there is anyone else who might be interested in D.W. Seager's part in the earliest use of the daguerreotype then do please pass on the fragments of information about the silhouette and miniature artist, Edward Seager of Essex County.

    ||  Top of Page   ||   Letters of 1990s:  Contents List  |   Part I  |   Part II  |   Part III  ||  
    ||  Home Page    ||   Letters of 1970s:  
    [webpage in preparation]      ||  

    6. Dorothy Draper Daguerreotype

    19 February 1994, RDW to Howard R. McManus, Roanoke, Virginia.

    I had certainly forgotten all about sending to Kansas the documentation about the Dorothy Draper Daguerreotype.  Eileen Shorland was a great–granddaughter of that splendid man Sir John Herschel.  In the late 1960s I did a lot of research on Herschel as well as on Talbot and met her through the archivist of the Royal Society where they have a great collection of Herschel correspondence. She did not have a great amount of material left in possession of the family but I had visited her before James Enyeart's piece about trying to revive the image of the Draper daguerreotype had appeared and remembered the few items that she had from the time just before it had been presented to Taft.  I wrote the article that appeared within three months of Enyeart's and put Mrs Shorland's name on it as a courtesy.  I had no more contact with her from about two years after the publication of the item in the Photographic Journal.  She died about nine or ten years ago, I am not sure exactly when. By 1973 or 4,  I must have assembled a considerable amount of information about Draper, although it was only a secondary interest as it is never possible to research to the extent required if one does not live in the same country as the subject. Because of family responsibilities it was obvious by then that I would be unable to continue in any way with an interest in the history of photography so in 1977 I gave all my files that I had assembled on the subject to Arthur Gill, who you may be aware used to have a regular column in the monthly Photographic Journal of the Royal Photographic Society. He died in 1987 so I have no idea what happed to those files. The file on Draper must have contained my small amount of correspondence with Enyeart and with Mrs Shorland. Anyway no longer have Mrs Shorland's old address. However, I do not believe it is really necessary for you to obtain permission from the present holders of the material. Although I no longer have a written record of the fact, she did allow copies to be made and agreed that the copies be sent to Kansas. I suppose what you now have at Kansas is copies of the items mentioned in my footnote reference no. 1 in my article in the Phot.J. of Dec 1970 ?  So surely all that you need to say is something like ‘Copies of... presented in 1971 by R. Derek Wood, on behalf of Mrs Eileen D. Shorland...’ and maybe citing p.478 of the article? I am not sure from your letter if your article is specifically about the daguerreotype portrait to Dorothy Draper (what a wonderful image it is, with her direct gaze to us through time), and the preservation of the image, or is a wider examination of Draper's photographic work? This daguerreotype should have a significant position in studies on Preservation techniques, yet even in the publications of Susan Barger I have not noticed any mention of it (though maybe I have not looked very extensively!) and I have not seen any citation anywhere of either Enyeart's or my article.  So you are the first who has expressed an interest!

    14 April 1994, RDW to Howard R. McManus, Roanoke, Virginia.

    In an earlier letter I told you that in 1977 I had given away my file of papers concerning J. W.  Draper and the daguerreotype of his sister. However, I have just found that I do in fact still have a small bundle of my correspondence with Mrs Shorland including a couple from the time when the article on the Dorothy Draper Daguerreotype was published in 1970. These letters were obviously kept separate from the Draper material because they later dealt with other matters concerning Sir John Herschel. I certainly visited Mrs Shorland's house (near Bracknell, Berkshire) on 11 October 1970, so must have looked then at the family letters she had concerning the Dorothy Draper portrait. When I wrote the following day of 12 October 1970 to her to discuss the publication in the Photographic Journal I said ‘It would not be necessary to go into any details about the New York University correspondence of 1893; but worth commenting on the two 1934 letters from Mr. Gear’.  She sent a post card (Oct 16th) to say ‘agree whole heartedly ... Prof.Gear's letter shows how deeply distressed he was & [I] am interested to know you think others would like to hear the fate of the Draper daguerreotype.’  Obviously the letters were not copied immediately. A PS of a letter to me dated 21 September 1971 said ‘PS – I have not forgotten your request re letters’ and she probably brought them up to London when she visited ‘the library’ (must have been the library of the Royal Society) during the first week of December 1971.  I suppose I must also have gone along to that library as I have a copy of a letter I wrote to her on 8 December 1971 posting them back to her and offering very many thanks for allowing me to copy them. So the copies must have been sent to Kansas in December 1971 as I wrote to Mrs Shorland on 15 February 1972 saying that I had sent ‘some [?] copies of the 1893/4 letters about the Draper daguerreotype’ to Kansas and that James Enyeart ‘has asked me to convey his deepest gratitude to you for allowing them to be copied’.   He had also sent me a transparency of the daguerreotype after it was re–cleaned and a copy of a black & white photo of Dorothy Draper taken in 1894.  I passed them on for Mrs Shorland to see, but she later returned them to me, so they must have gone in my file to Arthur Gill in 1977.  The Shorland family had placed manuscripts of Sir John Herschel on auction in 1958 which were purchased by the Humanities Research Centre University of Texas. When I approached Texas for a microfilm of one of John Herschel notebooks they had ask me to obtain permission from Mrs Shorland. When I wrote to her about this she replied on 24 December 1972 that ‘These requests for ‘permission’ are really unnecessary when the MSS have been brought by Texas!  I asked the USA embassy for a ruling and they said it was purely academic. As far as I am concerned I find it interesting as it gives me some idea of the research that is going on.  My ancestor had his fingers in many pies’.   I then had no contact until I sent her an offprint of an article I wrote concerning Sir John Herschel's use of Gallic acid in his very earliest photographic experiments (Journal of Photographic Science, Jan 1980, vol. 28, pp. 36–42) and she wrote a thank–you note on 28 March 1980 at a time when she was involved in moves to purchase the house at Bath of William Herschel (John's father, the Astronomer) as a museum.  I made a later note on that letter (‘died the following December?’). As you will see from the letter to me of 24 Dec 1972, Eileen Shorland would not have thought it necessary for you to seek permission to quote from the copies of letters in her possession sent to Kansas, but she would undoubtedly have been pleased to have heard that you found them of interest.

    Also part of my correspondence with Mrs Shorland is a rough list of the relevant letters concerning the Dorothy Draper portrait which is headed ‘Reference 1 (a)’.  It is obviously the list for the material mentioned in my footnote No. 1 (a) of the article in Photographic Journal, December 1970, on page 481. From the copies of the letters at Kansas that you mention in the typescript of your article ‘The story of the most famous daguerreian portrait’ it looks as if I did indeed send a copy of all of those letters to Kansas, but I enclose a copy of that rough list made on October 1970 or December 1971 for your interest.  In Footnote 1 (d) of the Dec 1970 article I mentioned copies of Artotype prints of  Draper portrait of 1893 and more importantly a copy of Gear's 1934 photograph of the daguerreotype.  My note about these two copies on the same list  adds the extra information that the copying was done by ‘Kodak Research Laboratory in 1957’.  As this must surely have been done in time for the auction at Sotheby's in 1958 of the Herschel material, and as much of that auction went to the Science Collection, University of Texas, then I wonder if any item concerning Draper including Gear's original photograph [Mrs Shorland later had only a 1957 copy] of the daguerreotype in 1934) could also have ended up at the Humanities Research Center, Austin, maybe in the Science Collection not Photographic Collections?

    ||  Top of Page  ||   Letters of 1990s:  Contents List  |   Part I  |   Part II  |   Part III  ||  
    ||  Home Page    ||   Letters of 1970s:  
    [webpage in preparation]      ||  

    7. Captain A. Lucas and L'Oriental

    16 September 1994, RDW to António Sena, Lajes do Pico, Azores.

    [Concerning L'Oriental  at Lisbon]  I have been researching the way the daguerreotype diffused from France to the rest of the world.  While researching the first use of the daguerreotype in the countries of the Pacific Ocean I found that there was a connection between the voyage of the Justine that brought the first daguerreotype equipment to Australia and the voyage of L'Oriental which was involved in the first use of the daguerreotype in Brazil and Uraguay. I enclose my article on ‘The Voyage of Captain Lucas and the Daguerreotype to Sydney’ that sets out the evidence for that connection. The main focus of that article was intended to be on the events in the Pacific, concerning the ship Justine, but obviously the voyage of L'Oriental deserves more attention.

    According to Gilberto Ferrez in his Photography in Brazil 1840–1900, Edition in English (1990), footnote No. 5 on page 223, when L'Oriental stopped at Rio de Janeiro one of the passengers named Sauvage on the ship advertised there his ‘Physionotrace’. From a list of passengers on L'Oriental it is obvious that man must have been Frederick Sauvage, age 25, of Boulogne. [After L'Oriental left France the first port of call had been Lisbon, where ‘La reine Maria reçoit en longue audience Agustine Lucas et l'abbe Comte, et s'intéresse au ‘physionotype’ appareil mechanique de reproduction des traits, embarqué a bord pour les recherches ethnographiques’.  As the Physionotype was demonstrated to the Queen it surely seems quite likely that she was also shown the daguerreotype]  in the same way as the demonstration of both instruments happened almost three months later at Rio de Janeiro!   I have been able to establish the fact that L'Oriental arrived at Lisbon on 7 Octobre 1839. Date of departure of the ship from Lisbon have not been found but it did reach Madeira on 23 Octobre. Unfortunately the British Library in London – except for only one issue of only one newspaper (Correio de Lisboa, dated 13 Dec 1839) –  holds no Lisbon newspapers for the year of 1839.  Presumably you have some access to Portuguese newspapers published during 1839, and I think you will agree that it would be most interesting to establish how long Captain Lucas, Abbe Louis Comte and F. Sauvage amongst others on L'Oriental stayed at Lisbon.  For I think the chances are high that the first use of the daguerreotype in Lisbon would have been connected with the visit of L'Oriental, and maybe the Queen could have even seen a daguerreotype demonstration by Lucas or Comte, and the physionotype shown by Sauvage?. You will see from the reports given below that there was 16 days between arrival at Lisbon and arrival at Madeira. Maybe ships took a long time to sail west into the wind to get from Lisbon to Madeira, but it does seem likely that more than 1 or 2 days was spent in Lisbon.

    L'Indépendant (Bruxelles), jeudi 24 Octobre 1839, p.2: ‘Le Navire L'Oriental, à bord duquel sont embargue's 80 jeunes gens, dont 12 belgues, qui sont faire le tour du monde, sous la direction du capitaine Lucas, est arrivé Lisbonne le 7 Octobre’.

    [António Senna replied with a photo copy from Diário do Governo showing that L'Oriental was at Lisbon from 7th to 15th October 1839.]

    Lloyd's List (London), Monday November 11, 1839, No. 8012, column 10: ‘Madeira ([report dated] October 26), 23 [October], Oriental, [Captain] Luca [sic], arrived from Lisbon and sailed 25th [October 1839]  for –– [sic ‘––’, name of place not entered] ’.

    [According to Carré then to Teneriffe: Gorée: Pernambuco]

    Lloyd's List (London), Wednesday January 29, 1840, No. 8079, column 4: ‘Bahia ( [report dated] Dec 18) Dec 7 [1839] Oriental, [Captain] Lucas, arrived from Pernambuco and sailed 17th [December 1839] for Rio Janeiro’

    Lloyd's List (London), Tuesday February 18, 1840, No. 8096, column 7: ‘Rio Janeiro Dec 24 [1839] Oriental, [Captain] Lucas, arrived from Bahia’.

    29 November 1994, RDW to António Sena, Lajes do Pico, Azores.

    Concerning visit of L'Oriental to Lisbon. Thank you very much for the photo copies from Diário do Governo showing that L'Oriental was at Lisbon from 7th to 15th October 1839.  I enclose an extract [below] from pp. 26–17 of Adrien Carré, ‘La singulière histoire de l'Oriental–Hydrographe', Bulletin, Comite Nantais de Documentation Historique de la Marine, 1970, with regard to the events in Lisbon during the visit of the ship.  You have pointed out in your letter to me that L'Oriental was described in O Diário do Governo as ‘Transporte de Guerra francez’ so no doubt you will find it of interest that Carré also says ‘L'Oriental reçoit des honneurs presque militaires’. You will see that Carré says Lucas and Comte had a long audience with queen Maria and that she was interested in the ‘Physionotrace’. Unfortunately Carré does not specifically cite the source for this information, but it is most likely to have been from a letter published in a newspaper that Lucas had written while at Lisbon to Nantes (‘Lucas écrira à Nantes’), or in what must have been the next letter written by Lucas at Madeira to Despecher et Bonnefin (the owners of L'Oriental) which Carré says was published in Le Lloyd Nantais on 25 November 1839. Many communications were sent by Captain Lucas to  Le Lloyd Nantais and Carré  used that newspaper as a major source of information about the voyage of L'Oriental. I have not been able to get to the Nantes and Vannes areas of France to research in their libraries so I have still not seen any copies of Le Lloyd Nantais. Also I do not know exactly where Carré saw the logbook of L'Oriental (Carré only wrote of ‘le rôle de bord – Archives Départementales’). It is certainly most useful to know that you have not found any reports in Lisbon newspapers of Captain Lucas and Comte meeting queen Maria because it shows that Carré must surely have obtained the information from a letter written by Lucas.

    [Pièce annexée à lettre R. D. Wood à A. Sena, 29 novembre 1994]

    Adrien Carré, ‘La singulière histoire de L'Oriental–Hydrographe’, Bulletin, Comite Nantais de Documentation Historique de la Marine, No. 2, 1970, pp.17–35.

    [Extrait à l'égard de Lisbon en octobre 1839, pp. 26–27:]

    [L'Oriental] Le Voyage...

    Lisbonne.  C'est l'escale triomphale.  Les élèves défilent en ville èpée au côté, dans leur magnifique uniforme. L'Oriental reçoit des honneurs presque militaires. La douane lui accorde les franchises d'un navire de guerre. La reine Maria reçoit en longue audience Agustine Lucas et l'abbe Comte, et s'intéresse au ‘physionotype’ appareil mechanique de reproduction des traits, embarqué a bord pour les recherches ethnographiques.  Cet accuel, que Lucas retrouvera plus ou moins au Brésil, était certainement dû à la part, involontaire peut–être, en tout cas bienveillante, que Belle–ile et ses habitants avaient prise en 1831 et 1832 à l'entreprise du père de la reine, Don Pedro, empereur ‘demissionnaire’ du Brésil, contre l'oncle Don Miguel ‘usurpateur’ pour la reconquête du trône de Portugal. Un invraisemblable imbroglio franco–anglo–portugais! La flotte de la prétendante et de son père s'était réunie au Palais (Belle–ile) et Don Pedro y était descendu chez son ‘commanditaire’, M. Loreal.  Rappelons qu'en 1831, Louis–Philippe, pour intimider Don Miguel avait fait forcer le Tage par l'Amiral Ronain. Lucas écrira à Nantes que la plu parfaite harmonie regne à bord.

    De Lisbonne au Brésil.  On suit sur la rôle de bord (avec l'apostille des consuls et agents) mieux que par d'autres sources, le voyage de L'Oriental.

    25 octobre [1839]: Madère (Funchal).

    26–30 octobre: Santa Cruz de Teneriffe (où on embarque un angevin inscrit à Nantes, Mezeré, déserteur d'un brick américain), puis Las Palmas.

    Du 10 au 12 novembre: Gorée (Dakar n'existait pas). On renonce à l'escale du Cap Vert, en raison de la fièvre jaune.

    Le 30 novembre L'Oriental mouille à Pernambouc (ou Fernambouc, aujourd'hui Recife). Il en appareillera le 5 décembre pour Bahia, où il restera jusqu'au 16 décembre.

    Pendant toute cette traversée, les nouvelles les plus satisfaisantes arrivent en France. Le Lloyd Nantais publie le 25 novembre une lettre de Lucas à MM Despecher et Bonnefin, de Madère, du 25 octobre...

    8 December 1994, RDW to António Sena, Lajes do Pico, Azores.

    With regard to Captain Lucas and ‘Compte’ in Rio de Janeiro, Ferrez [Photography in Brazil 1840–1900] cites Jornal do Commercio (Rio de Janeiro) of 17 January  and 21 January 1840, but Calvalho in his article published in 1941 (‘Subsidos para a história...’ footnote on p. 24) refers to Jornal do Comércio (Rio) 20 Janeiro 1840 ‘transcito no Periódico dos Pobres no Porto do mesmo ane No. 81’.  I cannot find in England those 2 newspapers, so I wonder if you might already have the text of the report about Lucas at Rio from Periódico dos Pobres, 1840, No.81 ?

    28 April 1994 RDW to Steven F. Joseph, Bruxelles,

    I am most grateful for your letter of 21 April in speedy response to my inquiry about Jobard's comment about Captain Lucas. It is a pity that the remark about Lucas was only a very short aside made by Jobard. I certainly do not find the sentence without ambiguity. ‘s'inscrire’ I find worrying with regard to the assumption that the event took place at the beginning of July. If there had been no other evidence available for dating Jobard's visit to Paris, then this remark by Jobard that Lucas had Registered for a daguerreoytype camera/ outfit would have lead me to date the occasion towards end of August at a time when an advertisement started to appear in the press for the ‘instrument sont fabriqués chz Alph. Giroux et Ce, sous la direction immédiate de M. Daguerre...– On s'inscrit rue du Coq–Saint–Honoré, 7.’ (Gazette de France, 21 Août, Le Charivari, 22 Août, La Quotidienne, 23 Août, and other publications). Of course, those with personal contact  are likely to have been told verbally to Register or Subscribe with Giroux in advance for a Giroux camera, but I do wonder if it is at all possible if there could be any evidence that Jobard [I keep wanting to type Joubert which was the somewhat similar name of the person with whom Lucas had contact in Sydney!) might also have gone again to Paris at the end of August?   Also ‘dans l'atelier de Daguerre’, especially in conjunction with ‘s'inscrire’, is unsettling. Daguerre's original atelier had been destroyed by the adjacent fire at the diorama on 8 March, so had Jobard gone to Daguerre's apartment on Boulevard Saint Martin? or could Jobard have been speaking loosely of ‘l'atelier de Daguerre’ for the Workshop of Alphonse Giroux? It is just that  I can easily imagine Lucas going to Giroux's premises to Register or subscribe for a daguerreotype camera and to see daguerreotypes displayed on a stand, rather than visit Daguerre in his apartment to register. The significance of this interpretation would be that Lucas could not necessarily have had personal contact with Daguerre himself. [ Steven Joseph replied on 4 May that ‘There is no indication that Jobard visited Paris again at the end of August 1839. In fact I rather doubt he would have had time to make a second trip’.]

    8 December 1994 RDW to Steven F. Joseph, Bruxelles

    You might find of interest the enclosed page from a biography of E. Girardin who was the owner in the 1830s and 1840 of the Paris newspaper La Presse which concerns the physionotrace [sic. Physionotype]. Presumably the Frederick Sauvage (age 25 in 1839, so born 1813/14) who took a “Physionotrace” to Rio with Captain Lucas on L'Oriental must have been the son of the man who formed a partnership with Girardin.  June 1838 was an interesting time for them to be commercially advancing the use of the “physionotrace” as it was at this time that Daguerre appears to have been (in accord with his final agreement with Niepce dated 13 June 1837) publically seeking financial subscriptions for his invention. Except for a very basic bibliography at the end of his book, the author Pierre Pellissier unfortunately does not cite sources. Girardon's wife (Delphine, née Gay) wrote a column in La Presse under the nom–de–plume of Vicomte de Launay), did mention briefly the Daguerreotype in the column of 12 Jan 1839 (collected in her Lettres Parisiennes published in 1860), but I have not been able to properly search La Presse, which unfortunately is not held at the British Newspaper Library for anything on the physionotrace [or Physionotype] or L'Oriental through the period 1838–40. There have been several other biographies of Girardin but I have not been able to look at anymore yet to see if more detailed information is provided about F. Sauvage.

    Émile de Girardin, Prince de la Presse, by Pierre Pellissier, Paris: Denoel 1985, p.136:
    “Le 16 juin 1838, l’objet du procès est le “physionotype”, une curieuse invention de Frédéric Sauvage (1 (footnote: “Frédéric Sauvage, né à Boulogne-sur-Mer en 1785, a inventé l’helice en 1832...Il meurt fou en 1857...”) ... Son engin, le “physionotype” - ou “physionotrace” -, reprend le principe du pantographe, qui permettait de reproduire exactement les traits d’une buste ou même d’un modèle vivant. Le nouvel engin peut reproduire un tableau ou un portrait en le réduisant comme en l’agrandissant. Pour l’exploitation de son idée, Sauvage avait appele Girardin à l’aide. Une société avait été créée, les gérants étaient Sauvage, Girardin... et l’inévitable Boutmy...”

    [Note added to this website presentation: In the above letter to S. F. Joseph, I (RDW) wrongly wrote of “Physionotrace” instead of Physionotype. For Frédéric Sauvage's invention was infact the “Physionotype” to create sculptural busts, not the much older Physionotrace which was a drawing technique. The mainly reason for that confusion is that when Frédéric Sauvage (the twenty-five years old son), used the Physionotype apparatus (clearly so from the descriptions) at Lisbon and Rio, the term strangely used in the reports was indeed “Physionotrace”! ]

    1 September 1993 RDW to Thomas R. Kailbourn (Associate Editor, Daguerreian Annual), Wellsville, NY, USA

    I agree entirely with your comment (in your letter of July 20) that Rodriguez ‘jumped to conclusions’ in his entry on Compte [sic] as being ‘active in Chile’.  And how did he manage to get Compte as ‘friend’ of Daguerre!  Biographical entries like this can cause a great deal of trouble to future readers. I find that no matter how carefully one provides the solid source material some reader will always prefer to believe other unsupported nonsense. It is not the primary research that is difficult to do but having to prove that third–hand supposition and muddled journalism are wrong that causes the greatest problems.  At least Rodriduez does include the words ‘we suppose’ and ‘making it apparent’!  But, of course, although L'Oriental went to Chile, Compte stayed in Uraguay. If there had been any real evidence to the contrary then Rodriguez would have been less vague. Perhaps he had carelessly read the article by Keith McElroy, paying too much attention to the title ‘The daguerreian Era in Peru 1839–1859’, in History of Photography, 1979, pp.111–123 in which he gives information on Compte having a studio in Montevideo until 1847 having stayed behind in 1840 when the ship sailed round to the west coast.

    ||  Top of Page  ||   Letters of 1990s:  Contents List  |   Part I  |   Part II  |   Part III  ||  
    ||  Home Page   ||   Letters of 1970s:  
    [webpage in preparation]      ||  

    8. François Lucas and the Justine in the Pacific

    4 March 1994, RDW to Bill Main,  Director, New Zealand Centre for Photography, Wellington, NZ

    You will see from the enclosed report by S. [sic must be a printers mistake for F] M. Lucas, Captain of the Justine, in Annales Maritimes [Paris] of 1842 on p. 497 that J. Barnard is described as owner of the ship. So the James Busby letters that you have seen are shown to be entirely reliable in this way, and indeed the extra information from them that he was ‘Captain Pike's brother in law has brought a valley at Hokianga’ is of special interest. Also the comment in the Busby's letter of 1 March 1839 that he had arrived 10 days ago confirms the LL report of arrrival at Bay of Islands on Feb 17 (see item 6 on my itinerary of the Justine, enclosed). The other item by Dr. Robert and E. Vardou from Annales Maritimes that I enclose does not concern photographic history but thought you would find it of interest regarding NZ.

    13 March 1994, RDW to Bill Main,  Director, New Zealand Centre for Photography, Wellington, NZ

    I think there are still some problems to be solved with regard to the Justine, particularly a statement in the article by Carré that Francois Lucas went back to France with his brother–in–law Briel and his wife (Francois sister) and a student called Farcy who had been on L'Oriental.  However this does not accord with the events in Lucas's  ‘Justine Rapport of 1842’ so I have not over–complicated the article by discussing the problem in my final version. As the arrival of the British appointed governor resulted in François Lucas not pursuing settlement in NZ I would guess that his supposed acquisition of 9 x 1 miles of land was never legalised. The appropriate part of Hobson's Proclamation of 30 January 1840 would be ‘does not deem it expedient to recognise as valid any Titles to Land in New Zealand which are not derived from or confirmed by Her Majesty’.  As the most interesting word here is ‘expedient’!, I have just looked it up in a dictionary where the writer places his finger on it as ‘expedient: suitable, advantageous (politic rather than just), contrivance’.  It would be great if you could find anything from local sources about the Capt Pike mentioned in Busby's letter as being brother–in–law of Capt J. Bernard. As the latter is said to be owner of the Justine ‘of Bordeaux’ presumably Bernard was also from that area.

    9 October 1993 to Sandy Barrie, Sydney

    The information you have found about Joubert's auction in March 1843 (Sydney Herald of 21 March 1843) with the inclusion of the daguerreotype apparatus is extremely interesting. I was surprised to see included ‘a great number of plates’: my first reaction is that those plates are more likely to have been obtained in 1842 rather than having been originally brought to Sydney by Lucas in May 1841, but will have to think about this more.

    Letters in the 1990s of R. D. Wood on the early history of Photography

    ||  Top of Page  ||   Letters of 1990s:  Contents List  |  Part I  |  Part II  |  Part III  ||
    ||  Home Page   ||   Letters of 1970s:  
    [webpage in preparation]      ||  

    Page prepared 28 January 2001]