The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "My favorite Photo of Lizzie"
Posted by Stefani on Feb-18th-02 at 12:19 AM

This is my favorite Lizzie photo. It was supposedly taken around 1889. She looks so lovely, I think. Innocent still somehow.

Why did Lizzie have so many photo's taken, and Emma so few?

Fits the Lizzie the extrovert and Emma the introvert doesn't it?

Perhaps also, Emma thought of having her photograph taken as some sort of invasion of her privacy? Or maybe she didn't like her looks. Or maybe she thought of it as an unnecessary expenditure?

All we have of her are the three, correct? 40 year old emma, young emma and even younger emma? Nothing later than the murders?

Here they are from my site:

Perhaps a bit O/T: my dad also said that he thinks Lizzie was pretty. I asked him about the protruding mannish jaw, and he looked at me like I didnt know what i was talking about. Beauty: clearly in the eye of the beholder.

But I do think Lizzie looks attractive in that photo, perhaps her most photogenic pic? Jaw looks just fine.

(Message last edited Feb-18th-02  3:33 PM.)

I think it is because she actually looks like she is going to smile. There is a glint in her eyes; whimsy perhaps.

She seems happy, somehow. To me, at least.

I think there is another (teenage?) photo of Emma I saw recently.  Maybe on one of the videos?
Or on the wall at the photo section of the B&B at the web-site?

She must be contemplating that trip to Europe...

YA, I found the *new* photo of Emma at the B&B, John Clark's photo additions to the web-site.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com
Click on "PHOTO'S".
click on "92 Second Street Now, PT.2"
down right hand side is photo titled FAMILY PHOTO'S
There she is with her face slightly in profile with a braid in her upswept hair.
Reminds me of being 14 and dragged with the siblings all moaning and groaning to Olan Mills!

(Message last edited Feb-19th-02  9:42 PM.)

I like the photo of Lizzie when she was probably in her early to mid twenties, full, open face, with high collar, earrings, and curls over her forehead. I believe it is the photo at the top right of the "Photos/Lizzie Photographs" area of this website. I find it hard to believe she did not have suitors or at least "dates" when she was this age! Lizzie apparently had a variety of female friends which makes me think her disposition, at least outside the house, was not as sour as is sometimes portrayed.

Hello Kat,

I have never seen that picture at the B&B showing Emma as a young girl. Most interesting! Any provenance on the photo? No doubt you have noticed the similarity to the picture of Emma in the print dress, with her hand on the back of the chair. I believe she was about thirteen years old when that picture was taken, about the same age as she appears to be in the "new" picture.
Bill

If you look at the picture marked Emma's room, there is a drawing or painting on the wall that I assume is supposed to be Emma.

I enlarged that part of the picture and attach that below. Also is a blow up of the Emma family photo picture.

Oh, that is a horrid photograph. Poor Emma. She looks so awkwardly plain. I can't tell if it is her or the shot of her, but I know how I hate to have my photo taken, so maybe she just didn't like the way she looked. While Lizzie did.

I have to confess; I have never been fond of those portraits in The House.  I'd much rather there were prints of the period, or hand-colored framed photos of the family.  I like that spacy middle-aged shot of Lizzie wearing pince-nez - she's so unfathomable!

I agree, Bob.  It always reminds me of a secretly sinister Salvation Army lady

Tho, my favoritest Lizzie pic is when she's in her teens.  I ADORE the cool speared globe earrings.

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:57 PM.)

Welcome David.  I think you're about the 3rd Dave we have.

You'll find that the people here are open minded about all things Lizzie and very knowledgeable.

One small thing, "Henry Widdows" is actually "Harry Widdows".

Harry

Oh sorry! Thanks to our good old Freud, I keep slipping up and saying Henry instead of Harry!

David

That's okay David, been called worse. Probably deservedly so.

Glad you liked the trial transcript.

Yup, David, I thought that was the Abby portrait, too.  Whassup, Harry?

Hey Bob, hows things in the Big Apple? 

My exact wording on that picture was: "If you look at the picture marked Emma's room, there is a drawing or painting on the wall that I assume is supposed to be Emma." 

And we know what assume does to a thought.

Great Post, David.  Good detective work.  That "Portrait" seems to be a painting of the photograph...probably current.
(WE like to use *probably*, *maybe*, *might be* around here, as Harry says).
There's a pukey "portrait" of supposedly SARAH BORDEN on this hard drive of mine (that used to be Stef's) that I often wondered about.  Maybe Stef will download it here and we can judge.  It's too spurious to imagine!

(Message last edited Mar-2nd-02  12:06 AM.)

I just returned from a *John Clark* tour of the photo's and portraits in the Borden house.  The strange *Sarah* portrait is not there...and I think some McGinn must know a contemporary *portrait* painter, cause those in the house are of an amatuer.  Maybe a Quigley?

In Harry's current research he found a link to the opening of the B&B.
See thread: "Which Way to Lizzie's House?"

IN that article, it is announced that the portraits were painted by a contemporary Fall River artist, ROCHELLE PETENATTI.

I regret using the word "amature", though they may have been done by the artist just for the love of LizzieLore.
I certainly could not equal these reproductions.


(Message last edited Mar-15th-02  8:28 AM.)

This is my favorite photo of Lizzie too. For the fun of it take a piece of paper and put it over half of her face then cover up the other half and contemplate the difference.  Her right side (as I am facing the photo) is much more serious and the left side much more dreamy, at least to me. Two different compositions and attitudes in one photo.  Interesting. I started doing this with facephotos after reading "Photoanalysis, How to interpret the hidden psychological meaning of personal photos" By Dr. Robert U. Akeret, 1973.  It's a fascinating study.

Yes, I've heard of that kind of thing.  It's also interesting to block out Lizzie's rather disturbing eyes to see how it affects how you then "see" her face.

Doesn't that book also cover analyizing body language in group photo's?

Which just made me realize, the Borden's had no group photo that we, as yet, know of...only individuals unrelated to the family structure!

Carol, I love that book! Yes Kat that book is the one you are thinking of and is right now on the shelf in the den. I am almost sure of it.

I read that book cover to cover and then amazed my friends with what I knew about their relationships with their siblings and parents based on rather ordinary family photos.

I hadn't thought about that book in years. It must be taken out again and given a re-read. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Kat, you are correct! No family photo. However, that may have not been the habit back then. When people sell old portrait photos on ebay, for instance, they are almost always of one person. Maybe someone else knows abou this and could share their experiences and/or expertise?

I know this is sort of off-topic, but that very phenomenon of half face one personality half face another is perfectly seen in the face of jOhn Glenn.

Here is his image:


Put a piece of paper or your hand over the left side then the right. It is two different people!

When I was a lad we used a small (unframed) mirror, held at right angles to the photograph to produce a similar effect.

Yes, there seems to be a lack of family photos for this bunch. Back in 1892 people didn't have their own individual small cameras let alone digital varieties with them like we do today. People had to "sit" for photographs which was a big production. But two obvious reasons I can think of for no known family shot would be of course, Mr. B. wouldn't have wanted to spring for one and the ladies probably wouldn't have wanted to be seen together in a photo anyway seeing as the tension that existed between them.  But I do think that perhaps there might be another photo of Andrew somewhere.  Maybe there was a Board of Directors, town fathers or business event picture where he was a participant.  If he didn't have to pay for the photo chances are maybe he didn't mind being in it.  But he wouldn't have paid for a copy.  If someone could find such a photo in some archive then we would have at least one shot of Andrew in the context of other people.  I would almost bet that there is another photo of Lizzie too, perhaps alone or with the group she went to Europe with. I bet she paid for her own photos from her allowance.  Wonder if anyone has traced the photographers records from those she did sit for to see if there were any negatives of photos no one has seen yet, or perhaps those records are long gone.  This is what makes me wish I lived across the country instead of in Oregon.

Those are good points Carol.  I wonder if a photo in context with other businessmen would show the same Andrew as he was at home?  It's possible...if he was always Himself.
I just checked our very walls in the family room, where old portraits have been framed and hung since time-began...they're hardly noticeable anymore.
There are a couple of single sitters, and there are a group of  4children, sitting formally (a couple of those-taken at two different ages), a husband and wife, a mother and child, a father and son, and a whole *reunion* group x2!  TWO sides of the family en mass, about 18 individuals, each photo!
So no, there are no traditional "mother/father/daughter/daughter".
And maybe Emma didn't like to appear in photo's WITH Lizzie, as she wouldn't show to good advantage...and maybe Lizzie wanted  her sitting by herself..as in saying "I am independent of these 'Others'. "

Kat, I was wondering when and why photos were taken of women in those days.  Was it mostly a matter of choice or vanity, the woman wanted to be remembered as how she looked at a certain time in her life, or were there certain cultural factors at work such as a woman usually (who could afford to pay for it) would commemorate herself in photograph only because of an event (birthday, graduation, marriage.) That doesn't seem so with Lizzie as there are quite a few photos (most of which show either full front or slightly to the side views). A photograph is different that mention of a woman's name in the paper, it is more personal. I think that in those days a woman was only supposed to be mentioned in the newspapers at the time of their birth, marriage and funeral.

Whereas with Emma I think we have only that one photo besides the one as a child but there is also that one in the Rebello book on page 350 from the Boston Post in 1913, but that seems more like a drawing.

Lizzie might have had photos taken of herself for herself not because of an event and that shows somewhat a healthy self assurance it would seem to me, it would speak of a person not ashamed of their appearance etc.  I don't think it was a matter of just being too busy with their lives that Emma would have forgotten to have a photo taken because their lives were not that full, not compared to ours today and how much we are consumed with speed and doing doing doing things.

So it might be that Emma was just not inclined to have her photo taken at all instead of that she didn't want to be seen with Lizzie in one.  It might be that sisters just didn't have their photos taken together much either in those days in any case.  It might be that Emma lived more in the inner world of thought and Lizzie more in the material world of which a photograph was a recording of the fact of her existence on a physical plane, a confirmation of herself, or as you say, perhaps confirmation of a separate identity as well.  Lizzie does have, to me, a resolute appearance, rather straightforward. 

I would like your post in front of me as I write a response, Carol, as you've raised interesting points.
I think in the normal way of things, a woman would have had her portrait taken to commemorate, as you say, certain important events in her life.
I also think that somone who liked the way they looked, might have their portrait taken for no particular reason other than to *show off*,  She would have had special attention, her hair and dress just right, maybe even have the family in an uproar the day of the *shoot*.."OH, Emma, may I borrow your beautiful hair comb--you never wear it...I'd like it in this picture...Do my cheeks look too white, should I rouge just a LITTLE, OH! don't muss my dress in the carriage..you sit on the other side!..."  Then there'd be THE PAID services of the photographer adept at flattery and admiration of *pretty* ladies...and HIS undivided attention..how intimate that he is staring at her under a black cloth that hides HIS face, telling her to turn this way or that,... which is her GOOD side?  His eye always upon her...
Call this VANITY.  A "vanity shoot".
And then what does she DO WITH THE PORTRAITS?
Does she give them to her closest friends?  Her parents?  Keep them in her room?
Then there is the possibility you suggested, too, Carol...of a need to prove her very existence .  It's possible these photo's showed herself TO herself as real in the world , a tangible proof, not just a fleeting mirror image.....

Correct me if I'm wrong, Carol, but are you saying you know of only 2 pictures?  I know of 3; infant Emma with Sarah, Emma as a young girl, & Emma as a woman.

I suppose it's always possible there are MORE out there that just haven't been discovered.  Emmamay have had as many done as Lizzie, but because she was not as notorious as her sister, they may have slipped into obscurity, just as Emma herself tried to do.

There are 2 of Emma as a young girl. I've attached a montage of them. The one on the upper leftwas extracted from the family photo at the B&B.

Personally, I feel I take a lousy picture, (see my driver's license...whew) and don't have it taken when I can avoid it.  Emma may have felt the same way. Lizzie may have felt the opposite and that the camera flattered her.

(Message last edited Mar-24th-02  11:50 AM.)

Thanks, Harry, for the photo compilation of Emma.  Is it possible for you to also show us the whole family photo that the one of Emma came from which you say is in the B & B?  I didn't think there was a family photo of the Borden's.  Or is it under copyright with the B & B?  I think some ofyou were talking of this on another link but have forgotten what was said about the B & B photos.

It's interesting a photo of Emma hasn't surfaced from old age but then if she did live under an assumed name after she moved to New Hampshire or whenever, perhaps there are photos but there is a different name identifying them.  Perhaps?  Wish we knew her assumed name.

Carol, the "family photo" is actually 4 separate pictures, one each of the Bordens. It's on Stef's website, under photos, 92 Second St, part 2.
I think this URL will take you to it:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/johnclark/Lizzie%20Borden%20JPGs/Interior/Family%20Photos.jpg

I think family photos were rare back then in general. Andrew probably frowned upon such a "waste" of money which made the Bordens an unlikely candidate for a family shot.  The pictures of a young Lizzie are very nice and Abby must have played a part in having them taken.

Thanks, Harry.
Does anybody know whether it was a normal occurrence to dress a 2 year-old up as a *gypsy* back then, with her knees & shoulders showing, and JEWELRY, for a portrait?  Whether painted or photographed?
Stef and I have been discussing this a couple months ago...

Harry, thank you for posting the Emma montage.  I always seem to forget the one where she has her hair in what looks like a looped braid.

I love the picture of Emma as an adult.  She has such a handsome, strong face, with a direct look, unlike that of her more famous sibling, whose gaze goes right through you, like a cat's.