The celebration of Carnival in Malta goes back many centuries; however, it is only with the advent of photography in the mid-19th century that we have accurate representations of contemporary fancy dress costumes. Leandro Preziosi (1830-1869) is credited with being one of, if not the most accomplished, Maltese photographers of his time; this article speculates on the circumstances surrounding Preziosi’s portraits of Mr and Mrs Hugh Pollexfen Deane as they pose, separately, in their fancy dress costumes.

Hugh Pollexfen Deane. Photo Leandro Preziosi. Author’s collection

Juliet Deane. Photo: Leandro Preziosi. Author’s collection

The two portraits pose a number of intriguing questions: who were these sitters and what was their connection with Malta? Why are they dressed in these outfits? And why were they not photographed together in the same frame? This author’s research into the subjects reveals a wealth of fascinating information about the sitters and their family.

The identity of the subjects is given on the verso of each cart-de-visite; he is described as “Hugh Pollexfen Deane” and she as “Juliette Deane”. Both Hugh and his wife came from upper-middle-class backgrounds. Hugh’s middle name was taken from a 17th-century ancestor, Sir Henry Pollexfen (1632-1691), who was a highly regarded jurist. One of his accomplishments was to offer helpful advice to the future King William III on the legitimacy of his accession to the throne. Following his coronation, William rewarded Pollexfen with his appointment as Attorney General for England and Wales and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.

Hugh was born in 1837 and educated at Charterhouse School; he joined the British Army in 1855 as an ensign in the 31st Regiment and fought in the Crimean War. He also served in China, where he took part in the march of the Allied armies on Peking in 1860.

Juliette Daniell. Photo: Camille Silvy. Courtesy of Paul Frecker at the Library of Nineteenth-Century Photography

1867 was a particularly eventful year for Hugh Deane: in January he married Juliette Daniell, the only daughter of the late Captain Edward Daniell (75th Regiment) and Juliana Pennick. In that same year, the first battalion of Hugh’s regiment was detailed to the Malta garrison; the Deanes duly arrived in Valletta on June 22 aboard the steamer Tamar, and in September, Hugh was promoted to the rank of captain by purchase. Also in September, the Deanes welcomed Juliette’s mother as their house guest. Sadly, Juliana died in Malta in April 1870. However, the Deanes’ lives were brightened by the births of two daughters, Violet Constance, in 1870, and Dorothy Juliette in 1871, both born in Malta. A third daughter, Ella Marjory, was born in 1873 after the family had returned to England.

The date of the Deanes’ departure from Malta is uncertain; however, it must have occurred between the births of Dorothy and Ella, namely between 1871 and 1873. Furthermore, in January 1872, Hugh retired from the army and, in April that year, he was appointed a captain in the South Devon Militia; thus it is more than likely that the family departed Malta either in late 1871 or early 1872.

Hugh’s carte-de-visite also describes him as dressed as a Huguenot. This was most certainly his costume for one of the season’s fancy dress balls that were popular among the British establishment in Malta in the 19th century. Although Juliette’s carte gives no indication of her costume, it can be assumed, for the reasons soon to be revealed, that she too is dressed as a Huguenot.

A Huguenot, on St Bartholomew’s Day, by the artist John Everett Millais. Photo: Wikipedia

To do this we need only look at British artists John Everett Millais’s painting entitled A Huguenot, on St Bartholomew’s Day, created in 1852. The painting commemorates the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre on August 24, 1572, when around 3,000 French Huguenots (Protestants) were murdered in Paris at the hands of their compatriot Catholics, with around 20,000 massacred across the rest of France.

In Millais’ painting, the young lady is attempting to tie a white armband around her lover’s arm, which would identify him as a Catholic and thus spare him from certain death. Embracing his lover, the young man resists, signifying his intent to die for his religious beliefs. The theme is typical of the loaded sentimentality of the Pre-Raphaelite movement popular at the time, and it must have struck an appropriately poignant note for a Protestant couple living in the midst of a staunchly Roman Catholic community.

Millais was himself inspired by Giacomo Meyerbeer’s opera Les Huguenots of 1836.

Certain details make it clear that the Deanes were heavily influenced by Millais’ painting: Hugh’s flat hat, frilled collar and the medal worn around his neck are lifted directly from Millais, as are the breeches and hose. Juliette’s costume borrows the slashed puffed sleeves and the full skirt. She also wears a proliferation of lace – the manufacture of which the Huguenots were renowned. Although the precise nature of the object Juliette holds in her right hand is difficult to discern, it looks very like a roll of fabric, hinting at the white armband shown in the painting.

Certain details make it clear that the Deanes were heavily influenced by Millais’ painting

A review of Carnival balls given in Malta over the period during which the Deanes were resident in Malta reveals that fancy dress balls were regularly hosted by either the governor or the admiral commanding the Mediterranean Fleet during the social season between New Year’s Eve and Ash Wednesday. In fact, just a few months after the Deane’s arrival in Malta, the Lady’s Own Journal records that Admiral Lord Clarence held a New Year’s Eve ball in December 1867 at which the admiral’s two daughters wore costumes based on painted portraits of their eminent female predecessors. This demonstrates that the selection of costumes based on portraits depicted in paintings was common practice. Might this have even been a theme for the fancy dress costumes on this occasion?

Given the intimacy of the subjects in Millais’ painting, one can quite rightly question why Hugh and Juliette are not featured in the same shot. This too can be surmised through a little more ‘rigorous’ research. Hugh was one of 13 siblings; one of his sisters, Eleanor, was married to Henry Ernest Wodehouse; this couple were the parents of Pelham Grenville Wodehouse, better known as P.G. Wodehouse, or “Plum” as he was referred to by family, friends and admirers.

Reference was made to Hugh Deane in a Wodehouse anecdote where Plum, attending a smart dinner party, had to borrow his uncle’s (Hugh) evening dress because he (Plum) had already lent his outfit to a friend. Hugh, at six foot four inches, was so tall that his trousers came up over Plum’s shirt front, which caused some embarrassment – at which Plum’s butler had to leave the room in fits of laughter.

Therefore, if the Deanes were photographed together, Hugh would have towered over Juliette, detracting from the principal message portrayed through their costumes. In fact, when one manipulates the scale of the photos so that the pedestal on which they are each leaning (which must be the same prop) are the same size, and they are viewed side by side, Hugh stands a good head taller than Juliette.

Leandro Preziosi is frequently described as the “Camille Silvy of Malta”; however, this reference should be more accurately applied to their proficiency and clientele rather than their photographic styles. Silvy (1834-1910), a close contemporary of Preziosi’s, was a French photographer who settled in London in 1859 and returned to France in 1868. The National Portrait Gallery in London holds Silvy’s studio daybooks, which list around 17,000 sittings in these years.

Silvy, like Preziosi, specialised in society photography, and both were prolific, even if Preziosi’s clientele was limited due to geographic constraints. The two artists were both meticulous in recording detail; however, their styles were diametrically opposed. Whereas Silvy generally placed his subjects, habitually dressed in sombre tones, before equally dark backgrounds, thus creating a penumbral, almost gothic northern atmosphere, Preziosi’s sitters are generally placed in front of light-coloured backgrounds, which result in starker images where the subjects can sometimes appear stranded or isolated in the studio. Furthermore, Silvy’s subjects seem to adopt more informal and dynamic poses, whereas Preziosi’s are more static.

The two portraits of Juliette Deane by Preziosi and Silvy, shown here, demonstrate these divergent styles. The portrait by Silvy was captured on June 25, 1862, before Juliette married Hugh; Preziosi’s portrait taken after the couple arrived in Malta in 1867.

The Deanes have been described as a somewhat bohemian family and no strangers to the art world; additional portraits of the Deane family help to give us a glimpse into their lives after their return to England. The most striking is a triple portrait of Juliette and Hugh’s three daughters Dorothy, Violette and Ella, the first two, as mentioned before, born in Malta. These portraits were painted by accomplished Edwardian artist George Percy Jacomb-Hood (1857-1929). There is also a portrait of Juliette in later life by the same artist which is made reference to in the background of the triple portrait.

Portrait of the Three Deane Sisters, by the artist George Percy Jacomb-Hood. Photo: Victoria Art Gallery, Bath/Bridgeman Images

We are fortunate to have an extensive corpus of photographic portraits taken by Preziosi which record middle- and upper-class society in Malta during these times. The growing interest in and the resulting research into Preziosi’s oeuvre serves multiple functions. Most immediately, it paints a more comprehensive picture of the fabric of Maltese and British society in our islands in the mid-19th century; it also highlights photography’s importance in recording these details; however, most importantly, it establishes Preziosi’s reputation as a skillful photographer and careful observer, as well as placing him in the wider geographical context of portrait photography.

The author is grateful to Vicki Ann Cremona, Paul Frecker and John Dawson for their invaluable assistance in writing this article.