1221
the creative side of photography. He remained President
until 1894, was re-elected again in 1896, and again in
1903, serving until 1905.
The society, in its fi rst half-century had been led
by a succession of eminent scientists, and clearly the
photographic artists felt they were not receiving equal
recognition, and that the society’s leadership showed
little sympathy towards their aspirations. Sir Charles
Eastlake had been succeeded in 1855 by Sir Jonathan
Frederick Pollock MP, barrister and mathematician, who
held the presidency until 1869. He was immediately fol-
lowed by James Glaisher, one of the society’s founder
members, who remained in offi ce until 1892. Then came
Abney, and all three had emphasised in their various
presidential addresses that they saw the advancement
of photographic science as being a far more important
pursuit than the development of the art. Indeed, going
back to Claudet’s original proposal, he suggested only
that the society’s primary object should be “the advance-
ment of the Science of Photography.” It was Fenton
who fi rst broadened the brief and Sir Charles Eastlake
whose introductory address fi rst embraced the value of
photography “both to Science and to Art.”
In the 20th century, the recognition of disparate
groups within the society, each focused on a specifi c
aspect of photographic art or science, defused such
potential minefi elds and ensured that the broad diversity
of photography proposed by Fenton almost a century
earlier were equally and individually represented.
Over the fi rst seventy years, the society’s collection
of photography developed in an unstructured manner,
dependent upon gifts from members rather than a fo-
cused gathering together of a representative cross section
of the images produced. Thus, when John (J) Dudley
Johnston decided to focus on the society’s history in his
Presidential Address in 1923, he found few examples of
past members’ work with which to illustrate his lecture.
Roberts (2001) notes that he was able to fi nd only about
one hundred images in the attic of the society’s house,
many of the early works having either been damaged
or, simply, lost. It is thanks to Johnston’s zeal—as Hon-
orary Curator from 1927 until 1955—that the society
developed its unique collection, retrospectively acquir-
ing prime examples of 19th century work as well as
gathering the best contemporary work available. Roberts
notes that over 70% of the work in the collection was
produced by members of the society.
It was, therefore, towards the middle of the twen-
tieth century before Antoine Claudet’s 1851 sugges-
tion—that the society should gather “specimens of the
art contributed by members or procured from different
countries”—became a valuable reality.
John Hannavy
See also: Bridges, George Wilson; Claudet, Antoine-
François-Jean; Fenton, Roger; Talbot, William Henry
Fox; Wheatstone, Charles; Diamond, Hugh Welch;
Foster; Fry, Peter Wickens; Hunt, Robert; Llewelyn,
John Dillwyn; Montizon, Count de; Owen, Hugh;
Rosling; Vignoles, Charles Black; Robinson, Henry
Peach; and Brotherhood of the Linked Ring.Further Reading
Hopkinson, Tom, Treasures of the Royal Photographic Society
1839–191, London: Heinemann, 1980
Henfrey, Arthur (ed.), Journal of the Photographic Society (Vol-
ume 1 1854), London: Taylor & Francis, 1854, reprinted by
the RPS, 1976.
Kamlish, Marian, ‘Claudet, Fenton and the Photographic Society,’
in History of Photography, vol. 26, no. 4, Basingstoke: Taylor
& Francis, 2002.
Roberts, Pamela, Photogenic—from the Collection of the Royal
Photographic Society, London: Scriptum Editions, 2001.
Taylor, Roger, Photographs Exhibited in Britain 1839–1865,
Ottawa: National Galleries of Canada, 2002ROYAL SOCIETY, LONDON
The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural
Knowledge was founded in 1660 and established by
Royal Charter in 1662. It is the world’s oldest scientifi c
society in continuous existence and today acts as the
UK’s national science academy. It is an organisation
of Fellows, currently numbering around 1300 of the
world’s leading scientists.
The Society and its Fellows had a longstanding inter-
est in the component parts of what in the 19th century
became photography: light, optics and chemistry. Early
opportunities to develop photographic technique oc-
curred on the fringes of the Society: for example, in
solar printing experiments by Thomas Wedgwood and
Humphry Davy (a future Royal Society President). J.N.
Niepce approached the Society, apparently with the
intention of submitting a paper on his work, but did not
do so. These episodes in photographic pre-history led
to no practical Royal Society involvement in scientifi c
research on the subject.
However, from 1833, the problem of recording an
image from life by camera was being considered in a
serious if intermittent way by William Henry Fox Tal-
bot FRS (1800–1877). Talbot had already written on
mathematical and optical subject, thus earning election
to the Royal Society’s Fellowship in 1831. He had early
contact with intellectually sympathetic Fellows such as
John Herschel and David Brewster and the former would
provide crucial support following the fi rst announcement
of Talbot’s research interests in his paper ‘Some account
of the art of photogenic drawing’ which was read to the
Society on 31 January 1839.
Remarkably, Talbot’s paper was not published in
full in the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions,
but was abstracted. However, it, and news of L.J.M.