>Previously unknown photograph of Joshua L. Chamberlain? Part II

Posted by Jessica Jewett 3 Comments »

>

Yesterday I made my case for proving that this handsome bearded fellow on the left is actually a previously unknown photograph of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Before you read this blog, you need to go read yesterday’s blog by clicking here.

Go on. I’ll wait.

Insert elevator music here.

Done? Pretty convincing, right? It wasn’t quite enough for me even with all the facial matching and possible documentation that I was able to show all of you. After I posted yesterday’s blog, a few people told me that the police use ears to identify people sometimes because our ears are almost as unique as fingerprints. So I went digging again to find pictures of Lawrence in which his ear wasn’t too covered up by his hair and at the same angle as this mystery fellow. I found this picture for comparison:

He certainly liked having his picture made at that profile angle or maybe the photographers thought he looked best from that angle. I’m not sure. The fact that there are so many profile or three-quarter profile photographs from that specific angle should possibly even be taken into consideration as proof that this bearded man is probably Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. So my next step was to cut out the ears from the bearded man and the known photograph of Lawrence. Here is how they looked side by side:

Strikingly similar, in my opinion. The ear on the right appears to come to a point but in other pictures of Lawrence, that point is actually rounded like the bearded man’s ear on the left. I decided to try and do the overlap comparison like I did yesterday to see how similar or how different the ears were. These were the results of my overlap comparison:

 
 

Despite the comparison photograph of Lawrence making the bottom of his earlobe look pointed, the size and features of both of the earlobes are the same. The trouble with trying to identify a person through nineteenth century photographs is that the photographs are going to be blurry and out of focus sometimes. Tricks of the light can actually make the same person look totally different in various photographs. Here are two photographs below that show Lawrence’s earlobe as being rounded at the bottom, to dispel any possible doubts.

In my opinion, the ears are too close to matching to say it’s just a coincidence, especially when you add everything else from yesterday’s blog to the case. Of course, I will never be able to say for certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bearded man is Lawrence without a historical smoking gun like a letter or something that specifically says, “I had my picture made today and my beard looked especially bushy,” or something to that effect. Regardless, the bearded man fought in the Civil War. I will give him a good home among my other Civil War artifacts whether he is historically proven to be Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain or not. That’s just what I do.

What do YOU think? Is there enough evidence to say the bearded man is Lawrence?

Read More

>Previously unknown photograph of Joshua L. Chamberlain?

Posted by Jessica Jewett 3 Comments »

>

The other day, I got my emails from eBay with new items in the categories that I regularly watch. I looked through the new listings in antique clothing and then I moved on to the new listings in the “Joshua Chamberlain” search. This bearded fellow on the left caught my eye and the listing theorized that he was Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain but there was no proof. I consider myself to be an expert on the Chamberlains, even outside of my past life as Lawrence’s wife, so my immediate reaction was to think the seller was trying to scam unsuspecting Chamberlain-lovers. I don’t tolerate scams. I clicked on the auction with every intention of proving that this bearded fellow was not my former husband because between the Pejepscot Historical Society, Bowdoin College and a handful of other sources, I assumed that we already have every known photograph of this man.

My initial reaction was no, this was not him. As I was about to click away from the auction, something about the eyes drew me back in for a closer look. Then, something about his unique heart-shaped mouth made me wonder, “Could this be possible?” In the interest of full honesty, I started feeling physically sick to my stomach, my forehead became damp with a cold sweat, and my hands began to shake. I prefer to stay on the logical side, though, so an emotional reaction to an image is not enough for me. I need more concrete proof. I lifted the picture from the eBay page and fed it to my graphics program. Then I went into my stockpile of known photographs of Lawrence and began painstakingly comparing feature by feature. This was my first comparison.

These images are at different angles and are three years, two promotions and one near-fatal wound apart. I noticed that the noses are rather similar but the differences in angles and differences in facial hair were throwing me off and I was not yet willing to say that the bearded fellow was or was not Lawrence. I knew I had seen him photographed at that angle before, though, so I searched through my computer files again and came across a photograph taken at the end of the war by Matthew Brady.

I cut out the face in the Brady image and resized it to be compared to the face in the bearded picture. The result was more convincing than I expected. Again, the shape of the nose appeared almost identical between photographs. With the Brady image, however, there is a striking resemblance between the two sets of eyes. In the Brady image, Lawrence is looking upward, while in the bearded image, the man is looking straight ahead, but that does not diminish the fact that the eye color is the same shade and the general shape of the eyes and the way the eyebrows fall are the same. If you look at the cheekbones next, they appear to be the same shape and the texture of the skin, although difficult to see in old images, is strikingly similar. The last thing I noticed was the line of his mustache. It starts at the nose in both images, drops down a bit, and goes outward over the upper lip.

I remembered that when I watched the show in which they did facial recognition in the case of Jeffrey Keene and John Brown Gordon, they overlapped the images to see how they matched. I decided to try it in this case even though the images are slightly different in angle and age. What I found shocked even me.

Everything matched. Granted, all human faces look alike to a degree, but the profile matching at such an exact way is pretty convincing in itself.

Matching up facial features is never enough though. There should be historical documentation in order to back up the theory that this bearded man is indeed Joshua L. Chamberlain. It occurred to me that I had read in one of Lawrence’s biographies that he had entered the war with a beard as opposed to the infamous drooping mustache that we all know and love. I don’t remember if it was in Fanny & Joshua or In the Hands of Providence but I seem to remember reading a quote from one of his letters not long after he entered active duty in which he described how he had changed his facial hair. I need to find this quote but my life is still in disarray from the Atlanta flooding and my books are still in storage.

The bearded man is ranked at lieutenant colonel from what I can see. Lawrence was commissioned by Governor Washburn in 1862 as lieutenant colonel of the 20th Maine under Colonel Adelbert Ames. He was not promoted to colonel until just before Gettysburg when Ames left the 20th for his own promotion. So if we have documentation that Lieutenant Colonel Chamberlain was bearded at the beginning of his service in the war effort, the bearded man is a lieutenant colonel, and the photographs are nearly identical in comparison, then that is quite a lot of evidence to support the theory that this man is in fact Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

Of course I can’t tell if this photograph is totally unknown either. There is no marking on the back, which tells me that it is probably a copy of the original CDV (photograph on a cardboard card). I do know that this photograph is unknown to me. I have had the pleasure of going through Chamberlain files at the Pejepscot Historical Society, Bowdoin College and the Maine Historical Society. I have never seen this image in any file, display or reprinted in any book. I’m fairly certain I stumbled onto something the “experts” have not seen yet. The auction was pulled down by eBay because the seller could not prove the photograph was actually Lawrence, so I wrote to the seller privately and we struck a deal. I paid for it and it’s on its way to my house as I write this, supposing it was mailed today as the seller said it would be. You never know how life might delay something.

At any rate, this photograph is now mine, as in I better not see anybody using it without my permission. There is no way to prove without absolute certainty that this bearded man is Lawrence but the evidence I have amassed shows a strong case for proving that it is him. I believe my photograph pre-dates all known war portraits of Lawrence because of the rank and beard, which I suppose is historically significant. I didn’t want it for history. I wanted it because it was probably my only chance to own a photograph of a man who was once my husband. I won’t stop holding my breath until the package comes in the mail but I have paid for it and the deal was struck, so I consider the image mine at this point.

As an aside, I also got three more Chamberlain family letter covers. They go for pretty cheap, so I try to rescue as many as I can. I think I’m up to about 17 letter covers or so, some that I have traced in origins and that have told me new and interesting things that books have not. I have a new mystery to trace with the first letter cover in these three, from E. F. Brown Jeweler in Brunswick, Maine, to Mrs. J. L. Chamberlain. Here are the newest letter covers in my collection.

As another aside, a different image of Lawrence turned up on eBay as well. It was part of an album and his autograph was on the opposite page from the photograph. I don’t think I have seen this angle before but I’m fairly certain this is an image from a known sitting done around 1873, after he was Governor of Maine. I didn’t try to win this auction, though. I don’t stand a chance of winning his auctions when his autograph is involved because it’s worth so much money.

Read More

>Married to a Victorian man: Part II

Posted by Jessica Jewett No Comments »

>I pulled this blog from my old blog. It was originally posted on August 30, 2009.

Not everything was sweet and romantic, though. Lawrence had an intense dark side and I did too. No relationship is perfect, even if you are cut from the same cloth. We both suffered from bouts of depression throughout our lives before and after we were together, before depression as a concept was understood. I once wrote to him before we were married that I wished I had never been born, to which he replied to the effect of, “If you knew how much I loved you, you would never say that you wished you were never born.” I referenced “those morbid states of feeling” to which Lawrence “often fell” numerous times. We seemed to pull each other out of it when it was necessary but our frequent separations made it worse.

In today’s terms, he would have been considered a child raised by an abusive father. He was also extremely sheltered as a boy. His mother didn’t allow him to read any poetry, novels or anything that weren’t deeply religious in nature, so he wasn’t exposed to things like Lord Byron until he was in college. When he started college, he was socially awkward, he was very shy and he had a serious stuttering problem. It was a disability, despite his genius. To get over the stuttering, he began singing and went on to become a famous orator and a talented singer. His voice was a smooth baritone and music was how we bonded a lot. I was a professionally trained singer, musician and performer. He was self-taught but his raw talent allowed him to keep up with me. We spent a lot of time singing together, he played bass viol, I played piano, and the music allowed us a way to say things to each other that we couldn’t ordinarily say. In all of our differences, music was like speaking the same language.

The early signs of his dark side manifested as jealousy. He called jealousy his “demon” and it almost killed our relationship before it began. For him, seeing me was love at first sight. I had a reputation as a flirt and I floated around seeing several men at the same time. At one point, I was seeing both Lawrence and his college friend, Samuel. I had no intention of settling down with one man but Lawrence was so certain and so ardent in his love for me that seeing me around other men drove him crazy. I admit, some of it was intentional. I admired him and respected him so much that I couldn’t figure out how seeing me on the street with another man could make him so unglued. In times when we argued about other things, I made sure he saw me out with one of his friends just to prove my point that I was not going to be controlled and me deciding to see him was my choice and my choice alone. Early on, we could get so angry at each other about the stupidest things and then do things just to prove points to the other. We could have intense arguments, followed by intense making up. That was just part of the dynamic of our entire marriage, although his jealousy cooled after we started having children. Admittedly, I tortured him early on. I’m not sure why. Maybe I was trying to push him away or see how deep he really cared, if he would stand by me no matter what I did. He never gave up, even when the things I did made him write things like this:

I could not bear to come away from you tonight and not have you speak to me … not to the silly clown that I seem, but to the heart dark and dead within me. It cannot be dead for it would be still and there is no rest for it now. What am I living for and what am I doing. Will I not be driven mad. I turned away before you should see my tears, for I am sick of weak tears and I could not stay for it would trouble you. Is it enough that I am full of such furious agonies, that I can only smile like a driveling idiot, to save myself from being a maniac. I am tempted and tormented by the old adversary, clutching at my heart and torturing it, murdering it and glorying over it with a devilish grimace. Why do I have a super natural impulse to read the minutest action and word, and contend with most powerful imaginings of my own fancy. I see with grief how you have to sacrifice to my unreasonable demands and I see how you try to be too cheerful in company when I am looking at you. Try not to satisfy me, for I am all unreasonable, but I require of you all that I would give you and can give you myself, and thank heavens, you do not know how much that is. I do not want you to try, for I do not have to try, for I feel always and everywhere the same to you. I am ready to show you how tenderly I care for you, but I know you would not like that, and you are right. Believing you do not understand me is the most charitable belief I can have, and I cling to the hope that at some time you will see but one single glimpse of me and know me. If I had not seen you that night, I would have spoken tenderly, and would not have suffered the demon to speak. If you could only have… but then it was I who let you go away as if you were nobody to me. I cling to you with the eager grasp of a sinking man, so earnestly hoping that you might only kiss me. Am I mad. What am I saying? Must I bear it long? It may be soon that the last dagger may be driven. How strange it will be to be at peace.

Long term separation during our engagement left Lawrence so lonely, stressed out and depressed that he unintentionally allowed another woman to fall in love with him. He had planned to try to finish four years of seminary school in two years so that we could get married sooner but he basically ran himself into the ground. He was also a man who didn’t function well unless he had someone around him loving him and offering support. Enter his cousin, Annie. In those days, cousins getting together was not the taboo that it is today. Since I was a thousand miles away in Georgia teaching music at a girls school, I don’t really know what happened.

Historical evidence shows that Annie fell in love with Lawrence to the point of being an unhealthy, obsessive love. On his end, it seems that he didn’t grasp what was going on until it all blew up in his face. I don’t think he was completely innocent though because there is a letter in which he wrote to me about being sick in bed all that day, while his journal of the same date shows that he was out sledding with Annie. Her father found letters that were unsettling and an entire branch of the family stopped speaking to Lawrence because of it. Annie was forbidden from seeing him again and she was shipped away to live in another state. When Lawrence wrote to her to effectively end whatever was going on, she became furious. I think she wanted him to fight her father on it and I think she wanted him to proclaim love for her, which he never did. I don’t think Annie ever really got over him. I think Lawrence unintentionally led her on in his need for female companionship.

Despite the bumps in the road, we managed to overcome all of it and get married. Typically, women were married at that time between 17 and 21 while men were older, like between 25 and 35. Lawrence was 27 when we got married and I was 30. We were never a typical couple. We were married by my father, a minister, on December 7, 1855, at 4:30 in the afternoon, which, again, was not typical.

Most weddings in the early-Victorian period happened early in the morning, followed by a wedding breakfast/lunch at the bride’s family’s home. It was Queen Victoria who brought white wedding dresses into fashion in the 1830s but most brides were still wearing whatever they wanted in the 1850s and 1860s. Most brides wore their Sunday church dress as their wedding dress, or they had a new dress made in any manner of color. Dancing was frowned upon and alcohol was illegal in Maine, so the wedding breakfasts/lunches were based around a lot of food, socializing, etc. There was no entertainment because it was considered the high privilege of attending the wedding itself. In those days, it really was just about the bride, groom and the marriage. A corner of the room was decorated where the bride sat with the groom and each guest had to come and pay their respects. Saying congratulations was strictly reserved for the groom, while “best wishes” were offered to the bride. Only the groom got congratulated because it was implied that the honor was given to the bride by marrying her.

Food for a winter wedding would have been some type of fowl like turkey, fish, soup, probably cranberries, potatoes, nuts, sweets, “chocolate” which we call hot chocolate now (it was a luxury then), probably some type of ice (ice cream), etc. There would have been three wedding cakes. One was made of dark, rich fruitcake with white frosting decorated in ornate scrolls and orange blossoms to go with the ones in the bride’s hair. Orange blossoms symbolized purity and fertility. Then there was a smaller, simpler white cake made to represent the bride and a smaller, simpler dark cake to represent the groom. Pieces of cake were boxed up and handed out to guests as they left the wedding breakfast/lunch. The top of the cake was saved for the bride and groom for their 25th wedding anniversary.

Typically, the newlyweds would leave for their honeymoon immediately after the wedding breakfast/lunch. Only the best man was allowed to know where they were going, as it was considered rude for others to ask and the best man typically took care of all the arrangements. Wealthy people took fashionable trips to Europe for months, while poorer people went to borrowed cottages or the city just to have some time alone together. Since Lawrence and I got married so late in the day, we couldn’t leave until the next morning. So we spent our wedding night in my father’s house, in the room where I grew up. For the honeymoon, we went up north to Brewer to his family farm and spent several weeks there. Literally, within a month of being married, I was pregnant.

While Lawrence and I were deeply in love and we respected each other as individuals, we did not have an easy marriage. Like any modern couple, we never had enough money for the babies we had, Lawrence had to work a lot to make ends meet, it took us a few years to be able to afford a home of our own, etc. Neither one of our families wanted us to see each other or be married. His father didn’t like me and my father didn’t like me. Eventually our families resigned themselves to the fact that we were not going to give each other up.

We had four babies between 1856 and 1860. Grace, a son (officially unnamed but I’ve always said George), Wyllys and Emily. I gave up my entire life as a performer and an artist to be a mother, despite my initial reservations about it. George was three months premature and he only lived a few hours. Emily died before she was a year old in a scarlet fever epidemic. There is no way to describe the deaths of your own children, so I’m not even going to try. I do remember a little of the aftermath of each child’s death. We lost a third baby, Gertrude, to scarlet fever again in 1865. Even the strongest marriage will be tested and stretched to its limits with the grief and blame that comes with the death of a child. Death was an everyday fact of life in those days but I get really angry when historians sort of brush it off when it comes to the grieving parents endured. It doesn’t matter how high the child mortality rate is. When you hold your dead child in your arms, someone could rip your heart out of your chest and it wouldn’t even come close to the pain. Lawrence was a very hands-on father, not afraid to change diapers or play with the babies, so he took the deaths very hard. He wanted to be a father more than I wanted to be a mother. I don’t think I ever really let go of the guilt, thinking my early distaste for motherhood made God punish me by taking away three out of five of my children.

Pregnancy and childbirth in the nineteenth century were almost never referenced in positive terms. When a woman was pregnant, it was talked about within the family as being “ill” or “sick.” Before we were married, I had written to Lawrence saying that I expected to be sick again before the summer was over. He told his little brother, Tom (who was a child, like 15, I think), not thinking anything of it, so Tom went and told their mother (in front of a bunch of women) that, “Fanny expects to be sick soon!” Mother Chamberlain looked at Lawrence and said, “So Fanny expects to be sick, does she?” and Lawrence quipped something to the effect of, “Well, if she does, it isn’t on *my* account,” and everyone had a good laugh over it. There was not much to laugh about when it came to pregnancy and childbirth though. It was very difficult without modern medical care. Most women gave birth at home without doctors but with the help of other women in the neighborhood who had already gone through childbirth. I had a doctor but it didn’t save me from complication. I had a staph infection for months after my first baby was born, probably acquired during her birth.

Preparing for a baby involved sewing or buying all the necessary clothing and blankets. In writing to family members who were helping me, we referred to baby clothes as “articles of a small dimension.” It was considered vulgar to talk openly, show off, or go out in public if your pregnancy could no longer be hidden with clever use of clothes. Some women even found it vulgar to make baby items in front of the baby’s father, although I was not one of them. Babies were not named, nor were names planned or discussed until it was sure that they were going to live. The mother usually named the baby but again, we weren’t typical. Lawrence would get impatient with saying “the baby” for weeks, so he would start throwing names out there. He named Grace, the first baby, since I couldn’t make up my mind.

Being parents is what really became the glue that held us together. Not that we were necessarily immature but having babies forced us to quit playing jealousy games, give up old fanciful dreams and be responsible parents. Typically, child rearing was solely up to the mother because the father was responsible for bringing home the income. I enjoyed traveling a lot and there were many instances when I would leave the children with Lawrence and neighbor women and go down to Boston or New York City, especially early in the marriage when we were still setting up household. There were places to buy furniture for cheap in Boston that you couldn’t find in Portland or Brunswick, and I had a lot of family and friends in Boston too. Lawrence never thought it was beneath him or emasculating to take care of his own babies. He had a special bond with Grace, the oldest, and referred to her as a soulmate. She was his in every way, just as Wyllys was mine in every way. Lawrence was gone in the army for much of Wyllys’ childhood, so they didn’t know each other as well as he knew Grace.

We moved around a lot in the first few years of being married. It’s not unlike now with young couples starting out in tiny apartments or rented rooms in houses. In 1858, we ended up buying the first house in which we rented rooms as newlyweds. Wyllys was either not born yet or he was just a tiny baby (I can’t remember). Henry Wadsworth Longfellow had lived in the house as a newlywed as well, and our family grew there, built up the house and stayed there for almost the next half-century. When you spend such a significant portion of your life in the same home, filling that space with your energy, whether it’s happiness, love, anger or sorrow, the feeling within those walls will be familiar no matter how many centuries pass. I have been to the home twice in this life. The first time, I went into Lawrence’s library and dissolved into tears. Oprah jokingly calls it the “ugly cry” when it consumes your whole body.

This is a modern painting of Lawrence in his library as an old man. It’s very accurate.

Read More

Categories