![]() |
| Figure 1. The illustration of Bishop Davis which appears in Cardinal Moran's History of the Catholic Church in Australasia. |
I came to know about Bishop Davis whilst I was still a school boy with a keen interest in history. Over the years, I have admired and studied the life of this kindly, scholarly, talented and pious man and met others who have also admired him. At another post on this blog may be found a summary of his life. A further post describes his claim to be the first Bishop of Maitland. We do hope to publish further articles on this blog about this saintly bishop whose memory should be reverenced by Australian Catholics.
This article describes my quest to determine the authentic likeness of Bishop Davis. The several likenesses which exist are illustrations and a painting; but there is no extant photograph of him. If a photograph did exist, it disappeared more than a 130 years ago.
![]() |
| Figure 2. The illustration of the Bishop in Dom Henry Norbert Birt's study Benedictine Pioneers in Australia. |
Another illustration appears facing page 88 in Cardinal Moran’s History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (1895), which opens this article.
The illustration found in Dom Birt’s work is a re-drawing of an earlier likeness of the bishop. The same also applies to the image found in Cardinal Moran’s history. This will be further discussed.
![]() |
| Figure 3. The stained glass window in S. Mary's Cathedral Sydney depicting Charles Henry Davis OSB. Image : Giovanni Portelli. |
THE THREE PRINCIPAL LIKENESSES
![]() |
| Figure 4. The anonymous oil painting of the Bishop, 1848. A contemporaneous portrait kept by Downside Abbey UK. Image : Downside Abbey. |
Another likeness, held both by Downside Abbey and the Abbey of Benedictine religious sisters in Jamberoo NSW, is a print of an engraving made by the famous London lithographer Thomas Fairland. It was printed and published by M & N Hanhart before the bishop left for Australia. This lithograph was the basis for the illustration that appears in Henry Birt’s history (see above). This is a very clear illustration, the face containing better detail than the oil painting. The lithograph bears the Bishop’s seal, signifying that he personally approved its publication.
![]() |
| Figure 5. The 1848 engraving of Bishop Davis by Thomas Fairland. This was prepared as a reverse image and printed for publication. Image : Downside Abbey. |
A third likeness was engraved in Australia in Sydney between 1852 and 1854 by Walter George Mason. It is the least clear of the originals portraits, which is a puzzle, given that Mason was a well-respected engraver from a family of artists who produced very fine engraving work. A copy of this portrait – which was most likely carved on wood - is kept in the State Library of NSW. As yet, I have been unable to trace the provenance of the engraving or verify whether its publication commemorated the death of the Bishop in May 1854.
![]() |
| Figure 6. The 1852-54 engraving by Walter George Mason of Sydney. This is a good likeness of the Bishop, but prepared with minimal facial details. Image : State Library of NSW. |
![]() |
| Figure 7. The Mason engraving compared with the illustration (right) in Cardinal's Moran's History of the Catholic Church in Australasia. |
SIMILARITIES IN THE PORTRAITS
Certain features are shared in common with the three portraits. We see the shape of his head; the dark colour of his eyes; the dark colour of his hair and his receding hairline. He has dark, thick and arched eyebrows. He has distinctive lips. Many of these features are common among people of Welsh ancestry. The bishop’s bodily frame was very slight and his shoulders sloping. He wears small oval-shaped metal spectacles. There is no record of his height.FACIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE PORTRAITS
Somewhat different in each portrait is the shape of the mouth, in particular the upper lip. The nose and ears in each portrait also have discernible differences.
Of the three portraits, the oil painting at Downside gives clearest details of the bishop’s Benedictine choir dress, his pectoral Cross and his episcopal ring, the style and colour of his hair, his complexion, the colour of his eyes, but the facial features are not particularly well captured, including the shape of the face.
The engraving made in Sydney does not clearly show the facial features of the bishop, but perhaps it does illustrate the face of an older man in poor health. It has strong contrast and is typical of those basic engravings or wood-cuts which were made to illustrate newspaper and printed journals of the earlier 19th century. It was common for such engravings to be made from a sketch. In this instance the sketch might have had more detail than was transferred in the engraving process. It might have survived and was used for the illustration in Cardinal Moran’s history. This is speculation, however.
ENGRAVINGS & THE THEORY OF A LOST DAGUERREOTYPE
The distinctive characteristics of the 1848 Fairland lithograph suggest that it was engraved from a daguerreotype photograph taken after his consecration as bishop in February 1848. I must qualify this theory by indicating that there is no documentary evidence of the existence of a daguerreotype. This does not preclude it always having been in private hands rather than a collection.At this point, I wish to describe the term engravings, which has been used above. Engraving was a process whereby an artisan (usually also an artist) would engrave an image onto stone or steel or wood. It was a time-consuming and sophisticated process. The process was developed to create images intended to be reproduced in a book as an illustration, or as a stand-alone prints . The same process was used to create plates to print paper currency. In the Eighteenth century, long before photography was understood, it became very fashionable to obtain prints. There was a desire among the public to obtain prints of famous people or of beautiful landscapes or monuments, for personal use or domestic decoration. We still do this today, with other mediums.
The daguerreotype photograph was a good fit for the industry of creating prints. Unlike later photography, the daguerreotype could not be could not be reproduced multiple times via a negative image or digital images, as we have today. The daguerreotype was a stand-alone image. The image was unique. If, however, a copy was needed to illustrate a book or to provide numerous prints then the daguerreotype image had to be engraved and then printed.
These daguerreotype photographs, where the image appears on polished metal (protected by glass) rather than photographic paper, are fascinating and much more life-like than the print-based photographs which became commonplace during the 1850s and normative thereafter.
For those who are not familiar with the photographic process termed daguerreotype, I include this link.
The following are images of an actual daguerreotype in its case, and give an indication of their unique character.
![]() |
| Figure 8. A daguerreotype made in eastern USA in the 1850s. It is enclosed in an embossed timber and cloth case. |
![]() |
| Figure 9. The opened case reveals the reversed daguerreotype image behind glass with a facing panel of embossed velvet, surrounded by a gilded frame. |
![]() |
| Figure 10. An enhanced reproduction of the photograph flipped horizontally for an accurate depiction of the couple. |
There is one further thing that I would like to clarify concerning the daguerreotype process and that is that the image that it produced was a reverse image of the subject : reversed horizontally. This was a limitation of the daguerreotype photographic system, although it does not seem to have troubled people at the time very much. When we look at a daguerreotype we must imagine it flipped horizontally in order to get an accurate likeness of the subject. We know that one side of a person’s face is different from the other; they are not two identical halves. If a photograph of a man is flipped horizontally, he looks somewhat different from the usual way we would see him.
I suggest that the Fairland 1848 lithograph of Bishop Davis is a reversed engraving of a daguerreotype photograph. Unlike the Downside oil painting, the Fairland lithograph was intended to be published and made available to the public in England and Australia. It also bore the bishop’s official seal. It was like receiving an autographed studio-produced photograph of someone, not an happy-snap.
This theory of a lost daguerreotype of the bishop is solely based on the evidence presented in the Fairland lithograph itself, which I describe below in detail.
First, the lithograph shows a reverse image of the bishop (that is horizontally reversed) just as a daguerreotype would be. This is deduced by his hair being parted on the opposite side from the Downside oil painting; by the buttons on his mozzetta (or elbow length cape) not being on the man’s side of dressing; by his elbows being raised into the air as if resting on something which is not illustrated, but which might have been illustrated in an original daguerreotype photograph. Last, I refer to the uncomfortable pose in which the bishop is sitting, quite different from the other two likenesses we have been discussing.
I include here illustrations of the concealed mechanism that was used by photographers in order to prevent the subject from moving during exposure and consequently blurring the image. Sometimes, sitting for a these earliest photographs required the subject to be motionless for up to a minute (even more). The awkward pose of the bishop in the Fairland lithograph makes more sense if we consider that his back and neck were being held in place by a metal prop.
| Figures 11 & 12. Two images which illustrate the apparatus used by a photographer to keep the subject motionless during the process of making a photographic exposure. |
Together, these make a compelling case for the lithograph being engraved directly from a very early photograph which no longer exists or is unknown in private hands.





























