Familiar features – or just friendly faces?

Photographs of family  – we are fortunate to have them, but sometimes identifying them can be problematic as over time they get labelled, lost, re-labelled and mis-interpreted. I have already written about another photograph that was attributed to family member of the same name but a couple of generations apart.  Can we say with exactitude exactly who these people are? Some of these pictures in this post I have doubts about. The historian in me means I tend to use ‘may’ ‘might’  and ‘possibly’ when describing who the subjects may be.

Another privately published book written about the Lawns (Copper to Quartz, 1999) included a photograph of a Lawn family friend – included because there was a name ‘James Lawn’ written on the back (p52). This photograph came from the collection of a descendant of John Lawn living in Australia. Ironically, as soon as I saw the portrait I immediately identified it as the step-son of my third great grandmother Jane Preshaw, who also lived in the small community of Reefton, New Zealand∗. The photograph – a wedding portrait of Charles Makinson Preshaw and his wife Maria Eliza Coombe (née Kittelty), taken in 1909 – was written on the back ‘James Lawn’ because that is who it was to be sent to.   A lesson for amatuer genealogists (which I learnt from making a similar mistake in another family history) is to always research your images!

Friends – not family? Charlie Preshaw and Maria, Reefton 1909. Copper to Quartz incorrectly supposed that the gentleman, if not James Lawn was ‘George’ Preshaw. Photograph original from E. Torney.

Tempting though it is to see a resemblance, one must look for clues and balance with the documentary evidence to establish whether an image is possibly who it is supposed to be, and if it cannot be extablished with certainty, err on the side of caution.

James Lawn, my great great grandfather and his brothers John, George and Henry Lawn were the sons of James Lawn (1812 – 1884) and Jenifer Webster (1817- 1887). The brothers all came to New Zealand, although George returned to England. James senior and Jenifer married in 1836 in the mining township of Lanner, Cornwall. James (snr) was in turn the son of Timothy Lawn (c1780- 1835) and Grace Whitburn (1780-1852).

There are a couple of pictures supposedly of Grace and one of Timothy (and other family), which should be relatively straight forward to confirm – however, these images have passed to me through the hands of Helen Lawn who was given them by another family member, Ena Boyce. Ena was born Ena Gertrude Lawn, (1909-1977), the grandaughter of Henry Lawn. Ena gave several pictures to Helen and they remain in the Helen Lawn Research (HLR) archive which I digitised. They all appear to be reprints of earlier photographs, judging firstly by the death dates of the subjects, and also by the back-stamp of the photographer, which can be dated.

Photography was invented but not available to the general public mostly until after 1840, so this helps us date the images, which are actually later reprints onto the popular carte-de-visite, probably ordered by Henry Lawn before he left home. James was the first to leave home, to travel to Australian goldfields and then the New Zealand goldfields. He returned to Cornwall at least once, more than likely twice, and again came to New Zealand with his younger brothers and cousins. Henry was recorded at Gwennap in the 1861 census, and he married Harriet Richards in 1868. He then went to work in the mines in Dalton on Furness where his first son Charles was born.

Lawn researcher Andrew Saunders writes: “Henry (1845) arrived in Melbourne from Plymouth on 18 August, 1870 in the vessel  “Hampshire”, and relocated to NZ in January, 1871 in the “Omeo”.  On 14 July, 1873 his wife, Harriet E, and son, Charles H, arrived in Wellington, NZ in the vessel “Halcione” –their name shown as “Laun”. Harriet had been living with her brother in Cornwall in the 1871 English census: William Richards and his wife Rosina were also on the Halcione. Henry and Harriet lived at Blackspoint 1873, then Capelston before finally settling at Te Aroha in the North Island. The reprints of family photographs brought to New Zealand were therefore probably made sometime between 1867 and 1873.

The first image is of Timothy Lawn. Timothy was baptised in Gwennap in May 1780 (he may have been born before this) and was buried in November 1835.  This is before civil registration, (July 1837) so all verifying documentation relies on parish records, or legal documents such wills or court records.

Is this “Timothy” Lawn or “William”?

Helen Lawn wrote the details on the back. You can see that someone originally labelled this ‘William’ in pencil. William Lawn was Timothy’s father, and died in 1811 so this cannot possibly be William Lawn. HLR

The next image is supposed to be Timothy’s wife,  Grace Lawn née Whitburn (1780-1852). Unfortunately the large cloak swathing the woman in this and the next image obscures the most accurate dating device, her clothing: necklines, sleeves and waist-lines are quite useful to pin-point dates within a couple of years. The coal-scuttle bonnet with its tight frill inside the brim worn here is an old-fashioned style which was out of fashion in the big cities, but still favoured by women in Cornwall in the mid-19th Century. Certainly, in both images there are similar styles evident: bonnet, leather gloves, cloak, as well as the subject’s piercing blue eyes. But are they the same person?

“Grace Lawn” nee Whitburn taken after 1840 (original may have been a Daguerrotype). If this is Grace (who was born in 1780) she would have been aged around 60 years in 1840; this image looks to be of a younger woman.  HLR

Rear of the early image of Grace, showing the backstamp dates after 1867, and Helen’s notes in ballpoint pen. Note the question mark – this photograph may not be who it seems.

“Grace Lawn” nee Whitburn 1780 – 1852.  This image is more likely to be accurately labeled, although like the one above it has been reprinted as a carte-de-visite and dates from after 1867. The plinth looks to be  similar – but not exactly the same as in the previous photograph. HLR

Identical backstamp shows these two images were almost certainly printed at the same time.

So if these two women are not the same, who might they be? Grace and Timothy had a daughter, also Grace, born in 1805, who married Benjamin Smith in 1828 so they may be mother and daughter – this does not explain why the younger version was reprinted and came to New Zealand in the 1870s.

The next image is supposed of James Lawn (senior) (1812-1884) – but even this is possibly not correct – note the pencil underneath Helen’s ballpoint, and compare to later images.

‘James Lawn’ 1812-1884. HLR

Note ‘Timothy’ written in pencil underneath ‘James Lawn’ HLR

Now we look at James’ wife, Jenifer Ann (1817-1877) (Baptised and in 1881 census as “Jenifer” but married and in all other census as “Jane”). Here we can date her photograph from her dress to about 1869-1870, although older women did not always wear up-to-date fashion.

‘Jennifer Ann Webster’. HLR

But then, let us compare this ‘James’ and ‘Jennifer’ with another photograph, this time from the collection of Peter Lawn in Reefton, son of the late Bob and Lawn and great-grandson of John Lawn (1840 – 1905). This is supposed to be a marriage portrait, but as the couple married in 1836, predating photography, it was taken later. This photograph is interesting for a couple of reasons: the long exposure time of the early photographs can be seen because James moved his hand and gave himself extra fingers! He also seems to be wearing an oddly fitting jacket, with the sleeves too long. Both seem to be wearing their ‘Sunday best’, if not new clothes. Although it is documented that photographers sometimes had a wardrobe of clothing for sitters to wear in the studio, there can be no knowing if this was the case in this isnstance.

James and Jenifer Lawn, c1840-1850. Original held by Peter Lawn

Here are the two James together: The ‘younger’ James, on the right has drooping eyelids, which the ‘older’ James on the left, does not and the younger James mouth seems to be wider – or perhaps it is just the lighting in the studio? Other features to compare/contrast in identifying portraits are: length of top lip, distance between irises, length and breadth of nose, size and shape of ears (obscured here), eyebrows, hairline, jawline. The nose and ears actually continue to grow over time, so must be considered carefully. These two are similar enough to be related, but maybe not enough to be the same person.

Another image, a family group, which was taken before 1879 is of James and Jenifer, and their two youngest children: Arthur (1857-1879) and Sarah Ann (1862-1951).  Did James grow a long beard between 1879 and the photograph above left taken before his death in April 1884?

Lawn Family, before April 1879. HLR.

Looking, and the more you look the more you see. I always remember meeting a Lawn cousin for the first time – looking across a room and seeing a familiar face although we had never met, and that jolt of knowing long before I made my way around the room and read the name-tag. We search photographs for those same familiar traits and feel triumphant when we identify something we can call ‘ours’ – ‘family’.

But always be aware of what you want to see. It is a human trait to seek familiar recognition in the patterns around us, so much so that we see ‘human’ features in clouds and cracks in the pavement, even cast in stone!

And dont always believe what is written on the back of photographs, particularly in ballpoint pen!

∗There is a connection to the Lawn family of the people in this photograph in the convoluted nature of small West Coast communities where everyone knew, was related to, or married everyone else:

• the grandson of Jane Preshaw, my great grandfather Henry David Evans married Eva Lillian Lawn in 1907, and
• her brother Herbert Lawn married Maria’s niece, Alice Kittelty in 1915.
• Maria Eliza Coombe, née Kittelty’s first husband Joseph Knight Coombe was the brother of Mary Elizabeth Coombe, who married John Lawn in Australia in 1873.

A family likeness

On the 177th anniversary of the invention of photography, it seems an appropriate time to post an image that brought me face to face with a Hart ancestor and at the same time this is an opportunity to introduce the other side of the family that forms the basis of To Live a Long and Prosperous Life: the Harts from London.

A Victorian invention – photography and self-image

Photography was the social media of the time: people used small carte-de-visite as a calling card, larger cabinet cards were exchanged with family and many mounted their collections in albums. Soon photographs were printed as postcards, as many used their latest studio portraits to send by post to friends and family – an in the case of our ancestors, across the globe to family back ‘home’.

Photography had first been attempted in the early years of the nineteenth century; however two methods were developed about the same time, in both France and England, around 1840. Louis Daguerre developed the daguerreotype process using chemicals and glass. This was the first process to be announced, but at the same time Henry Fox Talbot was working with the calotype which used paper for a negative. From then on, photographic processes improved and portraiture was available for anyone who could afford the fee, which soon became within reach of many.

The daguerreotype was one of the earliest forms of commercial photography. A negative image on glass, they were typically mounted in an oval, circular or arched frame on a dark background so the image showed positive. They were encased in ornate hinged, velvet-lined pressed metal or leather cases. They were expensive, and fragile.

 

An example of the daguerreotype

Tin-types, images developed on thin metal plates were produced for a longer period in USA than in Britain, but were soon superseded by the glass negative and paper print mounted on card. Later, paper prints from negatives were cheaper and many copies could be made from the one negative. Copies were also soon able to be made of older forms of photographs.

 Within a few short years photography was available in cities and towns, and taken up as a hobby by those who had time and money to afford the cameras, chemicals and the darkroom necessary for developing.

Lenses and bellows, chemicals and glass: here was alchemy for the masses! The photograph took the world and reflected it back as it hadn’t been seen before, captured forever in time. The raw images of themselves shocked many Victorians, and it wasn’t long before they evolved ways of posing and staging photographs to make their ‘likenesses’ more appropriate to their sensibilities. Fabulous studios with velvet drapes, columns and urns and classical painted backdrops, suitable props and even clothes to hire created the illusion of photography as fine art: a portrait taken to show status, record important social events; a marriage, a new child, a family gathering, or family parting, retirement, and even death.

 Places as well as people were subjects: in 1854 the Crystal palace was disassembled and moved to it’s new site, all recorded with the camera; the photographs were later published in a book. In the same year the Crimean War was also documented in photographs, although exposure times meant that action was not ‘caught’.

Identifying Eleazer

A descendant of Philip Hart (1824-1903) in USA found this photograph. Labelled ‘Eleazer’, over the years it has been assumed this was Philip Hart’s son Eleazer P. Hart (1851-1928). The copy of the picture reproduced here came to the author labelled ‘Eleazer/Elby/Elly Hart c1890s’.

Eleazer Hart c 1855

But who is this gentleman? The subject of this photograph is not that of Philip’s son Alexander ‘Elby’ Hart but almost certainly that of Philip’s father Eleazer Hart (1787-1857). The image was probably taken about 1855, most likely around the time he went to live in Portsea, Hampshire. The identification of photographs are based upon both the type of image and of the subject. The physical appearance; (size, mount, maker’s mark or stamps on the bottom or back) and the subject of the photograph itself; the clothes they are wearing, hair (and beard) styles, and background details.

 The above photograph appears to have been previously inserted in a round frame, suggesting it may be a copy of a daguerreotype, or possibly a tintype. Without seeing the original and its mount it is hard to be certain. The clothing is that of a much earlier period than the 1890s: the wide soft neck tie and standing collar suggests those worn in the first half of the nineteenth century. The satin waistcoat and the broad shoulders suggest the cut of a frock coat. The clothing and the pose match those in the description and photograph of an ‘unknown gentleman’ by Horne & Thornthwaite (photographers) which is dated about 1850.

Photograph of unidentified sitter by Horne & Thornthwaite, about 1850. Victoria and Albert Museum no. PH.151-1982

Aside from technical clues that help us date this image, there are other clues in the features of this gentleman that may or may not point to our relationship with him: the arch of eyebrows, the nose, or chin, the rounded head, something about the eyes . . . People have an ability to ascribe ‘recognition’ to photographs and paintings, seeing what they want to see whether there is actually a direct relationship or not. Modern genetics can only tell part of the story—were this gentleman’s DNA available we might be a little closer. So we are left with an image of a solid, prosperous gentleman, who may just be Eleazer Hart.

---

Eleazer HART (Eliezer ben Yehuda  Ha’Cohen) 1787 – 1857 was my  My great-great-great-great grandfather and the father of Dinah Nathan’s husband Nathaniel Hart. The Hebrew אֱלִיעֶזֶר (‘Eli’ezer pronounced Ali-ay-zer) means “my God is help”.

Eleazer  was born and grew up in Tottenham, then a leafy village in the country five miles from London. His father Judah HART had a second-hand clothes shop there. In 1819 Eleazer Hart married Sarah Levy,  at the New Synagogue, London.  The same year Eleazer went into business on his own account as a Rag Merchant. This eventually made him a wealthy man; on retirement he owned many properties and styled himself ‘Gentleman’. The rag trade was hugely profitable in Victorian times as there was  a demand for cotton rag for  papermaking, as well as lint and lagging used for machinery in factories; on the railway and steamships. The family lived and  worked at 20 White Lion Street (now Folgate Street),  in the Spitalfields of London.

Eleazer and Sarah Hart had nine children, two of whom later immigrated to New Zealand.  Their daughter Julia Metz née Hart arrived  in Dunedin with her family in the 1870s. At least three of her children; Eleazer, Sarah, Benjamin and Zimler Metz later lived in Timaru for a time and were instrumental in the building of the Jewish Synagogue in Bank Street. To sons, Philip and  Alexander immigrated to USA and one of them took with him this photograph as a keepsake.

Eleazer’s son Nathaniel Hart, his wife Dinah née Nathan and family immigrated to New Zealand on the Zealandia arriving at Lyttelton in 1865, later settling on the West Coast.  They were my 3x great-grandparents. Two of their three daughters married the Lawn cousins, miners from Cornwall. I descend from Eleazer’s granddaughter Rachel Elizabeth Hart and her husband  James Lawn.

(Excerpts in this post from pp 92-9 To Live a Long & Prosperous life)