American Historical Ephemera and Early Photography

(New York) ca. March through November, 1840 (gap in dates from March 10- April 16). 8vo. Unpaginated, but approx. 220 pp, in blue, black, or red ink. Manuscript diary of an unidentified traveling portrait artist and daguerreotypist in New York City, as well as the surrounding area. Early leaf inscribed "A Gift of My Friend G.S. Sliveson(?) March 1840." Some pages with words and names scribbled out or redacted, some pages marked "Examined" at bottom margin. Full brown leather, tooled in blind, black morocco spine label stamped "records", boards and extremities worn and rubbed; front and rear prelims featuring elaborate color ink sketches, including men or women in various poses, diagrams of human skulls, some with a phrenological emphasis, the human brain or other body parts, and more, glossed manuscript notes or other observations.

Rare and extensive manuscript diary of an unidentified itinerant portrait artist, and daguerreotypist. Active in the New York City region during the spring of 1840, the author would have been among the earliest to use the daguerreotype method in America, first introduced by Louis-Jacques-Mande Daguerre in 1839.

As Daguerre's process became available to the public in America and around the world, it caused a myriad of artists, chemists, or other amateurs to try their hand at the newfound technology. Itinerant photographers became common in most American cities throughout the 1840s, while the first professional studios began opening in New York City, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., San Francisco, and more. Historian Floyd Rinhart describes that "The spring of 1840 also saw the appearance of the traveling daguerreotypist, a trend which was of great importance in the early days of photography, bringing rural folk the opportunity to have their portraits taken and thus beginning a documentation of exact images of Americans for social history. How many itinerants were on the road or where they traveled remains unknown, although Draper in his July article mentions that the occupation was routine." (The American Daguerreotype, p. 48).

A sketch artist and painter by trade, the diarist writes of taking sittings of numerous people, some whose names have been redacted, and it seems that most if not all of these sittings are sketching or painting sessions for portrait miniatures. He describes "working on," and "coloring" portraits in the evening hours, after the sittings have taken place, and even gives us insight into some feedback he receives from the portrait subjects. In at least one case, the sitter does not find his likeness to be true. In later entries, beginning in the summer of 1840, he writes about trying his hand at daguerreotypes, though most of these appear to be outdoor scenes taken from high vantage points rather than portraits of human subjects. For example, in an entry dated 2 July, he records, "......at 2 went on top of high house to take daguerreotype view with Clirehugh did not succeed." They try again on the 13th with similar results: "Clirehugh tried in vain to take a view with the Daguerreotype." He reports another attempt on the 10th of August, "made one or two unsuccessful attempt with the daguerreotype..." The very next day, undeterred, the diarist reports that he has been "cleaning some plates for daguerreotype views." On the 16th of August, he reports his failure in more detail, having tried "all day to take daguerreotype views but could not succeed by overheating the mercury."

In a very interesting commentary on this new photographic invention, he writes on 17 August: "went out to Prosh's & there saw to my real joy Florsford having an apparatus made for taking likenesses saw one of himself by Cornelius of Philadelphia very powerful little too dark several there having apparatuses made for taking likenesses began to feel a little fearful that this new invention would clash with the interest of miniature painters but upon reflection it cannot clash with mine as I have nothing to do..."

Robert Cornelius (1809-1893) is generally credited with producing the first photographic portrait of a person taken in the United States, being a self portrait he took in 1839. It is very possible that the "one of himself by Cornelius of Philadelphia" refers to this self portrait, which our diarist judges as being a "little too dark."

Even as late as 1 November, our diarist is continuing in his experimentation with the new photographic process, to little avail: "how glorious clear day W C trying to take some daguerreotype views not quite successful..."

Another fascinating subject treated in this diary is the study of phrenology. The diarist records attending a number of meetings of phrenological groups including, on 10 May, a meeting of the Albany Phrenological Society. He records a somewhat humorous interaction that day, in which he had "rare fun in the examination of one gent's amitiveness [sic] which I declared to be rather small. His wife laugh'd so did all but I thought it no laughing mater for a married man." The amativeness, in phrenological studies, refers to an organ or faculty of the brain related responsible for sexual feeling or desire. Having a "rather small" amativeness, then, would have seemed to be a flaw or deficiency in a man.

The diarist uses other terminology specific to the study of phrenology, including, in an entry on 14 May, the following statement: "went to [redacted]'s, as usual studying Phrenology, is of opinion that my Philoprog is defective rising against ill usage." Phrenologically, the "philoprogrenitiveness" refers to the portion of the brain responsible for the love of offspring. Though it is unclear exactly what the diarist's acquaintance meant by declaring his "defective," the usage of the term, and especially the shortened version of it here, shows the familiarity the diarist has with the subject and its many terms and theories.

Many of the illustrations in the front and rear of the diary appear to be related to phrenology, including a profile view of a man's head, with numerous sections labeled with phrenological terms for various brain "organs" and the faculties for which they are responsible including "conforming," "human range," "governing," "establishing," and others. Another page includes highly detailed and beautifully shaded anatomical sketches of the human brain, from a number of angles.

Contextual clues within the manuscript, as well as the diary's location and timeframe suggest its author could possibly be Frederick C. Coombs (1803-1874). Coombs was a phrenologist by trade, but also an author, inventor, and daguerreotypist, operating a photography studio in San Francisco in the 1850s-60s. He was known as eccentric, and often his deeds were satirically reported in local newspapers. He most famously would claim to be George Washington, parading around dressed in costume, studying maps or plotting Revolutionary War battle plans. His behavior even caught the attention of author Mark Twain, who comically described Coombs in an article written for "Alta California" in 1868. Details on Coomb's early life are scarce, and mostly based on his own account. He claimed to have been born in England, but emigrated to America in 1832, spending a few years traveling throughout the country before settling in New York in 1837. Peter E. Palmquist in Pioneer Photographers of the Far West says during this period, Coombs "...not only engaged in the fashionable 'science' of phrenology, but also delved into a variety of electro-mechanical experiments...Sometime between 1842 and 1845, Coombs entered the Daguerrian profession. His earliest known appearance in the trade was in Springfield, Illinois, in 1845..." (p. 181).

In 1841, under the pseudonym George Coombs, he published Notes on the United States of North America During A Phrenological Visit in 1838-9-40, a "scientific" travelogue with illustrations similar in style to those which appear in the present diary. While the published work does not mention capturing daguerreotypes, Coombs discusses in the preface that the work was derived from journals he kept on the road.

Though we cannot confirm the identity of the author of the diary featured here, it is possible that the identity could be ascertained with further research into many of the details included in the descriptive entries featured therein. The diarist comments on innumerable subjects into which he comes into contact either in-person or via newspapers and word-of-mouth reportage including political parties, African Americans, religion (including Mormonism), scientific experiment, literature, national politics, British current events, and many, many more. This diary is truly a trove of mid-19th-century thought and expression, providing insight into the many exciting goings-on in New York and the recent invention of photography.