Since we're on the subject of apparently "lost" portraits of Lincoln Conspirators - these wonderful portraits appeared in General Thomas Harris' History of the Great Conspiracy, published in 1892. They are signed "F. Hendry" (Frank Hendry) and looking him up, I found that he was a Boston, MA artist (1863-1939) who later specialized in marine art; not to be confused with a Liverpool, England artist of the same name. These portraits were done early in his career (1892) for Harris' book. Wonder what ever happened to these?

   

   

   

   

   

There are additional portraits in the book by Hendry of Arnold, O'Laughlen, Spangler and John Surratt.

Here is a painting by Hendry right before his death -

   

Compare the Signatures -

   

Interesting that this artist chose the "fair, fat, and forty" CDV pose of Mrs. Surratt for his work. I think everyone else always uses the earliest known photo of her.

(09-22-2015 08:46 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Interesting that this artist chose the "fair, fat, and forty" CDV pose of Mrs. Surratt for his work. I think everyone else always uses the earliest known photo of her.

Laurie, I am confused. I thought the "fair, fat, and forty" pose was unknown until Mike Kauffman discovered it c.1988. If it was previously unknown I am curious how Frank Henry would have used it in 1892. Many thanks for "un-confusing" me, if possible.

(09-22-2015 11:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Laurie, I am confused. I thought the "fair, fat, and forty" pose was unknown until Mike Kauffman discovered it c.1988. If it was previously unknown I am curious how Frank Henry would have used it in 1892. Many thanks for "un-confusing" me, if possible.

Roger,

It appears that the artist made his portraits by looking off of the "Ring of the Conspirators" lithograph included in the Pitman edition of the trial. This would explain while all of Henry's portraits look just like those in that lithograph.

Thanks, Dave.

(09-23-2015 08:54 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(09-22-2015 11:17 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Laurie, I am confused. I thought the "fair, fat, and forty" pose was unknown until Mike Kauffman discovered it c.1988. If it was previously unknown I am curious how Frank Henry would have used it in 1892. Many thanks for "un-confusing" me, if possible.

Roger,

It appears that the artist made his portraits by looking off of the "Ring of the Conspirators" lithograph included in the Pitman edition of the trial. This would explain while all of Henry's portraits look just like those in that lithograph.

I don't think the photograph was ever unknown; the whereabouts of the original is what Mike found in the Pitman Papers at the NY Public Library.

Thanks, Laurie.

(09-24-2015 02:34 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thanks, Laurie.

I have seen a reference somewhere to Pitman being interviewed years later and toddling over to his desk to retrieve the CDV of Mary Surratt to show the writer. This is probably what led Mike Kauffman to search out Pitman's papers.

What does "fair" mean in the context of "fair, fat, and forty"? And which is the earliest known photo of her - and how old was she when it was taken? Thanks for any enlightenment!

In my mind, "fair" would mean "nice looking." There appears to be only two known photos taken of Mary - other than those taken on the scaffold. The one that is commonly seen appears to have been taken ca. 1850 (judging by the style of clothing). That would make her about thirty (born May or June of 1823).

What's the deal with the photo of Mary that looks photoshopped to the point of changing her appearance? Michael Schein uses it in his book and it's just not accurate.

Some people used to claim that the authorities "altered" that one photo at the time of her trial to make her appear more evil. We have a copy of the original, which is still in the hands of the family. The original was loaned to James O. Hall back in the late-1960s or early-1970s so that he could have one of the country's most reputable photography studios duplicate it. The firm was Harris & Ewing here in D.C. (They also did my wedding photos!). The company went out of business in the 1980s, and we are not sure what happened to all of their negatives and proofs. Many of them went to the Washingtoniana collection at the Martin Luther King Public Library downtown. I don't believe that Mr. Hall ever received an answer to his search inquiry with them.

Almost every book shows the same cameo photo from chest up. The original is actually a three-quarter pose showing her dainty hands with great, lacy undersleeves, and a prayer book or missile in one hand. The Surratt Society owns the rights to that Harris & Ewing duplication. We do share for a fee, but credit better be given...

I don't think she looks more evil, but what first strikes me is that the photo has an over all softer look and that her nose looks narrower near the nostrils. Rather than evil, I think she looks prettier. I used to retouch senior portraits on the negatives and removed acne and eye shadows and softened eyebags and blended shiny areas to make a glow rather than shine, but this goes beyond standard retouching. She has a strong face to begin with and I think someone tried to make her look more refined.

I had to wait until I got to work this morning to verify that Michael had used the photo I thought he had. Sorry, Pamela, but you are mistaken in your assessment. Mr. Schein used the photo from the original that I described last night. As I said, the original is still in the hands of the family, and both James O. Hall and Harris & Ewing were too highly professional to resort to trickery - and had no reason to do so.

It may be difficult for you to swallow, but there are period mentions of Mrs. Surratt being a "belle" (there's that nasty Southern word again) in the area in her younger days. She was raised by a fairly prosperous, widowed mother from a good family. She received a good education through the Sisters of Charity. Why is it so hard to believe that she was attractive, well-dressed, and gentile -- at least in the 1840s and 50s before age, a hard marriage, health problems, and financial difficulties brought on wrinkles? I sure wish I looked the same in photos now as when I was first married! Don't you?

So, some people suggested the photo was altered during the trial to make Mary look more evil (I didn't know that), and I thought it had been photoshopped in recent times to make her look prettier, primarily her nose looks like a different nose to me at the base near her nostrils. Nowadays it's so easy to do, but it's clear that it's an original from what you've said. It's not like no one on this forum or elsewhere has ever played with pictures. The picture we are discussing, in Schein's book, is identified by date, 1851, which I didn't notice, as I should have. I doubt if I would have wondered about the photo if I had read that, although it seems odd to me that Mary appears to be wearing the same collar, bow and brooch, and maybe dress. Now that I look more closely, the way the light hits the bow is identical. The bow part of the photos are identical, really. Maybe ladies during that period wanted to be photographed in identical clothes and jewelry a decade apart. Maybe that was her finest dress that she saved, and could still fit into after having children. Is that where corsets come in to play? Of course youth will make a big difference. I think Mary Todd Lincoln looks very different, like a different person, in the youngest photo I've seen of her. Lincoln, too for that matter. I don't get how that early photo of Mary Surratt could look at all evil to anyone.

My comment is a superficial observation about a picture; there's no need for you to attack my motives and my understanding of her background or my ability to appreciate those factors.