PREFACE:

About 1974 in a Lynchburg, Virginia antique shop, I discovered an extremely early quarter-plate daguerreotype in paper mat and top opening miniature case. Two of three people in the image held their eyes closed as they posed in bright sunlight. The very first portraits required such ocular sacrifice. I knew of only one other extant image with eyes closed from intensity of light (the ninth-plate daguerreotype of Henry Fitz, Jr. in the Smithsonian Institution collection).[1] I read available literature concerning the first portraits and became interested in the complex claims of Alexander S. Wolcott, Robert Cornelius, Professor Samuel F. B. Morse, and Dr. John William Draper.

I early studied Robert Taft's advocacy of Wolcott's claim in Photography and the American Scene.[2] In 1983 I viewed the National Portrait Gallery's exhibit and read with avid interest William Stapp's, Robert Cornelius: Portraits from the Dawn of Photography.[3] I accepted the research and conclusions of these landmark studies, but was personally more interested in the work of John W. Draper. The features of the middle woman in the early quarter-plate daguerreotype were similar enough to the famous Dorothy Catherine Draper daguerreotype, to inspire me to lackadaisical research on Draper which continued intermittently for fifteen years.

In 1989 at the first Daguerreian Society symposium in Rochester, New York, I acquired a ninth-size plate box of early images in a trade. In 1990 my friend Robert acquired a remnant of the Draper family estate.

Information within these two unrelated discoveries was dramatically merged by Robert's insightful observation that the plate-box might contain images related to Draper and Morse. Up to this time we accepted the prevailing consensus that Draper took his first portrait no earlier than December 1839, and thus after Wolcott and Cornelius. This paradigm, established by Taft in 1938, did not appear to explain the existence of the plate-box images. Careful comparison of secondary sources on the history of photography revealed a plethora of conflicting quotations and interpretation. This state of affairs necessitated research in the original sources.

We found mounting evidence that the primary sources could be interpreted very differently than previously. As information accumulated against the paradigm, our only course was to reorganize the facts under a new hypothesis. Our new hypothesis gleaned from primary sources, was that John William Draper performed his portrait experiments using a previously unrecognized sequence of lenses.

Meticulous study convinced us that the images were indeed a lost remnant of Morse and Draper's 1839-40 portrait experiments at New York University. Five years intensive research failed to uncover evidence that disproved this theory. Furthermore, there appeared to be an extant plate in the box corresponding to each of the lenses (except one) used by Draper and Morse. The plate-box may represent a purposely selected sample of their work. It apparently contains enough information to substantiate much that Draper wrote about his portrait accomplishments.

An amateur collector discovering the famous amongst his collection is the great bugaboo of all who hold and acquire daguerreian images. Occasions of faulty "identification" are all too numerous.[4]

Controversy invariably rages whenever such a daguerreotype is brought forward without unshakable proof or provenance, yet trial by skepticism is a healthy process. Focused scrutiny of many people can bring to bear investigative resources impossible for a few people to muster. Sometimes a proof will be unearthed, sometimes a fatal flaw. Even if never proved or disproved, a consensus eventually results. Open consideration of new information and artifacts strengthens historical knowledge. A chance of mistake or oversight must be weighed against the potential gain in studying some of the world's first experimental photographic portraits of the human face. If these plate-box images are truly a remnant of Morse and Draper's work, then they would be important. The "Morse" daguerreotype alone, could be one of the first and aesthetically finest early portraits ever taken. The survival of this image for modern eyes is a priceless gift. The flood of photographically reproduced faces surrounding us today, ensures the first portraits a significant place in the history of human technology.

Of course, theories contained in this work could simply be plain wrong. If the plate-box of early images proves to have no relationship to Morse and Draper, it is hoped that the reader might still appreciate the importance of this study. The images inspired the first perception of Draper's use of a series of lenses, but even when the images are not considered, written sources clearly establish his lens sequence. Regardless of whether the plate-box images are ultimately accepted or rejected as the work of Dr. John William Draper, this study will hopefully instigate a thorough reevaluation of his role in the history of the first experimental portraits of the human face.

The early date and visual nature of the images themselves, open a window into the significant unknown. The opportunity to gaze through that window is the most important consideration. It is not the intention of this work to sully the images with an incumbrance of theories. It is hoped that their uniqueness will inspire those who dismiss the hypotheses, to begin from scratch to explain and interpret this unique grouping of daguerreotypes. Scholarly understanding of the history of photography would be the ultimate gainer.

Sources often erroneously consider the Dorothy Catherine daguerreotype to be Draper's first and finest effort. An earlier article explained how that famous image actually represented the culmination of his earlier and more significant accomplishments.[5]

Another article examined the historical record concerning the question "who took the first portrait"?[6] It incorporated a study of historical disputes about priority. One correspondent whose opinion is highly valued, accurately characterized a congested draft of this article as "flogging a dead horse." Nevertheless, this second article served an important purpose. For over fifty years Robert Taft's hypothesis that Draper took his first portrait only in December 1839 has obscured the Doctor's true accomplishments. The second article attempted to disprove Taft's interpretation using newly uncovered historical evidence, especially concerning the role of William Henry Goode.

The following essay, "Into the Light," considers the real question of interest: What exactly did Draper and Morse accomplish at New York University during the first year of photography? Evidence from primary written sources interwoven with visual information in the plate box images, reveal a story quite different from anything previously published.

The photographic comparison of faces is the best that can be done with inadequate skill and tools presently available. It is hoped that someday, someone with access to greater expertise and resources will embrace this project and discover what further information exists in the fortuitous survival of the plate-box.

With some training in the study of history, I feel reasonably confident correlating Draper's historical description to visual evidence in the plate-box. Unfortunately, the complexities of optics and lens science largely elude me. The plate-box possibly contains a treasure of information for someone truly literate in these subjects. My pronouncements on which lenses took each visible plate-box image represent educated guesses that may or may not hold up under the expert scrutiny this work might hopefully generate.

Appendix 1 of "Into the Light" is an attempt to summarize the information available in each plate. Intended for ease of reference, it recapitulates some of the hypotheses and evidence presented in the essay. In this appendix all plates are pictured, even those without visible images.

The quantity of fresh material uncovered during research for this work suggests that many sources which impact the first American daguerreotypes probably remain undiscovered. A certain saturation point necessitates halting to collate discoveries. Hopefully others will soon dig deeper. So much remains to be clarified.


Last items of information:

--footnotes with content (as opposed to just references to sources)
have an * by the numbered link.

--words that are highlighted in the text are linked to a glossary
(there are no such word links in the footnotes or appendix but the glossary can always be reached from the site map).

--just a friendly WARNING--this investigation is LONG AND INTRICATE and thus will likely task sorely all but the most interested.

--If you make it through the first time, use the SITE MAP to get back around.
Text and digital images copyright � (1999). All rights reserved. Copying or redistribution in any manner is prohibited. Any public or commercial use of these materials without prior written permission is a violation of copyright law.

Enter INTO THE LIGHT