Having unexpectantly and unwanted achieved old age, dating is not a pursuit that features greatly in my life. I prefer more leisurely diversions such as the subject of this blog – dating the oldest photograph (not something that I ever thought I would aspire to). I am also an armchair historian of popular topics and do not submerge myself in the dusty bowels of archives. My tools are limited to my inquisitive mind and interpretive skills and reviewing easily accessible books not to mention leaning on my older brother, Dean, for backup as younger siblings tend to do.

[Disclaimer: I must make absolutely clear that it is with no sense of superiority do I dismiss some of the dates given by Redgrave, Lorimer and Harradine. It is rather a case that I stand on the shoulders of giants, particularly in the case of the latter. Also in the days that their books were written, they did not have sophisticated word processors and the ability to print drafts at their desks or perform computer searches.]

What triggered this blog was rereading my brother’s blog (ref 1) on the earliest photograph and photographers. In it he presents an early morning photograph looking over Market Square and down Main Street, probably referred to as High Street in those days, and he states that it is the oldest photograph (below) and taken in c1858.

Before we analyse whether it is the oldest photograph and when it was taken, perhaps we should look at the state of photography around that period and in Port Elizabeth.

What we do know is that a certain Monsieur Jules Léger took the opportunity while his ship was anchored in Algoa Bay to introduce the fair citizens of Little Bess to the technological marvel of Daguerreotype likenesses. This was 14 October. He set up his studio in Mr W Ring’s stationers and bookbinding premises in Jetty Street and his first advert was printed in the Eastern Province Herald of 17 October 1946. He offered Daguerreotype likenesses for £1, including the glass and frame, for a I minute sitting.

We must presume that he was successful and took some photographs but none are known to have survived. Also the complicated Daguerreotype process is more suited to studio portraiture than fieldwork and it is therefore unlikely that he took any photographs of Little Bess herself. In any case, they soon left Port Elizabeth to ply their trade in Grahamstown. Ring returned later but finally left Port Elizabeth in July 1850 and the photograph in question is definitely after that date.

The Daguerreotype technique was problematical as it produced a positive image (black is black and white is white) on a metal plate. The only way to make copies was to rephotograph it.

In 1849 a Henry Talbot patented a new technique, the calotype process, using paper coated with silver chloride which produced a negative image. This allowed unlimited copies to be made using a simple paper process to make contact prints. The earliest record of this process dates back to 1854 when Oliver Lester used it in his Jetty Street studio (ref 2). Being patented though, the process was expensive.

The wet-plate collodion process had been invented in 1851 and for the next almost 50 years became a popular choice for professional and amateur photographers. The process was a lot less expensive than the daguerreotype and more immediate, with exceptional detail and contrast.

Another early photographer was James Bruton who operated from a studio in Jetty Street from 1859 to 1874. Redgrave (ref 3) states that “to him history is indebted for some of the finest reproductions of the old town of Port Elizabeth.” It is likely that Bruton used the wet-plate collodion process.

Back to the photograph in question.
In the frontispiece of Redgrave’s book, he publishes a painting of that photograph and dates it as 1858.

Lorimer gives the date in her book, Panorama of Port Elizabeth, as c1854.

The following photograph was printed on pg 107 of HCWC (Hills Covered With Cottages, ref 4) The eagled-eyed will note that it is none other than the right side of the photograph in question. Harradine pegs the date as c1851.

The next two photographs are from HCWC, pg88 and pg110 and are the left-hand side of the photograph in question and the dates given are c1855 and c1853 respectively.

Outer bounds of the date
First is to establish the outer bounds of the date. On the early side, we see the New Church on the left-hand side of Main Street in the distance. It was inaugurated on 25 July 1852 which gives a hard lower bound. Secondly, the elevated angle of the perspective indicates that it must have been taken from the Town Hall, either from the scaffolding during construction or after its completion. The foundation stone was laid on 19 October 1858 so the earliest the photograph could have been was perhaps mid to late 1859. It was suggested by someone that perhaps it was taken from the wall of the Commissariat but that would be too far back to give the high elevation angle.

The next is to establish the latest possible date. For this we must look to the St Mary’s church. In conventional church architecture at the time, the nave (where the congregation sits) was orientated east-west with the sanctuary (area around the altar) on the eastern side so that the congregation pray to the east to witness the 2nd coming of Jesus I presume. The Rev McCleland under whose watch the church was built, was cut from an unconventional fabric. He argued that since we were in the southern hemisphere, Jerusalem was to the north and hence the nave should be aligned north-south with the altar to the north so that the congregation prayed facing Jerusalem. And so it was built.

As an aside – us old folks tend to ramble – the congregation had other issues with its construction. The first were the red tiles. They were far too happy. Too Spanish. The congregation hated them. They preferred the dour slate tiles of their Norman churches back home. Within a scant few years of the church being completed, the “hideous red tiles” were replaced. They also didn’t like the building’s shape. It was a squat and slightly off square. It had no elegance and, more important, it didn’t aspire to a spire. Well it got a dumpy construction with no pointy bits in 1847. Nothing to set the world of ecclesiastical architecture ablaze. It also didn’t have a transcept – that’s a crossing piece which makes the church look like a cross when seen from above. If the assumption that the photo was taken from the Town Hall and not using a long ladder or a humungous ‘selfie stick’, we must look at the dates of the Town Hall construction. Its foundation stone was only laid on 18 October 1858 so the date of the photo is likely to be 1858 or later.

The critical factor that can be used to set the upper bound on the photograph’s date is to look at the church and the status of the all-important alteration to change the nave’s axis and, in so doing, create a transcept – a satisfying cruciform structure for Christians. Bowler’s painting of 1864 shows what we are looking for.

Thomas Bowler’s 1864 painting of Market Square/Main Street showing the new cross shape of the church with the sanctuary overlooking Main Street. Margaret Harradine provides more detail. She states that the Telegraph reported that the church’s alterations were in hand on 19 April 1860 and almost complete in September 1860. This all pegs the date to a tight range of enough time after October 1858 to get the Town Hall building works beyond the ground works stage and to the point that scaffolding is required – so let’s say early-ish 1859 at the earliest. Since there is not the least sign in the photo of preparations for the alteration of the church, it must be quite a bit before April 1860. I won’t die on a hill for this but my best guess is mid-1859. I will also venture that it is likely that James Bruton was the photographer.

There we have it. As you can see dating for seniors involves a long process and a fond looking back at the past.

References:

1. Port Elizabeth of Yore: The Earliest Photographs & Photographers, Dean McCleland, thecasualobserver.co.za
2. Silver Images: History of Photography in Africa, Dr A.D. Bensusan
3. Port Elizabeth in Bygone Days, J.J. Redgrave, 1947
4. Hills Covered with Cottages, Margaret Harradine, 2nd ed., 2010
5. Port Elizabeth – A Social Chronicle to the End of 1945, Margaret Harradine, 3 rd ed, 2002