Projecting Abraham
The lack of a slit in the back indicates that Livingstone’s lantern was designed to be used with an oil lamp, for it would have been physically impossible to insert a limelight apparatus and logistically impractical for Livingstone to carry highly flammable bags of oxygen and hydrogen.The ideal lamp for this kind of lantern had a brass mirror behind the wick to direct the light into the condenser. Some magic lantern oil lamps had wide wicks or multiple wicks to mitigate flickering, producing a much more consistent source of light. The Livingstone Birthplace Museum’s collection contains several lamps used by Livingstone, including a small pocket lamp that neatly folds into the size of an Altoids tin. Any one of these could have been used in place of the lantern’s original light source. Conversely, the lantern’s oil lamp would have functioned well as light source for more general use, hence it was probably removed from the lantern and repurposed by the expedition.
Like all improved phantasmagoria lanterns, Livingstone’s was designed for back projection, meaning that the lantern was meant to be placed close to the screen. To enlarge the image, he could move the projector further away from the screen, but this would make the image appear dimmer. Given the fact that Livingstone was using an oil lamp, his lantern shows were particularly sensitive to ambient light. His diaries indicate that he was willing to change campsites to create more favorable lighting conditions. In one case,
By creating a pitch-black viewing environment, Livingstone heightened the contrast between the illuminated image and the surrounding space. This strategy contributed to the projected image as “a good means of arresting the attention” by creating a brightly lit focal point.[...] in order to make the thing of use to all, we removed our camp up to the village of Nyamoana. This is a good means of arresting the attention, and conveying important facts to the minds of these people.[1]
With regards to illumination, there is one mechanical difference between the lantern modeled above and Livingstone’s— the flasher. This piece at the end of the objective blocked the light emanating from the lantern during transitions between images. Carpenter and Westley’s improved phantasmagoria lanterns could be used independently or as part of a dissolving view apparatus. When used as a pair, the dissolver would move between the two lanterns to adjust the level of light emanating from each. For this reason, improved phantasmagoria lanterns were often produced without a flasher because the dissolver would make it superfluous. The flasher in the 3D model above is made from a different material than the objective and the body of the lantern, suggesting that it was not present when the lantern was sold but was added by one of the lantern’s owners. Similarly, Livingstone’s lantern did not originally have a flasher, the objective lacks a hole for a pin to hold the flasher in place. The absence of a pin hole indicates that a flasher was never added, meaning that the lantern always projected a continuous stream of light. As I will demonstrate below, the lack of the flasher created a visual effect that frightened his audience.
Livingstone’s slides
Livingstone’s accounts of the lantern show in Kabompo in Missionary Travels and in his diary describe a projected image of Abraham in motion. In Missionary Travels, Livingstone characterizes the scene as “Abraham about to slaughter Isaac.” He describes how,The visual effect of Abraham's dagger terrified the audience and motivated their quick exodus. But how, precisely, did the image appear to move? T. Jack Thompson suggests that a “lever,” a type of slide widely available in Britain, could have created this kind of effect.[3] If this was the case, the picture of Abraham sacrificing Isaac would have been divided between two pieces of glass mounted within a single wooden frame, like in this example of the magician. (For a better view of the lever mechanism, see this example.) In this configuration, the first piece of glass would have contained an engraved or painted image of Abraham’s body and the prone figure of Isaac and would remain stationary. Abraham’s uplifted arm would have been engraved on a second, mobile piece of glass attached to a lever that protruded beyond the slide’s frame. With the aid of the lever, the image on the mobile piece of glass would rotate, causing Abraham’s arm and the dagger to appear as if it was plunging downward.when I moved the slide, the uplifted dagger moving toward them, they thought it was to be sheathed in their bodies instead of Isaac’s. “Mother! Mother!” all shouted at once, and off they rushed helter-skelter, tumbling pell-mell over each other, and over the little idol-huts and tobacco-bushes: we could not get one of them back again. Shinte, however, sat bravely through the whole, and afterward examined the instrument with interest.[2]
Livingstone’s diary offers clues to the kind of slide that he used, clarifies the nature of Abraham’s movement, and nuances his description of the audience. Livingstone writes in his diary that
The fact that Livingstone needed to change slides after exhibiting the first image indicates that his slides contained only one image per frame, unlike Carpenter and Westley’s scriptural sliders which had three to four. This detail suggests that Livingstone was using a higher quality slide. In addition to the scriptural lecture set, Carpenter and Westley also produced “Superior Scripture Subjects” that depicted individual scenes, including the “Sacrifice of Isaac.” These cost 12s to 20s each. At that rate, the 40 images in the scriptural lecture set would cost £40 at minimum (as opposed to £4 4s).[5] The “superior” slides were also copperplate printed, but they were far more delicately painted. As an example of the level of artistry that these slides could achieve, note the vibrant colors and intricate details in this dissolving view of the Omar Mosque.[The Ishinde] manifested great composure, listened very attentively to the explanations; but his people when they saw them coming out on one side with the extracted slide thought those on that side would now be caught by the figures, and made a precipitate rush away.[4]
Unlike the scriptural lecture set, the background of more expensive slides was never filled in with opaque, black paint. Though not explicitly stated in the catalog, the “Superior” slides were also sold unpainted at a reduced rate, and Livingstone received one of these “black and white” slides from a friend for his third expedition.[6] However, Livingstone’s writings offer no details as to the quality of this slide, nor the slide’s manufacturer, other than to say that the lantern (and presumably, its accompanying slides) were from England. For the purposes of recreating the effect, I have used the image of the sacrifice of Abraham from the copperplate-printed sliders in the Willem A. Wagenaars' Christiaan Huygens Theater Collection.[7] Though it is not as refined as a “Superior” slide, it includes background scenery and details mentioned in Livingstone’s letter, namely the knife.
The unpublished account of the Kabompo also indicates that Abraham’s movement was not a purposeful special effect but an accidentally botched transition. Since Livingstone’s lantern did not have a flasher, light would have been emanating from the lantern continuously, illuminating the slide as it entered and exited the lantern. Thus, when he “extracted” the slide from the projector horizontally, Abraham appeared to glide sideways. When compared to the diary, the account in Missionary Travels exaggerates the audience’s reaction, for members in the path of Abraham's’ perceived trajectory fled. Livingstone’s editorial intervention heightens the bravery of the Ishinde, who “afterward examined the instrument with interest.”[8]
The video below simulates how the image of Abraham would appear as the slide entered and exited the lantern.
On the pages to follow, I discuss Livingstone’s narrative strategies, particularly his presentation of the sacrifice of Isaac. Like his “picture nights,” projected images created a space for lively dialog. Livingstone’s description of Abraham as a patriarch is in keeping with the typological logic in commercially available lantern lectures. Livingstone’s Calvinist leanings not only framed the content of his lantern shows but they also influenced his stance towards the lantern as an educational tool.
[1] Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa; Including a Sketch of Sixteen Years’ Residence in the Interior of Africa, and a Journey from the Cape of Good Hope to Loanda on the West Coast; Thence across the Continent, down the River Zambesi, to the Eastern Ocean, John Murray, 1857, accessible via Google Books, p. 278.
[2] Missionary Travels, pp. 298-299. See also p. 331 of the manuscript.
[3] Light on Darkness? Missionary Photography of Africa in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 222.
[4] Livingstone’s African Journal 1853-1856, Isaac Schapera, ed., Chatto & Windus, 1963, p. 59.
[5] Companion to the Improved Phantasmagoria Lantern, pp. 14-15, 47.
[6] Quoted in William Garden Blakie’s The Personal Life of David Livingstone, chiefly from his unpublished journals and correspondence in the possession of his family, John Murray, 1880, accessible via Google Books, pp. 366-367.
[7] The quality of the superior slides makes them highly prized by collectors. They do not often appear on the market, hence digital copies of these slides are equally scarce.
[8] Missionary Travels, pp. 298-299.
