Seeking the Bishop's Likeness

Figure 1.
The illustration of Bishop Davis
which appears in Cardinal Moran's
History of the Catholic Church in Australasia.

Making an occasional appearance on this blog is the English Benedictine who assisted Archbishop Polding as coadjutor in Sydney between 1848 and 1854. Charles Henry Davis (1815-1854 ) was born into an old Welsh Catholic family and became a monk of the Benedictine Community in Downside (Bath) before being selected as the first Bishop of Maitland and coadjutor-bishop of Sydney. He arrived in Sydney at the end of 1848. Unfortunately, the Australian climate did not suit the bishop and he was plagued with serious illness leading to his untimely death from heart disease at the early age of 39.

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.

In addition, a number of older historical studies feature images of the bishop. An illustration, for example is found facing page 118 in the second volume of Dom Henry Norbert Birt’s book Benedictine Pioneers in Australia (1911).

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.

Also well-known is the beautiful stained glass window in the eastern transept of Saint Mary's Cathedral, Sydney. This depicts +Charles Davis as a mediaeval bishop vested in pontificals.  The bishop's  fellow-Benedictines  +John Bede Polding  and  +William Bernard Ullathorne  are also depicted.  Never intended to be seen at close-range, this window - produced by the English producer of stained glass Hardman - gives a fair likeness of the three bishops in a compressed form.

Figure 3.
The stained glass window in S. Mary's Cathedral
Sydney depicting Charles Henry Davis OSB.
Image : Giovanni Portelli.

THE THREE PRINCIPAL LIKENESSES

Amongst the handful of portraits of Bishop Davis only three are thought to be portraits “from life”. I define this as an image produced by a person who is looking at, or who had previously sketched, the subject. The first of these is a framed oil painting in the Benedictine Abbey at Downside England. This was commenced (but not necessarily completed) before the bishop left England for Australia in August 1848. Nothing is known of the artist who painted this portrait since a signature was not left on the painting. Documentary evidence concerning its production do not exist at Downside Abbey. We may observe that the artist was neither well-known nor particularly talented at portraiture. This portrait is very dark and the facial details, although well-outlined, lack sufficient definition or texture.  The Benedictine historian mentioned above, Dom Henry Norbert Birt (1861-1919), described it as "a poor portrait."  

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.

Comparing this engraving with the illustration in Cardinal Moran’s history (previously mentioned), it seems to be the case that the Mason engraving was the basis for Cardinal Moran’s illustration. But the Moran illustration includes much more facial detail than the face of the old engraving.  

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.

A physical peculiarity of the Bishop came about as a result of an accident with a horse when a boy.  The fourth finger of his left hand was severed at the metacarpal joint. The Downside oil painting and the Mason engraving disguise the missing finger by the careful placement of the Bishop's hands.  The Fairland engraving, being a reversed image, works a sleight of hand and the Episcopal ring is placed on the wrong hand, carefully avoiding shewing the missing part of the finger.

In each likeness we also see that the bishop is depicted sitting and dressed in the choir dress of a Benedictine bishop, namely black cassock, with a bishop’s surplice (or rochet) and black mozetta. The rochet is different in each portrait. In one likeness he is wearing a black skull cap or zucchetto; in another a biretta; in the third, no headdress.

FACIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE PORTRAITS

The complication arising from these three images is that the facial appearance of the bishop in each case differs one from the other, to a greater or lesser degree. Although the three portraits have common features (as described above) the differences between them make it difficult to judge at first glance which is an accurate likeness of the man.

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.

CONCLUSIONS & PREPARING A NEW LIKENESS

It is not impossible that another image of Bishop Charles Henry Davis exists which has remained unknown for more than a century, but it seems unlikely.  The survey of likenesses in this article I hope clarifies what has been confusing.  Although no documentation is known to exist of the production of the three portraits "from life", there are nevertheless some other significant clues.

The oil painting at Downside Abbey by the anonymous artist was described by the Downside historian Dom Henry Birt (1861-1919) as "a poor portrait."  Did he mean that it was amateurish attempt or did he mean that it was not a good likeness of the Bishop?  Although Birt was born after the Bishop's death, he might well have known other monks (including the bishop's brothers) who did.  

The other clue is that the engraving by Thomas Fairland held at both Downside and Jamberoo Abbeys, was published under the official seal of the Bishop.  Whilst this does not guarantee he approved every detail of the engraving, surely it suggests that the Bishop was satisfied with the result and approved it for publication.

When we compare Fairland's 1848 engraving with the later engraving made in Sydney by Walter Mason, there are distinct facial similarities, more than there are troubling differences.

Figure 13.
The two engravings of the Bishop compared :
the Mason engraving 1852-54 (left); 
the Fairland engraving of 1848.
Side by side, these engravings illustrate the two halves
of the Bishop's face and obviously depict the same man.

In conclusion I would like to suggest that these two engravings are the most faithful likenesses of the Bishop, whilst the portrait in oils at Downside Abbey captures his face imperfectly.

The illustration in Cardinal Moran's history show are rather different man, with a more severe face, rather than kindly expression shown in other likenesses.  The stained glass window in Saint Mary's Cathedral appears to have transferred facial features from the illustration in Moran.  I regard these as less accurate likenesses of the Bishop.

Setting aside the question of which images of Bishop Davis are better likenesses, it has to be admitted that none of these images is particularly remarkable.  Because of my life-long devotion to the Bishop, I am trying to prepare a new portrait of the Bishop which captures both his kindliness and his sanctity.  To this end, I have been using various digital techniques to combine the images.  This has allowed me to observe which facial features align and how they differ.  I will be using the Mason and Fairland engravings as my principal guide.  

It is not possible to create an ideal portrait when the subject has been dead for 170 years and given the differences in each of the three portraits we have discussed. 

Nevertheless, I hope to prepare an image which is a fair representation, based upon careful assessment, comparison, the opinions of other artists and scholars, but also some prayer for guidance.  The results will be published on this blog in the near feature.

Figure 14.
A section of the title of the published lithograph of Bishop Davis (1848)
The Bishop's seal is reproduced, with his episcopal coat of arms surrounded by the words (in Latin) :
Seal of the Lord [Bishop]
Lord Charles Henry 
Bishop of Maitland.
Image : Downside Abbey.

Written and published by :

Michael Sternbeck

Newcastle NSW

5th July 2026.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank for their advice, information and guidance in preparing this article :

Dr Simon Johnston (Downside Abbey);

Mr Nicholas Beveridge (New Zealand);

Dr Graeme Pender (Victoria)

The Sisters of the Benedictine Abbey Jamberoo NSW.

CITED WORKS :

Dom H N Birt OSB

Downside, London, 1902. 

Benedictine Pioneers in Australia, London, 1911.

PF Cardinal Moran

The History of the Catholic Church in Australasia, Sydney, 1895.

Brian Andrews

Pugin in the Antipodes : Creating a Gothic Paradise, Hobart, 2002.

Ut in omnibus Deus glorificetur.