481
but often sacrifi cing accuracy to an artistic confi gura-
tion. Engravings of such scenes, which were produced in
large quantities and of variable quality, were equally un-
concerned with an adherence to literal truth. Daguerre’s
1839 History and Practice of Photogenic Drawing
had claimed that his process was indispensable for
the traveller and antiquary, as it offered the possibility
of topographical precision. Ellis’s reference to these
categories of potential user in his proposal outlining
the book’s contents suggests that he was familiar with
Daguerre’s book. Ellis stressed that his concern was
faithfulness of detail, to ensure that future visitors would
not have their expectations aroused by prints, only to be
disappointed by the reality.
Despite his amateur status, Ellis undertook the proj-
ect with professional commitment and a great deal of
energy. As well as Rome, he visited Pompeii, Pozzuoli,
Paestum, Naples, Pisa, Florence and Venice, most of
them several times, between April and July 1841. Dur-
ing this period he took 137 daguerreotypes. With little
experience upon which to draw, he proceeded by trial
and error. He brought to the task the systematic approach
that he utilised in his later scientifi c activities, analysing
such variables as climate, chemistry and time of day in
order to refi ne his technique.
The value of the collection is enhanced by the notes
that he took. For each daguerreotype, Ellis recorded the
date, place, view, the time exposure began and ended,
atmospheric conditions, his rating of how successful
the exposure had been, and general observations. All
were taken using Daguerre’s original process and Ellis
probably corrected lateral reversal by using a mirror in
front of his lens, both factors accounting for the length
of exposures, the recorded one of which ranged from
6 to 73 minutes.
In addition to his own daguerreotypes, Ellis pur-
chased a number from Achille Morelli and Lorenzo
Suscipj (1802–1855). The latter took nine of the da-
guerreotypes in the collection in 1840, thus predating
Ellis’s. Both Morelli and Suscipj were responsible for
miscellaneous views, but notably each took a panorama
of Rome, Morelli taking thirteen from the Capitol Tower
(forming a complete circle) and Suscipj eight from San
Pietro in Montorio. Each of these sequences was made
in June 1841, suggesting that the pair were commis-
sioned by Ellis. However, the fact that Suscipj produced
daguerreotypes before Ellis indicates that he played
a more signifi cant role than suggested by Gernsheim
(1982) who stated that Suscipj and Morelli “assisted”
Ellis, and indeed by Ellis himself, who referred to his
unnamed “aides.”
Ellis’s proposal for Italy Daguerreotyped describes
it as “a collection of Views, chiefl y architectural, en-
graved after Daguerreotypes in the possession of the
Editor” (i.e., himself). It was intended to comprise 60engravings faithfully copying the originals. Thirty-two
pictures were to be of Rome, alternating with those of
other cities, each accompanied by a short description
specifying the point from which it had been taken, the
date, and the name of every public building shown. El-
lis chose large 150mm × 205mm plates because they
needed to be able to contain the requisite detail that
would allow the engraver to transcribe them accurately.
The work was to be published in twenty monthly parts
at a price of 1/- or 1/6 each number, commencing 1
January 1845, but the project was abandoned and Ellis
put the plates aside.
There are a number of possible reasons why the book
was not produced. Gernsheim claims that it was because
of the expense of engraving the pictures. In addition, Ex-
cursions Daguerriennes, comprising engravings based
on daguerreotypes taken in Europe and the Near East,
was published in Paris between 1841 and 1844 by Noël-
Marie Paymal Lerebours (1807–73), and Ellis may have
decided that the sense of novelty had been lost. More
importantly, Excursions Daguerriennes’ engravings did
not do justice to the originals, and Ellis perhaps felt that
the same fate would befall his project. Finally, he may
have not had time to see Italy Daguerreotyped to frui-
tion because during this period he was immersed in his
philological researches, publishing Phonetics in 1844
and The Alphabet of Nature the following year.
Instead, the 159 whole-plate daguerreotypes, along
with the accompanying documentation, were given to
the Science Museum by Ellis’s son Tristram upon his
father’s death in 1890 and subsequently transferred to
the National Museum of Photography, Film and Televi-
sion in Bradford (which reproduces many of them on its
website). Becchetti and Pietrangeli’s Roma in Dagher-
rotipia (1979) prints all of the Roman views. Together,
images and notes form a signifi cant collection from this
period, providing both a documentary record of facets
of those cities, and insights into the technical aspects
of recording them with an infant medium.
Tom RufflesBiography
Alexander Ellis was born in Hoxton, Middlesex, on
14 June 1814. His name was originally Sharpe, but he
changed it to his mother’s maiden name in 1825. This
was a condition imposed by a relative of his mother for
Alexander to receive signifi cant fi nancial support, giving
him lifelong security. He was educated at Shrewsbury,
Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. He married in
Naples in 1840 and after periods in a number of places,
including Dorking, Bath and Bristol, he and his family
settled in Kensington, west London. Author of many
works on spelling, pronunciation, acoustics and math-
ematics, he corresponded widely and was associatedELLIS, ALEXANDER JOHN
Hannavy_RT72353_C005.indd 481 7/5/2007 11:18:14 AM