By Jonathan J. Kalmakoff
Many students of Doukhobor history will recognize this studio portrait of Doukhobor leader Peter V. Verigin (1859–1924) seated beside his niece and companion, Anastasia F. Holuboff (1885–1965). It has long been presumed – based on its negative imprint – to have been taken at “Campbell Studio, Nelson, B.C.” sometime after photographer Edward James Campbell opened his Nelson premises in October 1909.
Yet an imprint alone is not determinative of a photograph’s origin.
When the visual evidence of this studio portrait is compared with securely dated images, and when Campbell’s professional movements are placed alongside Verigin’s own travel record, a far more compelling conclusion emerges: the portrait was taken by Campbell years earlier, and over a thousand miles away from Nelson.
Age, Appearance and Attire
The strongest evidence lies in the age, appearance, and attire of the sitters.
In the portrait, Peter appears in his physical prime. His hair is jet‑black, thick, and evenly waved, with no visible greying at the temples or moustache. His complexion is smooth, his cheeks firm, and his eyes bright and direct – an expression of vitality and self‑assurance. Similarly, Anastasia presents with smooth, unlined facial features, her cheeks still softly rounded rather than angular or full. Her posture and expression carry the open, unguarded quality typical of early adulthood.
However, when we examine photographs of Peter and Anastasia reliably dated to the 1910–1912 period – the earliest years in which Campbell could have photographed them at his Nelson studio – both individuals appear markedly older.
Peter’s hair has turned salt‑and‑pepper, with pronounced greying in both moustache and temples. His face shows the strain of advancing age – cheeks slightly hollowed, eyes more introspective, and the mouth set in a firmer, more deliberate line. The vitality evident in earlier images has given way to a contemplative gravity. Similarly, Anastasia’s appearance has changed significantly. Her face has filled out, the cheeks broader and the jawline heavier, with faint lines visible around the mouth and eyes. Her frame is fuller, and the soft contours of youth have been replaced by the solidity of middle adulthood.
Also in the portrait, Peter wears a dark Edwardian lounge jacket with soft lapels and a tailored, close‑fitting silhouette, with a ‘dickie’ or neckerchief over a white collared shirt. Anastasia is wearing traditional Doukhobor attire, including a decorated embroidered vest, ruffled blouse, and checker‑patterned skirt, topped with an ornate headdress. However, in photographs from the 1910–1912 period, Peter appears less formal, wearing heavier, less fitted suits and frequently carrying a straw hat, while Anastasia often appears in a plain plaid blouse, dark skirt, and white platok.
By contrast, Peter and Anastasia’s age and appearance in the portrait align very closely with photographs dated reliably to the 1906 period. In these photographs, Peter shows the same smooth, dark hair, firm facial contours, and vigorous expression seen in the portrait, while Anastasia appears equally youthful – slender, unlined, and poised, matching her documented look from that same period. Nothing in their physiognomy resembles their noticeably older, fuller appearances by 1910–1912.
Moreover, the attire worn by Peter and Anastasia in the portrait matches almost exactly the clothing they wore in photographs taken in November-December 1906 at the start of their four‑month trip to England and Russia as part of a seven‑person Doukhobor delegation. Peter appears in the same Edwardian lounge jacket – identical lapels, cut, and drape – while Anastasia wears the same embroidered vest, ruffled blouse, checker‑patterned skirt, and traditional headdress.
Taken together, these appearance‑based comparisons decisively date the portrait to the 1906 period rather than 1910–1912, and, more importantly, provide compelling evidence that the photograph was taken during their late-1906 delegation.
But given this dating, how could the portrait have been taken by Edward James Campbell of Nelson?
Timing and Location
To answer this question, we have to understand Campbell’s own movements. Prior to relocating to Nelson in October 1909, Campbell had spent twenty‑five years as a professional photographer in Winnipeg, operating “Campbell’s Studio” or “Campbell’s Art Gallery” at 254 Main Street, one of the city’s leading and longest‑established studios.
From this studio Campbell produced thousands of portraits for Winnipeg’s growing commercial and immigrant communities, establishing himself as a prominent regional photographer well before his move to British Columbia.
During the 1903 to 1909 period, Peter V. Verigin made numerous trips to Winnipeg to purchase goods, equipment, and supplies for the Doukhobor Community, often accompanied by Anastasia. He is documented as having stayed on several occasions at the Imperial Hotel at 171–181 Main Street, only a block from Campbell’s studio. Crucially, in October 1906 – on their way to London and Moscow – Verigin, Holuboff, and the rest of the Doukhobor delegation stayed at the Imperial.
Their documented presence in Winnipeg, in the immediate vicinity of Campbell’s studio, at precisely the time their appearance (documented in other photographs) matches the portrait, provides a historically grounded and highly plausible opportunity for the photograph to have been taken.
The Negative Imprint
Having established that Peter and Anastasia’s portrait was taken by Campbell in October 1906 at his Winnipeg studio, the question remains why it bears the negative imprint, “Campbell Studio Nelson, B.C.”
The most plausible explanation is that Campbell added this imprint years later, after relocating to Nelson in October 1909. Photographers of the period routinely updated or replaced negative imprints when they moved or rebranded their businesses, ensuring that earlier negatives continued to advertise their current studio name and location.
A further detail is the additional wording on the negative imprint: “Copyright Applied For.” This wording was commonly used by photographers of the period to assert provisional rights over an image and to deter competitors from copying or reproducing it – regardless of whether a formal copyright was ever filed. In this case, although the imprint claims that copyright was “applied for,” no such registration appears in the Canadian Patent Office Record.
Incidentally, Campbell did eventually obtain a copyright for a Doukhobor photograph – a singular portrait of Peter V. Verigin taken before his death – registered as Copyright No. 39862 and published in the Canadian Patent Office Record Vol. 50, No. 5, March 21, 1922.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the re‑dating and re-locating of this portrait underscores the importance of questioning evidence – even when that evidence seems to speak with absolute authority. A studio imprint may appear to fix a photograph in time and place, yet this case shows how visual analysis, contextual records, and human detail can overturn long‑standing assumptions.
Restoring the portrait to October 1906 not only returns Peter V. Verigin and Anastasia F. Holuboff to the moment in which they actually stood, but also reminds historians and students of Doukhobor history that careful scrutiny of sources can reveal richer, more accurate stories about the people and movements that shaped the community’s past.
