1. Grant B. Romer, “‘A High Reputation with All True Artists and Connoisseurs’: The Daguerreian Careers of A.S. Southworth and J.J. Hawes” in Young America: The Daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes, eds. Grant B. Romer and Brian Wallis (Göttingen, New York, and Rochester, NY: Steidl, International Center for Photography, and George Eastman House, 2005), 27.
2. Romer and Wallis, Young America, 10.
3. Romer, “‘A High Reputation,’” 24.
4. “Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms, No. 5 ½ Tremont Row, Boston. Southworth & Hawes,” The Massachusetts Register and United States Calendar for the Year of Our Lord 1852, 327, https://books.google.ca/books?id=4u0CAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=vignettes+and+heads+simply+southworth+and+hawes&source=bl&ots=yhAp9X1pXr&sig=wInBqSvFuvxYJ65fMvdkKAYZMC4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIv9yqi-TfAhWpoIMKHYQ-BYgQ6AEwDHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=vignettes%20and%20heads%20simply%20southworth%20and%20hawes&f=false, accessed January 10, 2019. For a description of the daguerreotype process provided by Albert Southworth himself, see his article entitled “Daguerreotypes” on the same page.
5. Romer and Wallace, Young America, 11.
6. Ibid. In their introduction to Young America, Grant A. Romer and Brian Wallis write that they hope “the exhibition together with the catalogue of Southworth & Hawes’ known production will promote better connoisseurship, encourage further inquiry, and support additional research, allowing future generations to discover and interpret their achievement.” I am indebted to their foundational work, which inspired my attempt in this paper to shed additional light on the daguerreotypes of Southworth & Hawes.
8. For short biographies of identified sitters photographed by Southworth & Hawes, which indicate the breadth of their experiences and viewpoints, see Romer and Wallis, Young America, 273-311.
9. John Stauffer, “Daguerreotyping the National Soul: The Portraits of Southworth & Hawes, 1843–1860,” in Romer and Wallis, Young America, 59.
10. Mary Philadelphia Merrifield was a British author whose book Dress as a Fine Art was published in 1854. Godey’s Lady’s Book published excerpts from the book for its American readers. In one example of contemporary guidelines for mid-nineteenth women’s dress, the author writes, “The style of dress should be adapted to the age of the wearer. As a general rule, we should say that in youth the dress should be simple and elegant…. In middle age, the dress may be of rich materials, and more splendid in its character; jewels are the appropriate ornaments. In the decline of life, the materials of which the dress is composed may be equally rich, but with less vivacious colors…and the character of the whole costume should be quiet, simple, and dignified.” See Mrs. Merrifield, “Dress – as a Fine Art,” Godey’s Lady’s Book 48 (April 1854): 348, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58494/58494-h/58494-h.htm#Page_347, accessed January 6, 2019.
11. In daguerreotype portraits, dress “could communicate ideas about a person’s social class, degree of wealth, age, and gender.” Christina M. Johnson, “‘Each Button, Button-Hole, and Every Fold’: Dress in the American Daguerreotype Portrait,” Dress 31 (2004): 28. For detailed discussions of nineteenth-century American dress in daguerreotype portraiture, see Joan Severa, My Likeness Taken: Daguerreian Portraits in America (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2005) and Dressed for the Photographer: Ordinary Americans and Fashion, 1840–1900 (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1997); also Priscilla Harris Dalrymple, American Victorian Costume in Early Photographs (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1991). For an interesting parallel investigation of women’s dress in daguerreotype portraits in Ontario, Canada, see M. Elaine Mackay, “Through the Lens of Fashion: An Analysis of Clothing Styles of Women in Early Victorian Ontario” (MA thesis, Ryerson University, 2012). For a general overview of Victorian women’s fashion and its care, see Christina Walkley and Vanda Foster, Crinolines and Crimping Irons: Victorian Clothes: How They Were Cleaned and Cared For (London: Peter Owen, 1978).
12. Aileen Ribeiro, Dress and Morality (New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc., 1986), 129, 183n31. Ribeiro cites her source as follows in her note: “E. Farrar, The Young Lady’s Friend, New York, 1845, p. 368.” She is referring to the Boston writer Eliza Ware Farrar. However, it is worth noting that the book was first published in 1836, written “by a Lady,” and then subsequently published in several editions. The writer is identified as Mrs. John Farrar in the 1845 edition. I have added the first sentence to Ribeiro’s original quotation. See Mrs. John Farrar, The Young Lady’s Friend (New York: Samuel S. & William Wood, 1845), 368, https://books.google.ca/books?id=z8dYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR3&dq=the+young+lady%27s+friend+1845&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWxZrQl_zjAhXkB50JHQKYC6kQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20young%20lady%27s%20friend%201845&f=false, accessed August 11, 2019.
13. For a discussion of nudity in nineteenth-century European photography, see Elizabeth Anne McCauley, “Secret Seraglios: Tracking the Female Nude in the History of Nineteenth-Century Photography,” in Histoire de l’art du XIXe siècle (1848–1914): Bilans et perspectives, eds. Claire Barbillon, Catherine Chevillot, and François-René Martin (École du Louvre, 2012), 574-89.
14. Brian Wallis, “Black Bodies, White Science: Louis Agassiz’s Slave Daguerreotypes,” American Art 9 (Summer 1995): 40. For a more recent discussion of the Agassiz daguerreotypes that links them to pornography, see Suzanne Schneider, “Louis Agassiz and the American School of Ethnoeroticism: Polygenesis, Pornography, and other ‘Perfidious Influences’” in Pictures and Progress: Early Photography and the Making of African American Identity, eds. Maurice O. Wallace and Shawn Michelle Smith (Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press, 2012), 211-43.
15. Ruth Barcan, Nudity: A Cultural Anatomy (Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers, 2004), 7.
17. Caroline Winterer, The Mirror of Antiquity: American Women and the Classical Tradition, 1750–1900 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2007), 157.
18. Godey’s Lady’s Book was the highest circulating magazine in America, with 150,000 subscribers just prior to the Civil War. See Laura McCall, “‘The Reign of Brute Force is Now Over’: A Content Analysis of Godey’s Lady’s Book, 1830–1860,” Journal of the Early Republic 9 (Summer 1989): 221.
19. F. E. F., “The First and Second Marriage,” Godey’s Lady’s Book 44 (January 1852): 42, https://books.google.ca/books?id=XdgRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=F.E.F.+the+first+and+second+marriage&source=bl&ots=GANcMcfhuR&sig=JCU8x6W9JGP6dyOYrDUXM-_Q43Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIidPysdrfAhWPo4MKHfgAB_AQ6AEwEnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=F.E.F.%20the%20first%20and%20second%20marriage&f=false, accessed January 6, 2019.
21. Mrs. Alaric Watts, “The Philosophy of Shopping,” Godey’s Lady’s Book 48 (January 1854): 35, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49380/49380-h/49380-h.htm, accessed January 6, 2019.
22. Amelia Rauser, “Living Statues and Neoclassical Dress in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples,” Art History 38 (June 2015): 470-4.
23. Ibid., 475. The twelve outline drawings were the work of Frederick Rehberg, engraved by Tommaso Piroli.
24. Ibid., 470. Rauser writes that viewers “saw Hart as actually embodying antique artworks during her performances, bringing them vividly to life.”
25. Although the statue bust’s identity is today uncertain, in the late eighteenth century and nineteenth century it was understood to represent the mythological figure of Clytie. The British Museum considers Clytie to be a Roman work from about ad 40–50, and suggests it was re-cut in the eighteenth century. Note that the British museum’s Clytie should not be confused with Hiram Powers’ conception of the figure, dating to 1867.
26. Ovid, The Metamorphoses, vol. 1, trans. Dryden, Pope, Congreve, Addison, and others (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1872), 109-13, https://books.google.ca/books?id=QzgWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=ovid+metamorphoses+clytie&source=bl&ots=eZfbCPpvKa&sig=ACfU3U0iLSnAsE1Wf_XNn4nIP1EcVGcHAg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhtZb1i8LiAhULqlkKHR7vC2A4FBDoATAGegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=ovid%20metamorphoses%20clytie&f=false, accessed June 5, 2019.
27. Ibid., 150-9.
28. Lauren Keach Lessing ties Powers’ conception of Proserpine directly to the illustrations in Godey’s Lady’s Book when she remarks that “to any mid-nineteenth-century viewer, she would have been immediately familiar. The same face poses demurely from countless pages of Godey’s Lady’s Book and Grahams Magazine, and from the popular chromolithographs of Currier & Ives. It is a type that Lois Banner has described as ‘the steel-engraving lady.’” Lessing’s proposal has merit, but it overlooks the similarity between the much earlier Clytie bust and the portrayal of women in the steel engravings. See Lauren Keach Lessing, “Presiding Divinities: Ideal Sculpture in Nineteenth-Century American Domestic Interiors” (PhD diss., Indiana University, 2006), 84-6. For an interesting general discussion of the overlooked importance of the steel engravings in Godey’s Lady’s Book, see Isabelle Lehuu, “Sentimental Figures: Reading Godey’s Lady’s Book in Antebellum America,” in The Culture of Sentiment: Race, Gender, and Sentimentality in Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Shirley Samuels (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 73-91.
29. Viccy Coltman, “Representation, Replication and Collecting in Charles Townley’s Late Eighteenth-Century Library,” Art History 29 (April 2006): 308.
30. B.F. Cook, The Townley Marbles (London: British Museum, 1985), 15.
31. Walter Channing, “To Clytie,” in Old and New (Boston, 1851), 124, 148n18. https://books.google.ca/books?id=FyotAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Walter+channing+clytie+old+and+new&source=bl&ots=kOYMjJEdHx&sig=1nbkbPMprHjwKaxCERMpFDgAJpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5lP_AvPDfAhVj04MKHXnWCtoQ6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Walter%20channing%20clytie%20old%20and%20new&f=false, accessed January 10, 2019.
32. Richard P. Wunder, Hiram Powers, Vermont Sculptor, 1805–1873, vol. 1 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991), 138.
33. Wunder, Hiram Powers, vol. 2, 187-202. See also Lessing, “Presiding Divinities,” 17. Today, Hiram Powers is best known for his full-length state The Greek Slave, first rendered in marble in 1844. It depicts a nude female that Powers described as a young Greek woman taken captive by the Ottomans during the Greek War of Independence (1821-30). While The Greek Slave was reproduced in numerous versions by Powers and widely exhibited, Proserpine was collected in far greater numbers.
34. The location of Sidney Brooks’ version of Proserpine is unknown, if it has indeed survived, but it was probably similar to the bust in Figure 8, held by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. For information about Brooks’ purchase and the Smithsonian version, see Wunder, Hiram Powers, vol. 2, 191.
35. “Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms,” 328.
36. Romer and Wallis, Young America, 486, Figure 1991.
37. Local sculptors Richard King and Harriet Hosmer are both known to have produced copies of the Clytie bust. See Channing, “To Clytie,” 124, 148-9n18 for a reference to Richard King. Harriet Hosmer’s letters, held by the Schlesinger Library at Harvard University, indicate that Hosmer created a plaster cast of the Clytie bust in 1851.
38. Albert Southworth’s sister Nancy was married to Hawes and worked in the studio. In August 1849, Nancy wrote to Albert, who had temporarily left the firm in an attempt to cash in on the California gold rush. Discussing the exhibition of Powers’ work, she notes “The Perserpine [sic] is called very beautiful, and is the same one Mr. Brooks offered you to copy.” Southworth & Hawes used the word “copy” interchangeably for two different services they provided to their clientele. While original daguerreotypes cannot be reproduced from a negative in the way that photographs produced on paper can, it is possible to take daguerreotypes of daguerreotypes and make copies that way, which Southworth & Hawes did. However, they also used the term “copying” when taking daguerreotypes of works of art, including sculpture, paintings, drawings, and engravings. See Romer, “‘A High Reputation,’” 34, 50.
39. Ibid., 29.
40. Ibid., 49.
41. Ibid., 34.
42. Ibid., 32-3. Innovation was a constant preoccupation of the partners who were always seeking ways to attract new business.
43. Notably, just above, in a section of the ad entitled “Drapery, Dress and Ornaments,” the term “drapery” is clearly associated with women and children’s dress (as opposed to ornamental drapery often found in the background of nineteenth-century photographs). See “Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms,” 327-8. Moreover, an advertisement from 1843 states that “Mrs. Southworth will wait upon Ladies and assist them in arranging their drapery.” See Romer and Wallis, Young America, 536.
44. See Romer, “‘A High Reputation,’” 49.
45. “United States Patent Office. John A. Whipple, of Boston, Massachusetts. Improvement in Taking Daguerreotype- Pictures,” January 23, 1849, https://patents.google.com/patent/US6056A/en, accessed January 10, 2019.
46. S.D. Humphrey, American Hand Book of The Daguerreotype, 5th ed. (New York: Published by S.D. Humphrey, 1858), 170, https://books.google.ca/books?id=2HtLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA170&dq=crayon+daguerreotypes+samuel+humphrey&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC947OrO3fAhVL6oMKHSbbAdsQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=crayon%20daguerreotypes%20samuel%20humphrey&f=false, accessed January 10, 2019.
47. “Artists’ Daguerreotype Rooms,” 327.
48. It should be noted that many of the Southworth & Hawes daguerreotypes have suffered from a form of damage known as hazing, which also produces a whitish blurry or cloudy effect. For an analysis of the hazing problem, see Mike Robinson and Edward P. Vicenzi, “A Twin Paradox: A Study of Preservation and Disfigurement of Southworth and Hawes Daguerreotypes,” presented at the 2015 PMG Winter Meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a63a84d692ebe91943f2e97/t/5a8d8ef10d9297cc5ffa2f99/1519226619099/TwinParadox_Robinson-Vicenzi.pdf, accessed January 10, 2019. However, in a telephone conversation with Dr. Mike Robinson on May 7, 2019, he clarified that the blurred effect in the daguerreotypes in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 (and the related daguerreotypes in Young America) are in an intentional style referred to as white-on-white vignetting, employed by Southworth & Hawes, and related to, if not derived from, Whipple’s patented technique. He also explained that another method for producing this effect involved the use of cotton balls placed in front of the camera’s lens. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Robinson for taking the time to discuss this matter with me.
49. Albert S. Southworth, “Suggestions to Ladies Who Sit for Daguerreotypes,” http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/spirit_trouts/mnookin/ladies.htm, accessed January 6, 2019. See, for example, Romer and Wallis, Young America, 386-7, Figure 1102, Figure 1104, and Figure 1106.
50. Winterer, Mirror of Antiquity, 3.
51. Ibid., 2.
52. Marcia Pointon, Naked Authority: The Body in Western Painting 1830–1908 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 33.
53. Lessing, “Presiding Divinities,” 81-83.
54. Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood, 1820–1860,” American Quarterly 18 (Summer 1966): 152.
55. Pointon, Naked Authority, 33.
56. Lessing, “Presiding Divinities,” 12-3.
57. Ibid., 111-2. See also Wunder, Hiram Powers, vol. 2, 88-9.
58. Martha Endicott Peabody’s cousin, Antiss Derby Rogers Wetmore, seemingly eschewed any drapery when she sat for Powers as Proserpine. As with the sculptor’s depiction of the mythological figure, her breasts were uncovered in the finished statue. Her portrait bust caused a local scandal upon its delivery from Powers’ Florence studio to the New York home of Wetmore and her husband in 1849. As Richard P. Wunder notes, “Wetmore [Antiss’ husband] was disappointed when he saw it, and a friend of his, William S. Miller, also had similar feelings when he saw the finished bust in the sculptor’s studio. Miller…informed Powers, ‘You have been probably advised of the arrival of the bust of Mrs. W. It is exhibited as it came from the studio, and the Lady (as I think I suggested she would) attempts to release herself from the charge of immodesty in the display of the bosom by stating that [it] was your idea; that you advised the ideal form and finish. There is a good deal of talk about it, and I have not hesitated to say that the whole was her own fancy, and that you seriously regretted having engaged to execute her bust in that style. And, am I right?’ Unfortunately Powers’ answer to that question is not preserved.” The incident serves as a reminder that the “blurred” drapery in Southworth & Hawes’ “Vignettes or Heads Simply” daguerreotypes was an important protective strategy developed by the partners, creating an indefinite but still critical line between nudity and propriety that spared their sitters from similar criticism and shaming. See Wunder, Hiram Powers, vol. 2, 106-7.
59. Philippe Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Richard Bienvenu (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 96-7.
60. Ibid., 98.
61. Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Conquest (New York and London: Routledge, 1995), 97-8.
62. Quoted in Wolfgang Drost, “Colour, Sculpture, Mimesis: A 19th-Century Debate,” in The Colour of Sculpture, ed. Andreas Blühm, (Amsterdam, Leeds, and Zwolle: Van Gogh Museum, Henry Moore Institute, and Waanders Uitgevers, 1998), 62.
63. E. Claire Cage, “The Sartorial Self: Neoclassical Fashion and Gender Identity in France, 1797–1804,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 42 (Winter 2009): 206-7.
64. “Unlike other forms of sculpture or types of art, the medium of white marble was itself inherent to the practice of nineteenth-century neoclassical sculpture. The deliberate whiteness of the marble medium was not of arbitrary significance. Rather, it functioned to mediate the representation of the racialized body in ways that preserved a moral imperative. During the mid-nineteenth century, notable neoclassical sculptors, their patrons and critics openly rejected the aesthetic possibilities of applied and material polychromy as an overly sensual and decorative distraction that detracted from the ‘true’ intention and purpose of sculpture — purity and form.” Charmaine A. Nelson, Representing the Black Female Subject in Western Art (New York and London: Routledge, 2010), 142.
65. Andrew Delbanco, The War Before the War: Fugitive Slaves and the Struggle for America’s Soul from the Revolution to the Civil War (New York: Penguin Press, 2018), 5.
66. Wallis, “Black Bodies,” 44.
67. Nelson, Representing the Female Black Subject, 141.
68. Ibid., 147. Nelson argues that in the colonial context “whiteness, the privileged signifier of race/colour, is not wholly interchangeable with white skin but is dependent upon and bound to the racialization of whiteness. The whiteness of the marble, as deployed within nineteenth-century neoclassical canons, did not directly represent Caucasian skin colour but stood in for that which could not be signified,… too palpable flesh…. But in as much as it signified that which it displaced — flesh — it privileged the European race/colour as the source of the signification and disavowed the possibility of ‘other’ race/colour significations at the level of skin.”