1. Thomas Carlyle to Ralph Waldo Emerson, 18 June 1846, in The Correspondence of Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1834–1872, ed. Charles Eliot Norton (Boston: Ticknor and Company, 1888), Vol. II, p. 130.
2. Daniel Novak, ‘A Literature of its Own: Time, Space, and Narrative Mediations in Victorian Photography’ in Media, Technology and Literature in the Nineteenth Century: Image, Sound, Touch, ed. Colette Colligan and Margaret Linley (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 65–90 (p. 87).
3. John Tagg, The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), p. 119.
4. My understanding is similar to Patrick Maynard’s concept, following Ludwig Wittgenstein, of the ‘photo-family’. I prefer ‘photographies’, however, since ‘family’ suggests that all photographic technologies share a genetic essence. Indeed, if photography is a family, then it has a large number of adopted members — not least drawing, painting, illustrating, lithography, engraving, and film. Patrick Maynard, ‘Talbot’s Technologies: Photographic Depiction, Detection, and Reproduction’ in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 47:3 (1989), pp. 263–76 (p. 270).
5. John Tagg, The Disciplinary Frame: Photographic Truths and the Capture of Meaning (Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 2009), p. 15.