Rossetti Archive Textual Transcription
Document Title: The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood
Author: J. Ernest Phythian
Date of publication: 1905
Publisher: George Newnes Ltd.
Printer: Ballantyne
Edition: 1
The full Rossetti Archive record for this transcribed document is available.
Manuscript Addition: Lucy Saunders / March 8th 1911 / fr. M.A.S.
Manuscript Addition: (1905) / 1
s edn / £28
Note: blank page
Note: blank page
Note: blank page
Editorial Note (page ornament): Scrolled publishers' figure for Newnes' Art Library
Note: blank page
Note: blank page
Note: Frontispiece: Autumn Leaves by J.E. Millais
AUTUMN LEAVES
from the painting by Sir J. E. Millais, P.R.A.
By permission of the Manchester City Art Gallery
Editorial Note (page ornament): Publishers' figure depicting three cherubs. Green ink.
LONDON: GEORGE NEWNES LIMITED
SOUTHAMPTON STREET STRAND W C
NEW YORK FREDERICK WARNE & CO 36 EAST 22 nd ST.
The Ballantyne Press
Tavistock St. London
Note: The word
Page is printed at the top of each column of
numbers in the table of contents.
- THE PRE-RAPHAELITE BROTHERHOOD. BY J. ERNEST PHYTHIAN vii
-
-
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
- AUTUMN LEAVES. BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A. . . Frontispiece
-
-
ITALIAN PRE-RAPHAELITE PAINTERS
-
-
GENTILE DA FABRIANO
- Adoration of the Magi . . . . . . . . . . 1
-
-
MASACCIO
- The Tribute Money . . . . . . . . . . . 5
-
-
FRA FILIPPO LIPPI
- The Coronation of the Virgin . . . . . . . . . 6
-
-
ANDREA MANTEGNA
- Madonna della Vittoria . . . . . . . . . . 7
-
-
SANDRO BOTTICELLI
- Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
-
-
RAPHAEL SANZIO
- Madonna degli Ansidei . . . . . . . . . . . 9
-
-
-
THE PRE-RAPHAELITE BROTHERHOOD
-
-
WILLIAM HOLMAN HUNT
- Two Gentlemen of Verona . . . . . . . . . . 16
- The Hireling Shepherd . . . . . . . . . . . 17
- Claudio and Isabella . . . . . . . . . . . 18
- The Awakened Conscience . . . . . . . . . . 19
- The Light of the World . . . . . . . . . . 20
- The Scapegoat . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
- The Finding of the Saviour in the Temple . . . . . . . 22
- The Shadow of Death . . . . . . . . . . . 23
- The Triumph of the Innocents . . . . . . . . . 24
-
-
DANTE GABRIEL ROSSETTI
- The Borgia Family . . . . . . . . . . . 25
- Dante drawing the Angel . . . . . . . . . . 26
- Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
- Paolo and Francesca . . . . . . . . . . . 28
- The Bower Garden . . . . . . . . . . . 29
- The Salutation of Beatrice—In Florence . . . . . . . 30
- The Salutation of Beatrice—In Paradise . . . . . . . 31
- Lucretia Borgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
- Lady Lilith . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
- How They Met Themselves . . . . . . . . . . 34
- Mona Rosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
- The Loving Cup . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
- Mariana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
- Veronica Veronese . . . . . . . . . . 38
- The Boat of Love . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
- The Sphinx . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
- The Blessed Damozel . . . . . . . . . . . 41
- Astarte Syriaca . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
-
-
SIR JOHN EVRETT MILLAIS, P.R.A
- Lorenzo and Isabella . . . . . . . . . . . 43
- Christ in the Carpenter's Shop . . . . . . . . . 44
- The Return of the Dove to the Ark . . . . . . . . 45
- The Bridesmaid . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
- Ophelia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
- The Huguenot . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
- The Order of Release . . . . . . . . . . . 49
- The Proscribed Royalist . . . . . . . . . . 50
- Portrait of John Ruskin . . . . . . . . . . 51
- The Blind Girl . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
- Sir Isumbras at the Ford . . . . . . . . . . 53
- The Escape of a Heretic . . . . . . . . . . 54
- The Vale of Rest . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
- The Black Brunswicker . . . . . . . . . . 56
Editorial Note (page ornament): Scrollwork header and decorated capital.
Note: The "n" and the "S" are missing in the name "Paul Van Somer" located in the
last line on the page.
IN the year 1821 Constable prophesied that within
thirty years English art would have ceased to exist.
His gloomy forecast was not borne out by the event;
but that there was ground for fear, if not for despair,
is evidenced by the fact that just about the time our
art, according to Constable, should have been at the
last gasp, it was indeed so low that there was made
for its re-invigoration a very thorough application of a
remedy that may not unfitly be likened to the fresh-air cure now so
much in vogue for certain physical maladies. It may be that a gentler
and more gradual application would have sufficed. But the remedy
was, in fact, sharp, and the cure well-nigh instantaneous. Briefly
to indicate the nature of the disease from which English art was suffer-
ing in the former half of the nineteenth century, and of the remedy
by which the progress of the disease was arrested and the patient restored
to health, is the object of these pages.
thirty years English art would have ceased to exist.
His gloomy forecast was not borne out by the event;
but that there was ground for fear, if not for despair,
is evidenced by the fact that just about the time our
art, according to Constable, should have been at the
last gasp, it was indeed so low that there was made
for its re-invigoration a very thorough application of a
remedy that may not unfitly be likened to the fresh-air cure now so
much in vogue for certain physical maladies. It may be that a gentler
and more gradual application would have sufficed. But the remedy
was, in fact, sharp, and the cure well-nigh instantaneous. Briefly
to indicate the nature of the disease from which English art was suffer-
ing in the former half of the nineteenth century, and of the remedy
by which the progress of the disease was arrested and the patient restored
to health, is the object of these pages.
This country was very late in joining the number of those that could
boast of a succession of native painters, worthy to be called a school,
and giving expression through their art to the national life and character.
The great days of Italian painting had gone by; Germany, Flanders,
Holland, France, and Spain had distinguished themselves in the art,
while as yet native English painters were few and of only mediocre
talent, and our sovereigns were inviting foreigners to come over here and
paint their portraits, and those of their families, the members of their
Court, and other notable people. Holbein in the reign of Henry VIII.,
Sir Antonio More in the reign of Mary, Lucas de Heere and Zucchero in
the reign of Elizabeth, Paul Va[n S]omer, Cornelius Jansen, and Daniel Mytens in the reign of James I., Vandyck in the reign of Charles I., Sir
Peter Lely in the Commonwealth, and Sir Godfrey Kneller and Antonio
Verrio in the reign of Charles II.—such is a list of the principal foreign
painters who settled in this country and obtained the greater part of the
royal and noble patronage. The lot of the native artists in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries was perhaps better than, but still may be com-
pared with, the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. But after a
Hilliard now, and then an Oliver, and a few other names that emerge
into some distinction, the names of native artists to be chronicled largely
increase in number towards the end of the seventeenth century; and at
last, in the early years of the eighteenth century, England produced
in the person of William Hogarth a painter who could do for her what
no foreign artist could do: interpret her life from within, with a skill
and insight that gave him a high place among the painters of his century.
Hogarth painted English life as he saw it, and in refusing to be a slave to
artistic tradition, while by no means declining to learn from it, he gave
to English art at the outset a characteristic it has never, at the worst,
wholly lost, and was a true ancestor of the Pre-Raphaelites.
boast of a succession of native painters, worthy to be called a school,
and giving expression through their art to the national life and character.
The great days of Italian painting had gone by; Germany, Flanders,
Holland, France, and Spain had distinguished themselves in the art,
while as yet native English painters were few and of only mediocre
talent, and our sovereigns were inviting foreigners to come over here and
paint their portraits, and those of their families, the members of their
Court, and other notable people. Holbein in the reign of Henry VIII.,
Sir Antonio More in the reign of Mary, Lucas de Heere and Zucchero in
the reign of Elizabeth, Paul Va[n S]omer, Cornelius Jansen, and Daniel Mytens in the reign of James I., Vandyck in the reign of Charles I., Sir
Peter Lely in the Commonwealth, and Sir Godfrey Kneller and Antonio
Verrio in the reign of Charles II.—such is a list of the principal foreign
painters who settled in this country and obtained the greater part of the
royal and noble patronage. The lot of the native artists in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries was perhaps better than, but still may be com-
pared with, the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. But after a
Hilliard now, and then an Oliver, and a few other names that emerge
into some distinction, the names of native artists to be chronicled largely
increase in number towards the end of the seventeenth century; and at
last, in the early years of the eighteenth century, England produced
in the person of William Hogarth a painter who could do for her what
no foreign artist could do: interpret her life from within, with a skill
and insight that gave him a high place among the painters of his century.
Hogarth painted English life as he saw it, and in refusing to be a slave to
artistic tradition, while by no means declining to learn from it, he gave
to English art at the outset a characteristic it has never, at the worst,
wholly lost, and was a true ancestor of the Pre-Raphaelites.
After Hogarth, native painters of distinction followed each other so
quickly that an English school had been securely established—as the
event has proved—by only a little later than the middle of the eighteenth
century. Richard Wilson and Thomas Gainsborough were but the fore-
most of a number of landscape painters. Reynolds, nine years younger
than Wilson, and Gainsborough, with Romney soon to join them, came
behind no foreign rivals, and are ranked among the great portrait painters
of their time. Sir Benjamin West, James Barry, and John Singleton
Copley, in the second half of the century, were but the chief exponents of
historical and classical painting; and George Morland was the best of
several artists who found their subjects among the country people and
the farmyard animals they tended. In 1775 was born Joseph Mallord
William Turner, one of the greatest landscape painters that any country
has produced, and he, with Cozens, Girtin, and others whom we need not
name, created the modern art of water-colour painting. Constable,
whose doleful prophecy we have quoted above, was younger than Turner
by only a year, and his work was but little less than epoch-making in the
history of modern landscape painting. That with such a record—and
we have by no means given it in full—English art should, in 1821, have
been thought capable of dying out within thirty years, was, to employ
once more a useful metaphor, as if one who had seemed to be in robust
health had suddenly been found to be smitten with incurable disease.
quickly that an English school had been securely established—as the
event has proved—by only a little later than the middle of the eighteenth
century. Richard Wilson and Thomas Gainsborough were but the fore-
most of a number of landscape painters. Reynolds, nine years younger
than Wilson, and Gainsborough, with Romney soon to join them, came
behind no foreign rivals, and are ranked among the great portrait painters
of their time. Sir Benjamin West, James Barry, and John Singleton
Copley, in the second half of the century, were but the chief exponents of
historical and classical painting; and George Morland was the best of
several artists who found their subjects among the country people and
the farmyard animals they tended. In 1775 was born Joseph Mallord
William Turner, one of the greatest landscape painters that any country
has produced, and he, with Cozens, Girtin, and others whom we need not
name, created the modern art of water-colour painting. Constable,
whose doleful prophecy we have quoted above, was younger than Turner
by only a year, and his work was but little less than epoch-making in the
history of modern landscape painting. That with such a record—and
we have by no means given it in full—English art should, in 1821, have
been thought capable of dying out within thirty years, was, to employ
once more a useful metaphor, as if one who had seemed to be in robust
health had suddenly been found to be smitten with incurable disease.
There was disease, indeed, as we have already said, but it was not
incurable. Our artists were contracting the vicious habit of relying too
much on precedent and convention, and were losing touch with nature
and life; many of them were, in the words of Mr. Holman Hunt, “creatures
of orthodox rule, line and system.” It was the work of men who could
be thus described that gave rise to, and partly justified, Constable's gloomy forecast. By the mid-century the condition of art had become
worse—and better, for already there were not lacking signs of return
to sounder theory and more healthy practice. In his introduction to the
reprint of the Germ , the short-lived organ of the Pre-Raphaelites, Mr.
W. M. Rossetti thus describes the state of things immediately before the
formation of the Brotherhood. “In 1848 the British School of painting
was in anything but a vital or a lively condition. One very great and
incomparable genius, Turner, belonged to it. He was old and past
executive prime. There were some other highly able men—Etty and
David Scott, then both very near their death ; Maclise, Dyce, Cope,
Mulready, Linnell, Poole, William Henry Hunt, Landseer, Leslie, Watts,
Cox, J. F. Lewis, and some others. There were also some distinctly
clever men, such as Ward, Frith, and Egg. Paton, Gilbert, Ford Madox
Brown, Mark Anthony, had given sufficient indication of their powers,
but were all at an early stage. On the whole, the School had sunk
very far below what it had been in the days of Hogarth, Reynolds, Gains-
borough, and Blake, and its ordinary average had come to be something
for which commonplace is a laudatory term and imbecility a not excessive
one.” This diagnosis by one of the Pre-Raphaelite Brethren of the con-
dition of English art in the year that the Brotherhood was founded, is
very instructive. In it we find the clear admission that art, though
sickly, was far from moribund. We are given considerably long lists of
“highly able men,” “distinctly clever men,” and young men “who had
given sufficient indication of their powers.” Most of us, surely, would
place G. F. Watts in a much higher category than that of highly able
men, and he was already developing his great and unique art. Ruskin
said that J. F. Lewis “worked with the sternest precision twenty
years before Pre-Raphaelitism had ever been heard of; pursued calmly
the same principles, developed by himself, for himself, through years of
lonely labour in Syria.” In 1842 William James Müller, an artist not
mentioned in any of Mr. Rossetti's lists, wrote : “ I paint in oil on the
spot ; indeed, I am more than ever convinced of the actual necessity
of looking at Nature with a much more observant eye than the most of
young artists do, and in particular at skies ; these are generally neglected.”
Other examples might be given to show that there was still much health
in many of the older men, and that some of the younger men were finding
out how what had been lost was to be regained. What the Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood did, as already hinted, was not to cure what, without
them, or at least without their organised efforts, would have been in-
curable, but to make the restoration to health more speedy.
incurable. Our artists were contracting the vicious habit of relying too
much on precedent and convention, and were losing touch with nature
and life; many of them were, in the words of Mr. Holman Hunt, “creatures
of orthodox rule, line and system.” It was the work of men who could
be thus described that gave rise to, and partly justified, Constable's gloomy forecast. By the mid-century the condition of art had become
worse—and better, for already there were not lacking signs of return
to sounder theory and more healthy practice. In his introduction to the
reprint of the Germ , the short-lived organ of the Pre-Raphaelites, Mr.
W. M. Rossetti thus describes the state of things immediately before the
formation of the Brotherhood. “In 1848 the British School of painting
was in anything but a vital or a lively condition. One very great and
incomparable genius, Turner, belonged to it. He was old and past
executive prime. There were some other highly able men—Etty and
David Scott, then both very near their death ; Maclise, Dyce, Cope,
Mulready, Linnell, Poole, William Henry Hunt, Landseer, Leslie, Watts,
Cox, J. F. Lewis, and some others. There were also some distinctly
clever men, such as Ward, Frith, and Egg. Paton, Gilbert, Ford Madox
Brown, Mark Anthony, had given sufficient indication of their powers,
but were all at an early stage. On the whole, the School had sunk
very far below what it had been in the days of Hogarth, Reynolds, Gains-
borough, and Blake, and its ordinary average had come to be something
for which commonplace is a laudatory term and imbecility a not excessive
one.” This diagnosis by one of the Pre-Raphaelite Brethren of the con-
dition of English art in the year that the Brotherhood was founded, is
very instructive. In it we find the clear admission that art, though
sickly, was far from moribund. We are given considerably long lists of
“highly able men,” “distinctly clever men,” and young men “who had
given sufficient indication of their powers.” Most of us, surely, would
place G. F. Watts in a much higher category than that of highly able
men, and he was already developing his great and unique art. Ruskin
said that J. F. Lewis “worked with the sternest precision twenty
years before Pre-Raphaelitism had ever been heard of; pursued calmly
the same principles, developed by himself, for himself, through years of
lonely labour in Syria.” In 1842 William James Müller, an artist not
mentioned in any of Mr. Rossetti's lists, wrote : “ I paint in oil on the
spot ; indeed, I am more than ever convinced of the actual necessity
of looking at Nature with a much more observant eye than the most of
young artists do, and in particular at skies ; these are generally neglected.”
Other examples might be given to show that there was still much health
in many of the older men, and that some of the younger men were finding
out how what had been lost was to be regained. What the Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood did, as already hinted, was not to cure what, without
them, or at least without their organised efforts, would have been in-
curable, but to make the restoration to health more speedy.
One painter named in Mr. Rossetti's last list, Ford Madox Brown,
demands particular attention in connection with the Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood. There has been much discussion as to who was the artist
that must be accounted the leading spirit in the Pre-Raphaelite move-
ment. This position has even been assigned to Madox Brown, who was
never so much as a member of the Brotherhood. Of course, he might none the less have been its inspirer and guide. He anticipated the chief
principles adopted by the Brotherhood, and he considerably influenced
its members. But there can be little doubt that the movement would
have been born and matured without his help ; indeed, he rather dis-
couraged it than otherwise, as an organised movement ; and mere
independent individual efforts alone could not have brought about
the revival of art as speedily as did the work of the Brotherhood. Still, as
we shall see hereafter, he was so closely associated with its members
that the mere fact of his never having been formally one of them has not
prevented the essential identity of his work with theirs from linking
him inseparably with them in the history of English painting. Particular
account of him must therefore be given here, and it will be convenient
to do this now.
demands particular attention in connection with the Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood. There has been much discussion as to who was the artist
that must be accounted the leading spirit in the Pre-Raphaelite move-
ment. This position has even been assigned to Madox Brown, who was
never so much as a member of the Brotherhood. Of course, he might none the less have been its inspirer and guide. He anticipated the chief
principles adopted by the Brotherhood, and he considerably influenced
its members. But there can be little doubt that the movement would
have been born and matured without his help ; indeed, he rather dis-
couraged it than otherwise, as an organised movement ; and mere
independent individual efforts alone could not have brought about
the revival of art as speedily as did the work of the Brotherhood. Still, as
we shall see hereafter, he was so closely associated with its members
that the mere fact of his never having been formally one of them has not
prevented the essential identity of his work with theirs from linking
him inseparably with them in the history of English painting. Particular
account of him must therefore be given here, and it will be convenient
to do this now.
Ford Madox Brown was the son of a purser in the British navy, and
was born at Calais in the year 1821. He very early showed a love for
drawing, and at the age of fourteen was entered as a student in the
Academy at Bruges, passing thence to Ghent, and in 1837 to the
Academy of Baron Wappers at Antwerp. Here he received a thorough
technical grounding, not only in painting, but in etching, lithography,
pastels, fresco and other processes. In 1840 he went to Paris, and it
was there, as he himself tells us, that he formulated and began to put
into practice his own theory of the relation of art to nature ; resolving,
for one thing, on “a system of individualised and truer light and shade—
daylight, morning, afternoon, indoor and outdoor light, and so forth.”
In 1845 he visited Italy, where he was greatly impressed by the works
of the earlier as well as of the later Italian painters. He found out
for himself the painters who preceded Raphael before the Pre-Raphaelites
themselves discovered them ; and if post hoc were always propter hoc, the
Brethren would have had to own him as the true and only begetter of
their artistic life.
was born at Calais in the year 1821. He very early showed a love for
drawing, and at the age of fourteen was entered as a student in the
Academy at Bruges, passing thence to Ghent, and in 1837 to the
Academy of Baron Wappers at Antwerp. Here he received a thorough
technical grounding, not only in painting, but in etching, lithography,
pastels, fresco and other processes. In 1840 he went to Paris, and it
was there, as he himself tells us, that he formulated and began to put
into practice his own theory of the relation of art to nature ; resolving,
for one thing, on “a system of individualised and truer light and shade—
daylight, morning, afternoon, indoor and outdoor light, and so forth.”
In 1845 he visited Italy, where he was greatly impressed by the works
of the earlier as well as of the later Italian painters. He found out
for himself the painters who preceded Raphael before the Pre-Raphaelites
themselves discovered them ; and if post hoc were always propter hoc, the
Brethren would have had to own him as the true and only begetter of
their artistic life.
But, a few years later, a young student in the Royal Academy
Schools worked out for himself, quite independently, practically the
same principles as those at which Madox Brown had already arrived.
This was William Holman Hunt, who was the son of a London ware-
houseman in the Manchester trade, and was born in Wood Street, Cheap-
side, in April 1827. He was taken from school before he was thirteen
years old, as he showed little inclination for learning, and was placed
first with an auctioneer and then with the London agents of Richard
Cobden, the famous advocate of Free Trade, who was a calico printer.
The boy, who had drawn in his copybooks at school, was encouraged in
his juvenile love for art by his first employer, and then by a fellow clerk
of his second employer. He drew flies on the office window-panes with
such Pre-Raphaelite fidelity to nature that Mr. Cobden's agent vainly
endeavoured to brush them away! Here, surely, was a youth destined
for art ; but it was against the wishes of his family that he adopted
not as a pursuit. After early struggles of the usual kind, he became a probationer in the Academy Schools, at the third attempt, in 1844,
and a student in the following year, when he was seventeen years of
age.
Schools worked out for himself, quite independently, practically the
same principles as those at which Madox Brown had already arrived.
This was William Holman Hunt, who was the son of a London ware-
houseman in the Manchester trade, and was born in Wood Street, Cheap-
side, in April 1827. He was taken from school before he was thirteen
years old, as he showed little inclination for learning, and was placed
first with an auctioneer and then with the London agents of Richard
Cobden, the famous advocate of Free Trade, who was a calico printer.
The boy, who had drawn in his copybooks at school, was encouraged in
his juvenile love for art by his first employer, and then by a fellow clerk
of his second employer. He drew flies on the office window-panes with
such Pre-Raphaelite fidelity to nature that Mr. Cobden's agent vainly
endeavoured to brush them away! Here, surely, was a youth destined
for art ; but it was against the wishes of his family that he adopted
not as a pursuit. After early struggles of the usual kind, he became a probationer in the Academy Schools, at the third attempt, in 1844,
and a student in the following year, when he was seventeen years of
age.
We may advisably quote his own brief summary of the beginning of
that theory and practice of art in which he has continued during the
whole of a long life. In an article on Pre-Raphaelitism in Chambers's
Encyclopædia, after describing, in words already quoted, the condition
of art in his student days, he says : “One of the earnest young students
of the day was William Holman Hunt, who, already feeling his way as a
practical painter, was led by circumstances to study in exceptional degree
the works of the greatest old masters, and he perceived that in every
school progress ended when the pupils derived their manner through
dogmas evolved from artists' systems rather than from principles of
design taught by nature herself. He determined, therefore, for his own
part, to disregard all the arbitrary rules in vogue in existing schools, and
to seek his own road in art by that patient study of nature on which the
great masters had founded their sweetness and strength of style. Without
any idea of ‘forming a school,’ but for his own development alone, he
began to study with exceptional care and frankness those features of
nature which were generally slurred over as unworthy attention ; and
to this purpose he found most timely encouragement in the enthusiastic
outburst of Ruskin's appeal to nature in all vital questions of art criticism
as expressed by him in ‘ Modern Painters.’ ” How thoroughly adapted
was Ruskin's teaching to confirm Hunt in the principles he was formulat-
ing for himself, one passage from “Modern Painters,” often quoted in
this connection, will suffice to show. “From young artists nothing ought
to be tolerated but simple, bona fide imitation of nature. They have no
business to ape the execution of masters ; to utter weak and disjointed
repetitions of other men's words ; and mimic the gestures of the preacher,
without understanding his meaning or sharing his emotions. We do
not want their crude ideas of composition, their unformed conceptions
of the Beautiful, their unsystematised experiments on the Sublime.
We scorn their velocity, for it is without direction ; we reject their de-
cision, for it is without grounds ; we contemn their composition, for it is
without materials ; we reprobate their choice, for it is without com-
parison. Their duty is neither to choose, nor compose, nor imagine, nor
experimentalise ; but to be humble and earnest in following the steps of
nature and tracing the finger of God. Nothing is so bad a symptom,
in the work of young artists, as too much dexterity of handling; for it is
a sign that they are satisfied with their work, and have tried to do nothing
more than they were able to do. Their works should be full of failures,
for these are the signs of effort. They should keep to quiet colours,
greys and browns, and, making the early works of Turner their example,
as his latest are to be their object of emulation, should go to nature in all
singleness of heart, and walk with her laboriously and trustingly, having
no other thoughts but how best to penetrate her meaning and remember her instructions ; rejecting nothing, selecting nothing, and scorning
nothing.”
that theory and practice of art in which he has continued during the
whole of a long life. In an article on Pre-Raphaelitism in Chambers's
Encyclopædia, after describing, in words already quoted, the condition
of art in his student days, he says : “One of the earnest young students
of the day was William Holman Hunt, who, already feeling his way as a
practical painter, was led by circumstances to study in exceptional degree
the works of the greatest old masters, and he perceived that in every
school progress ended when the pupils derived their manner through
dogmas evolved from artists' systems rather than from principles of
design taught by nature herself. He determined, therefore, for his own
part, to disregard all the arbitrary rules in vogue in existing schools, and
to seek his own road in art by that patient study of nature on which the
great masters had founded their sweetness and strength of style. Without
any idea of ‘forming a school,’ but for his own development alone, he
began to study with exceptional care and frankness those features of
nature which were generally slurred over as unworthy attention ; and
to this purpose he found most timely encouragement in the enthusiastic
outburst of Ruskin's appeal to nature in all vital questions of art criticism
as expressed by him in ‘ Modern Painters.’ ” How thoroughly adapted
was Ruskin's teaching to confirm Hunt in the principles he was formulat-
ing for himself, one passage from “Modern Painters,” often quoted in
this connection, will suffice to show. “From young artists nothing ought
to be tolerated but simple, bona fide imitation of nature. They have no
business to ape the execution of masters ; to utter weak and disjointed
repetitions of other men's words ; and mimic the gestures of the preacher,
without understanding his meaning or sharing his emotions. We do
not want their crude ideas of composition, their unformed conceptions
of the Beautiful, their unsystematised experiments on the Sublime.
We scorn their velocity, for it is without direction ; we reject their de-
cision, for it is without grounds ; we contemn their composition, for it is
without materials ; we reprobate their choice, for it is without com-
parison. Their duty is neither to choose, nor compose, nor imagine, nor
experimentalise ; but to be humble and earnest in following the steps of
nature and tracing the finger of God. Nothing is so bad a symptom,
in the work of young artists, as too much dexterity of handling; for it is
a sign that they are satisfied with their work, and have tried to do nothing
more than they were able to do. Their works should be full of failures,
for these are the signs of effort. They should keep to quiet colours,
greys and browns, and, making the early works of Turner their example,
as his latest are to be their object of emulation, should go to nature in all
singleness of heart, and walk with her laboriously and trustingly, having
no other thoughts but how best to penetrate her meaning and remember her instructions ; rejecting nothing, selecting nothing, and scorning
nothing.”
Perhaps there is a too violent swing of the pendulum from the side of
art to the side of nature in these early theorisings of the great painter
and the great writer; but we must not enter here upon a discussion that
would be too long for far more than all the space at our disposal. Our
task is expository, not critical : to show how the young artists who were
to revolutionise English painting set about their work. We know
sufficiently well, from the above quotations, where Holman Hunt was
in the later years of his studentship. Let us turn now to another of the
members of the Brotherhood.
art to the side of nature in these early theorisings of the great painter
and the great writer; but we must not enter here upon a discussion that
would be too long for far more than all the space at our disposal. Our
task is expository, not critical : to show how the young artists who were
to revolutionise English painting set about their work. We know
sufficiently well, from the above quotations, where Holman Hunt was
in the later years of his studentship. Let us turn now to another of the
members of the Brotherhood.
The first two to become closely acquainted with each other, of the
three young art students who were soon to found the Brotherhood,
were Holman Hunt and Millais. John Everett Millais, whose father was
a native of Jersey, was born at Southampton on June 8, 1829. At a
very early age he displayed extraordinary skill in drawing, and was only
about nine years old when Sir Martin Shee, then President of the Royal
Academy, on being shown some of his drawings, told his parents that
“nature had provided for the boy's success.” He was at once placed
in the drawing school of Mr. Sass, took the same year the silver medal
of the Society of Arts for a drawing from the antique, and two years
later entered the Academy Schools at an age so early as to be, and remain,
a record. Here he carried everything before him, obtaining a silver
medal in 1843 and a gold medal in 1847, being then only eighteen years
of age. We have seen Etty included in Mr. William Rossetti's list of
highly capable painters. In a lecture on Victorian Art, Madox Brown
says of him: “He taught Millais and all our school to colour. We all
went to him to learn flesh painting, but so subtle was his touch and
exquisite the tints he could produce with his three or four pigments,
that the more they gazed at him the less they knew. A whole school
followed him—Frith, Egg, Elmore, Hook, Poole—but at such a distance
that no one found it out. The only one who caught some of his inspira-
tion was William Hunt, who stippled in water-colours. Millais, also,
when quite a boy, watched him and extracted some of his secret, which
was an open one to genius.” It was, in fact, as an admirer, almost a
disciple of Etty, that Millais, towards the end of his studentship, showed
signs of commencing his career as an artist. This is well seen in
such early pictures as Pizarro Seizing the Inca of Peru, and Cymon and
Iphigenia . It was at this time, however, that he became acquainted
with Holman Hunt, and the latter tells us, in the article already quoted,
that “this youthful friendship led to frequent consultations over the
needs of the growing generation of artists, and Millais declared his con-
fidence in the closer study of nature, which he determined to adopt as
soon as work to which he was committed should be completed.” Thus
the “emulator of the pseudo-classical Etty,” as Mr. Hunt calls him,
became a convert to “the return to nature.”
three young art students who were soon to found the Brotherhood,
were Holman Hunt and Millais. John Everett Millais, whose father was
a native of Jersey, was born at Southampton on June 8, 1829. At a
very early age he displayed extraordinary skill in drawing, and was only
about nine years old when Sir Martin Shee, then President of the Royal
Academy, on being shown some of his drawings, told his parents that
“nature had provided for the boy's success.” He was at once placed
in the drawing school of Mr. Sass, took the same year the silver medal
of the Society of Arts for a drawing from the antique, and two years
later entered the Academy Schools at an age so early as to be, and remain,
a record. Here he carried everything before him, obtaining a silver
medal in 1843 and a gold medal in 1847, being then only eighteen years
of age. We have seen Etty included in Mr. William Rossetti's list of
highly capable painters. In a lecture on Victorian Art, Madox Brown
says of him: “He taught Millais and all our school to colour. We all
went to him to learn flesh painting, but so subtle was his touch and
exquisite the tints he could produce with his three or four pigments,
that the more they gazed at him the less they knew. A whole school
followed him—Frith, Egg, Elmore, Hook, Poole—but at such a distance
that no one found it out. The only one who caught some of his inspira-
tion was William Hunt, who stippled in water-colours. Millais, also,
when quite a boy, watched him and extracted some of his secret, which
was an open one to genius.” It was, in fact, as an admirer, almost a
disciple of Etty, that Millais, towards the end of his studentship, showed
signs of commencing his career as an artist. This is well seen in
such early pictures as Pizarro Seizing the Inca of Peru, and Cymon and
Iphigenia . It was at this time, however, that he became acquainted
with Holman Hunt, and the latter tells us, in the article already quoted,
that “this youthful friendship led to frequent consultations over the
needs of the growing generation of artists, and Millais declared his con-
fidence in the closer study of nature, which he determined to adopt as
soon as work to which he was committed should be completed.” Thus
the “emulator of the pseudo-classical Etty,” as Mr. Hunt calls him,
became a convert to “the return to nature.”
Holman Hunt, then, having found his way to the earnest study of
nature as a basis for art—Ruskin helping him on the road—in turn
pointed out the way to Millais. And hardly had Hunt and Millais
become acquainted, before they were joined by another Academy
student, of whom we must now give some account.
nature as a basis for art—Ruskin helping him on the road—in turn
pointed out the way to Millais. And hardly had Hunt and Millais
become acquainted, before they were joined by another Academy
student, of whom we must now give some account.
Gabriel Charles Dante Rossetti was born in London on May 12,
1828. His father, Gabriele Rossetti, was an Italian exile who became
Professor of Italian at King's College. His maternal grandmother was
an Englishwoman. Gabriele had three other children, Maria Francesca,
William Michael, and Christina Georgina. Of this highly gifted family
it must suffice to say that each of its members became distinguished as
a writer, and Dante Gabriel—as he chose to call himself—also as a
painter. From his earliest years he breathed an atmosphere of romance,
of literature, and of art. Four years later than Millais, and two years
after Millais left it, he entered Sass's Academy, then kept by a Mr. Cary,
and after remaining there four years, passed to the Academy Schools.
Neither at the one place nor the other did he work with sufficient steadi-
ness to receive a thorough grounding in the practice of his art; indeed,
he did not proceed to the Life and Painting Schools at the Academy.
For a time, it seemed likely that he would abandon painting for poetry,
in which, as early as 1847, he did such enduring work as “ The Blessed
Damozel .” But he had already seen and admired Madox Brown's
Parisina ; and the same painter's cartoons exhibited in Westminster
Hall, and his Wickcliffe Reading His Translation of the Bible to John of
Gaunt , exhibited in 1848, so aroused his enthusiasm that he forthwith
wrote to the artist asking to be received as a pupil. The story has often
been told how Madox Brown, smarting under lack of appreciation,
suspected a practical joke, and called at the address given in the letter
armed with a thick stick and prepared to chastise the offender should
his suspicion prove to be correct. He found, however, that Rossetti
was in earnest, and acceded to his request. The relation of master and
pupil did not last long. Rossetti was set to draw jars and bottles, and
Pegasus soon kicked over the traces. At the Royal Academy Exhibition
that year Rossetti saw Holman Hunt's Eve of St. Agnes , admired it, and
forthwith sought that painter's help. Hunt, seeing that his pupil could
be drawn but not driven, set him to work on a design with a literary
motive, but including still-life accessories that would develop his technical
skill. Thus the pill was sugared, and by August of the same year Rossetti
was sharing his studio, and Hunt, Millais, and Rossetti were brought into
close companionship.
1828. His father, Gabriele Rossetti, was an Italian exile who became
Professor of Italian at King's College. His maternal grandmother was
an Englishwoman. Gabriele had three other children, Maria Francesca,
William Michael, and Christina Georgina. Of this highly gifted family
it must suffice to say that each of its members became distinguished as
a writer, and Dante Gabriel—as he chose to call himself—also as a
painter. From his earliest years he breathed an atmosphere of romance,
of literature, and of art. Four years later than Millais, and two years
after Millais left it, he entered Sass's Academy, then kept by a Mr. Cary,
and after remaining there four years, passed to the Academy Schools.
Neither at the one place nor the other did he work with sufficient steadi-
ness to receive a thorough grounding in the practice of his art; indeed,
he did not proceed to the Life and Painting Schools at the Academy.
For a time, it seemed likely that he would abandon painting for poetry,
in which, as early as 1847, he did such enduring work as “ The Blessed
Damozel .” But he had already seen and admired Madox Brown's
Parisina ; and the same painter's cartoons exhibited in Westminster
Hall, and his Wickcliffe Reading His Translation of the Bible to John of
Gaunt , exhibited in 1848, so aroused his enthusiasm that he forthwith
wrote to the artist asking to be received as a pupil. The story has often
been told how Madox Brown, smarting under lack of appreciation,
suspected a practical joke, and called at the address given in the letter
armed with a thick stick and prepared to chastise the offender should
his suspicion prove to be correct. He found, however, that Rossetti
was in earnest, and acceded to his request. The relation of master and
pupil did not last long. Rossetti was set to draw jars and bottles, and
Pegasus soon kicked over the traces. At the Royal Academy Exhibition
that year Rossetti saw Holman Hunt's Eve of St. Agnes , admired it, and
forthwith sought that painter's help. Hunt, seeing that his pupil could
be drawn but not driven, set him to work on a design with a literary
motive, but including still-life accessories that would develop his technical
skill. Thus the pill was sugared, and by August of the same year Rossetti
was sharing his studio, and Hunt, Millais, and Rossetti were brought into
close companionship.
It was well for English art that these three young men thus came
together. Separately they might have achieved little or much; but
they could not have accomplished that of which they actually proved
capable : the carrying of revolution to a speedily successul issue. Each
contributed to the common stock of ability something that the others
lacked, and the whole was a combination of brilliant gifts. Holman Hunt was a sound craftsman, unfailingly conscientious and painstaking
in his work, and resolved to devote his art to the highest purpose. Millais,
as we have seen, had met with unprecedented success as a student, and
was already looked to for great things. A movement in which he took
part could not fail for lack of notice, and even if opposition should come
—as it did, and of the bitterest kind—he had a buoyancy of spirit that
would bear up bravely against it long after most men would have
succumbed. Rossetti's technical equipment was far inferior to that
of the other two, but he overflowed with zeal and enthusiasm, was a
born inspirer of men, and had great imaginative power. Revolt
was not far distant when these three had begun to discuss together the
problems of art.
together. Separately they might have achieved little or much; but
they could not have accomplished that of which they actually proved
capable : the carrying of revolution to a speedily successul issue. Each
contributed to the common stock of ability something that the others
lacked, and the whole was a combination of brilliant gifts. Holman Hunt was a sound craftsman, unfailingly conscientious and painstaking
in his work, and resolved to devote his art to the highest purpose. Millais,
as we have seen, had met with unprecedented success as a student, and
was already looked to for great things. A movement in which he took
part could not fail for lack of notice, and even if opposition should come
—as it did, and of the bitterest kind—he had a buoyancy of spirit that
would bear up bravely against it long after most men would have
succumbed. Rossetti's technical equipment was far inferior to that
of the other two, but he overflowed with zeal and enthusiasm, was a
born inspirer of men, and had great imaginative power. Revolt
was not far distant when these three had begun to discuss together the
problems of art.
The final resolve was precipitated by the study of
Lasinio's engravings
of the frescoes in the Campo Santo at Pisa , which revealed to the young
students an art not satisfied with itself, but reaching after higher things,
and earnestly seeking to interpret nature and human life. To be of
the same spirit as the painters who preceded Raphael, using art as a
means to noblest ends, and not merely to emulate the accomplishment of
Raphael, as if art had said its last word when he died, was the ambition
that the engravings awakened in the three young artists as they studied
them. They were not blind to the genius of Raphael, nor did they deny
that art had accomplished great things after his time; but, in Holman
Hunt's own words, “It appeared to them that afterwards art was so
frequently tainted with the canker of corruption that it was only in the
earlier work they could find with certainty absolute health. Up to a
definite point, the tree was healthy: above it disease began, side by side
with life there appeared death.”
of the frescoes in the Campo Santo at Pisa , which revealed to the young
students an art not satisfied with itself, but reaching after higher things,
and earnestly seeking to interpret nature and human life. To be of
the same spirit as the painters who preceded Raphael, using art as a
means to noblest ends, and not merely to emulate the accomplishment of
Raphael, as if art had said its last word when he died, was the ambition
that the engravings awakened in the three young artists as they studied
them. They were not blind to the genius of Raphael, nor did they deny
that art had accomplished great things after his time; but, in Holman
Hunt's own words, “It appeared to them that afterwards art was so
frequently tainted with the canker of corruption that it was only in the
earlier work they could find with certainty absolute health. Up to a
definite point, the tree was healthy: above it disease began, side by side
with life there appeared death.”
Propaganda definitely decided upon, the young artists formed them-
selves into a society, for which they chose as a title “The Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood,” and they proceeded to enrol four other members—James
Collinson, a painter, Thomas Woolner, a sculptor, F. G. Stephens, a
painter who afterwards devoted himself to literature, and Rossetti's
brother, William Michael, a writer and critic. It is not certain whether
or not Ford Madox Brown was invited to join the Brotherhood. On
the whole, the probability is that he was not so invited. Mr. Holman
Hunt has said definitely : “The Pre-Raphaelites, although admiring
the genius displayed in the works of Madox Brown, did not ask or desire
him to become a member of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, although,
almost entirely owing to the influence of Rossetti, an invitation was framed
but never delivered. Their reasons were : (1) That he was rather too
old to sympathise entirely with a movement that was a little boyish in
tone ; (2) that although his works showed great dramatic power, they
had too much of the grimly grotesque to render him an ally likely to do
service with the general public ; and (3) that his works had none of the
minute rendering of natural objects that the Pre-Raphaelites, as young
men, had determined should distinguish their works.” Madox Brown himself expressed his dislike of cliques. The aims of the Pre-Raphaelites
were practically identical with his own, and there is no doubt that he
influenced them considerably both in example and precept. But so far
as the organised movement was concerned, he was certainly not a sympa-
thiser, and his influence must have been deterrent rather than encourag-
ing. It is for this reason that he cannot be given, not merely a high
place, but any place at all, amongst those who accomplished speedily that
which but for their organised revolt might not have come about for
many years. For the victory was greatly helped by the very fierceness
of the attack they drew upon themselves. It gained for them, as we
shall shortly see, a most powerful ally.
selves into a society, for which they chose as a title “The Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood,” and they proceeded to enrol four other members—James
Collinson, a painter, Thomas Woolner, a sculptor, F. G. Stephens, a
painter who afterwards devoted himself to literature, and Rossetti's
brother, William Michael, a writer and critic. It is not certain whether
or not Ford Madox Brown was invited to join the Brotherhood. On
the whole, the probability is that he was not so invited. Mr. Holman
Hunt has said definitely : “The Pre-Raphaelites, although admiring
the genius displayed in the works of Madox Brown, did not ask or desire
him to become a member of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, although,
almost entirely owing to the influence of Rossetti, an invitation was framed
but never delivered. Their reasons were : (1) That he was rather too
old to sympathise entirely with a movement that was a little boyish in
tone ; (2) that although his works showed great dramatic power, they
had too much of the grimly grotesque to render him an ally likely to do
service with the general public ; and (3) that his works had none of the
minute rendering of natural objects that the Pre-Raphaelites, as young
men, had determined should distinguish their works.” Madox Brown himself expressed his dislike of cliques. The aims of the Pre-Raphaelites
were practically identical with his own, and there is no doubt that he
influenced them considerably both in example and precept. But so far
as the organised movement was concerned, he was certainly not a sympa-
thiser, and his influence must have been deterrent rather than encourag-
ing. It is for this reason that he cannot be given, not merely a high
place, but any place at all, amongst those who accomplished speedily that
which but for their organised revolt might not have come about for
many years. For the victory was greatly helped by the very fierceness
of the attack they drew upon themselves. It gained for them, as we
shall shortly see, a most powerful ally.
Before recording the story of their conflict with the defenders of
the then current principles and practice of art, we must learn more clearly
what it was for which they had determined to fight. Mr. William Rossetti
has thus summed up the matter. They were agreed that, to be a Pre-
Raphaelite, it was necessary : “ (1) To have genuine ideas to express ;
(2) to study nature attentively, so as to know how to express them ;
(3) to sympathise with what is direct and heartfelt in previous art, to
the exclusion of what is conventional and self-parading and learned by
rote ; and (4) most indispensable of all, to produce thoroughly good
pictures and statues.” It will be observed that nothing is said here
about the “minute rendering of natural objects” which Mr. Holman
Hunt says, as quoted above, “the Pre-Raphaelites, as young men, had
determined should distinguish their works.” Also we may note that
while Mr. F. G. Stephens has said that one of their principles “was to
the effect that when a member found a model whose aspect answered
his idea of the subject required, that model should be painted exactly,
so to say, hair for hair,” Mr. William Rossetti has denied that such a
principle was ever adopted. The explanation of these discrepancies
is, of course, that the Brotherhood was not a company with a prospectus
accurately drawn up by a lawyer; there was general rather than detailed
agreement of aim; and the after-recollection of each member as to that
agreement has been coloured by what was in his own mind at the time.
It is significant that while Holman Hunt has remained faithful to the
delineation of minute detail throughout his career, Rossetti never
troubled himself overmuch about it, and Millais abandoned it before
many years had elapsed. Even Holman Hunt has definitely stated
that, though this principle was adopted for their work as young men,
it was never intended to be binding upon them in later years. The
Pre-Raphaelites were sufficiently agreed to unite in a revolt; they were
not sufficiently alike in temper and aim to ensure that their practice
should remain identical in after years, even if it were so at the outset,
and even this was only approximately the case. We may note also that
Ruskin's advice to be absolutely faithful to nature was only addressed
to young artists, and that, immediately after the passage in “Modern
Painters” quoted above he says : “Then when their memories are stored, and their imaginations fed, and their hands firm, let them take up the
scarlet and gold, give the reins to their fancy, and show us what their
heads are made of. We will follow them wherever they choose to lead;
we will check at nothing ; they are then our masters, and are fit to be so.
They have placed themselves above our criticism, and we will listen to
their words in all faith and humility ; but not unless they themselves
have before bowed, in the same submission, to a higher authority and
master.”
the then current principles and practice of art, we must learn more clearly
what it was for which they had determined to fight. Mr. William Rossetti
has thus summed up the matter. They were agreed that, to be a Pre-
Raphaelite, it was necessary : “ (1) To have genuine ideas to express ;
(2) to study nature attentively, so as to know how to express them ;
(3) to sympathise with what is direct and heartfelt in previous art, to
the exclusion of what is conventional and self-parading and learned by
rote ; and (4) most indispensable of all, to produce thoroughly good
pictures and statues.” It will be observed that nothing is said here
about the “minute rendering of natural objects” which Mr. Holman
Hunt says, as quoted above, “the Pre-Raphaelites, as young men, had
determined should distinguish their works.” Also we may note that
while Mr. F. G. Stephens has said that one of their principles “was to
the effect that when a member found a model whose aspect answered
his idea of the subject required, that model should be painted exactly,
so to say, hair for hair,” Mr. William Rossetti has denied that such a
principle was ever adopted. The explanation of these discrepancies
is, of course, that the Brotherhood was not a company with a prospectus
accurately drawn up by a lawyer; there was general rather than detailed
agreement of aim; and the after-recollection of each member as to that
agreement has been coloured by what was in his own mind at the time.
It is significant that while Holman Hunt has remained faithful to the
delineation of minute detail throughout his career, Rossetti never
troubled himself overmuch about it, and Millais abandoned it before
many years had elapsed. Even Holman Hunt has definitely stated
that, though this principle was adopted for their work as young men,
it was never intended to be binding upon them in later years. The
Pre-Raphaelites were sufficiently agreed to unite in a revolt; they were
not sufficiently alike in temper and aim to ensure that their practice
should remain identical in after years, even if it were so at the outset,
and even this was only approximately the case. We may note also that
Ruskin's advice to be absolutely faithful to nature was only addressed
to young artists, and that, immediately after the passage in “Modern
Painters” quoted above he says : “Then when their memories are stored, and their imaginations fed, and their hands firm, let them take up the
scarlet and gold, give the reins to their fancy, and show us what their
heads are made of. We will follow them wherever they choose to lead;
we will check at nothing ; they are then our masters, and are fit to be so.
They have placed themselves above our criticism, and we will listen to
their words in all faith and humility ; but not unless they themselves
have before bowed, in the same submission, to a higher authority and
master.”
Revolt was determined upon and the standard of revolt had to be
raised. This was done in the year 1849, when each of the three
painters exhibited a picture with the letters “P.R.B.” appended to
his signature. Either the letters were overlooked, or their significance
was not understood, for they passed without notice ; and all the three
pictures were favourably received. They were Holman Hunt's Rienzi
Swearing Revenge over his Brother's Corpse , Millais's Lorenzo at the House
of Isabella , and Rossetti's Girlhood of Mary Virgin . The following year
Holman Hunt exhibited A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian
Missionary from the Persecution of the Druids , Millais Christ in the House
of His Parents , and Ferdinand Lured by Ariel, and Rossetti Ecce Ancilla
Domini . Now the storm burst. The meaning of the letters “P.R.B.”
had become known; and the revolutionary aims of the young artists
were bitterly resented and their performances vehemently attacked.
The whole Press was against them—excepting the Spectator , but there
William Rossetti was the critic! In Household Words Charles Dickens
wrote, with reference to Millais's picture, “You come . . . to the con-
templation of a Holy Family. You will have the goodness to discharge
from your minds all post-Raphael ideas, all religious aspirations, all
elevating thoughts ; all tender, awful, sorrowful, ennobling, sacred,
graceful or beautiful associations, and to prepare yourselves as befits such
a subject—pre-Raphaelly considered—for the lowest depths of what is
mean, odious, repulsive and repelling.” The previous year's pictures
had all been sold. This year there were no sales, with the exception of
Millais' Christ in the House of His Parents , which, however, had been
commissioned by a dealer and long remained on his hands. The rebels
were courageous enough to try again, and in 1851 Holman Hunt ex-
hibited Valentine rescuing Sylvia from Proteus, and Millais Mariana in
the Moated Grange , The Return of the Dove to the Ark, and The Woodman's
Daughter . Rossetti did not exhibit any important work ; so the other
two were left to carry on the conflict. The outburst of indignant pro-
test was more furious than before, and the demand was even made that
the offending canvases should be removed from the walls of the Academy.
raised. This was done in the year 1849, when each of the three
painters exhibited a picture with the letters “P.R.B.” appended to
his signature. Either the letters were overlooked, or their significance
was not understood, for they passed without notice ; and all the three
pictures were favourably received. They were Holman Hunt's Rienzi
Swearing Revenge over his Brother's Corpse , Millais's Lorenzo at the House
of Isabella , and Rossetti's Girlhood of Mary Virgin . The following year
Holman Hunt exhibited A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian
Missionary from the Persecution of the Druids , Millais Christ in the House
of His Parents , and Ferdinand Lured by Ariel, and Rossetti Ecce Ancilla
Domini . Now the storm burst. The meaning of the letters “P.R.B.”
had become known; and the revolutionary aims of the young artists
were bitterly resented and their performances vehemently attacked.
The whole Press was against them—excepting the Spectator , but there
William Rossetti was the critic! In Household Words Charles Dickens
wrote, with reference to Millais's picture, “You come . . . to the con-
templation of a Holy Family. You will have the goodness to discharge
from your minds all post-Raphael ideas, all religious aspirations, all
elevating thoughts ; all tender, awful, sorrowful, ennobling, sacred,
graceful or beautiful associations, and to prepare yourselves as befits such
a subject—pre-Raphaelly considered—for the lowest depths of what is
mean, odious, repulsive and repelling.” The previous year's pictures
had all been sold. This year there were no sales, with the exception of
Millais' Christ in the House of His Parents , which, however, had been
commissioned by a dealer and long remained on his hands. The rebels
were courageous enough to try again, and in 1851 Holman Hunt ex-
hibited Valentine rescuing Sylvia from Proteus, and Millais Mariana in
the Moated Grange , The Return of the Dove to the Ark, and The Woodman's
Daughter . Rossetti did not exhibit any important work ; so the other
two were left to carry on the conflict. The outburst of indignant pro-
test was more furious than before, and the demand was even made that
the offending canvases should be removed from the walls of the Academy.
Now it was that the stalwart ally already mentioned came to the
rescue. As we have seen, John Ruskin had already unconsciously helped
the movement through “Modern Painters,” which Holman Hunt had
read. He now wrote two letters to the Times in defence of the artists
against whom all other writers were unanimous in violent abuse. He carried the war into the enemy's camp by replying in detail to various
criticisms. The Pre-Raphaelites' pictures had been accused of lacking
truth to nature. Ruskin maintained their truthfulness and transferred
the accusation to the work of the Academicians. He similarly dismissed,
and then brought against the popular painters, such charges as those of
faultiness in perspective and lack of light and shade. The light and
shade of the Pre-Raphaelites, he declared, was that of nature ; the popular
painters only gave the dim chiaroscuro of the studio. Hostile criticism
first wavered before this vigorous counter-attack, then fled, and the
victory was won. That which people could not see for themselves they
could see when it was pointed out to them by the author of “Modern
Painters.”
rescue. As we have seen, John Ruskin had already unconsciously helped
the movement through “Modern Painters,” which Holman Hunt had
read. He now wrote two letters to the Times in defence of the artists
against whom all other writers were unanimous in violent abuse. He carried the war into the enemy's camp by replying in detail to various
criticisms. The Pre-Raphaelites' pictures had been accused of lacking
truth to nature. Ruskin maintained their truthfulness and transferred
the accusation to the work of the Academicians. He similarly dismissed,
and then brought against the popular painters, such charges as those of
faultiness in perspective and lack of light and shade. The light and
shade of the Pre-Raphaelites, he declared, was that of nature ; the popular
painters only gave the dim chiaroscuro of the studio. Hostile criticism
first wavered before this vigorous counter-attack, then fled, and the
victory was won. That which people could not see for themselves they
could see when it was pointed out to them by the author of “Modern
Painters.”
The main facts respecting the Pre-Raphaelite movement appear to be,
then, that independently of Madox Brown's earlier “return to nature”
Holman Hunt also found his way there, and afterwards induced Millais
to follow him; that, although Rossetti had been greatly influenced by
Madox Brown, it was Holman Hunt's help that was of most use to him
as a painter; that it was when Hunt, Millais and Rossetti were working
together that the organised movement, the Brotherhood, was started by
them; that they, and more especially Hunt and Millais, bore the brunt
of the battle against adverse—we might say hostile—criticism ; and that
the battle was turned from threatened defeat to almost sudden victory
with the help of their literary ally Ruskin.
then, that independently of Madox Brown's earlier “return to nature”
Holman Hunt also found his way there, and afterwards induced Millais
to follow him; that, although Rossetti had been greatly influenced by
Madox Brown, it was Holman Hunt's help that was of most use to him
as a painter; that it was when Hunt, Millais and Rossetti were working
together that the organised movement, the Brotherhood, was started by
them; that they, and more especially Hunt and Millais, bore the brunt
of the battle against adverse—we might say hostile—criticism ; and that
the battle was turned from threatened defeat to almost sudden victory
with the help of their literary ally Ruskin.
What had been accomplished? Certain deadening conventions and
formulæ had been discredited. Not for the first, nor for the last time
had the authorities been shown to lack authority. Nature had been
vindicated as the great storehouse of truth and beauty to which the
artist must constantly go for suggestion and inspiration, if not literally
to imitate what he finds there, if his work is to have vital beauty. There
had also been vindicated the artist's right to be himself, to speak his
own thought in his own way, not to be called upon to mimic the manner
of some one else, however eminent. Such things as these had been gained.
To the debit side of the account must be placed some confusion of the
boundaries of nature and art, due to excesses inevitably incident to
revolt. The gains, however, were permanent. Always hereafter must
it be easier for English art to shake off a surplus weight of tradition
than it would have been but for the Pre-Raphaelite movement. The
losses were temporary. Things lost sight of, or wrongly seen, came into
view again when the dust of the conflict had been laid. The Pre-Raphaelite
Millais lived to paint A Souvenir of Velasquez. The opinion has already
been expressed that English art would have recovered from the malady
that afflicted it even had the organised Pre-Raphaelite movement never
existed. There would still have been such men as Watts, Madox Brown,
Holman Hunt, Millais, and Rossetti, and these, and others, could not
have been killed by the prevailing formalism. But the Brotherhood was
formed, Holman Hunt, Millais, and Rossetti did revolt against the Academic tradition, Ruskin did come to their help against those who
would have shouted them down; it was in this way that the revival
was accomplished; and the men and the work they did must ever have
a high place in the annals of English art.
formulæ had been discredited. Not for the first, nor for the last time
had the authorities been shown to lack authority. Nature had been
vindicated as the great storehouse of truth and beauty to which the
artist must constantly go for suggestion and inspiration, if not literally
to imitate what he finds there, if his work is to have vital beauty. There
had also been vindicated the artist's right to be himself, to speak his
own thought in his own way, not to be called upon to mimic the manner
of some one else, however eminent. Such things as these had been gained.
To the debit side of the account must be placed some confusion of the
boundaries of nature and art, due to excesses inevitably incident to
revolt. The gains, however, were permanent. Always hereafter must
it be easier for English art to shake off a surplus weight of tradition
than it would have been but for the Pre-Raphaelite movement. The
losses were temporary. Things lost sight of, or wrongly seen, came into
view again when the dust of the conflict had been laid. The Pre-Raphaelite
Millais lived to paint A Souvenir of Velasquez. The opinion has already
been expressed that English art would have recovered from the malady
that afflicted it even had the organised Pre-Raphaelite movement never
existed. There would still have been such men as Watts, Madox Brown,
Holman Hunt, Millais, and Rossetti, and these, and others, could not
have been killed by the prevailing formalism. But the Brotherhood was
formed, Holman Hunt, Millais, and Rossetti did revolt against the Academic tradition, Ruskin did come to their help against those who
would have shouted them down; it was in this way that the revival
was accomplished; and the men and the work they did must ever have
a high place in the annals of English art.
There was also gain in the revolution, as against a possible quiet
evolution, in the calling out of conspicuous qualities of courage and de-
termination. For a time these young men had to suffer more than
abuse, however violent. They had to face actual hardship, to have
pictures that had been commissioned left on their hands ; and in one
case an R.A., who had given Holman Hunt a commission, denied,
after the outcry against the Brotherhood had arisen, that he had ever
done so. Millais knew what it was to have left on his hands a picture,
the money promised for which had been spent beforehand on the mere
necessaries of life for his parents and himself. Happily, in this case
the friend in need soon turned up. The young artists may or may not
have known it from the outset, but they had chosen the hardest way for
themselves of accomplishing their object; and there is gain, both to one's
self and others, in bravely overcoming difficulties.
evolution, in the calling out of conspicuous qualities of courage and de-
termination. For a time these young men had to suffer more than
abuse, however violent. They had to face actual hardship, to have
pictures that had been commissioned left on their hands ; and in one
case an R.A., who had given Holman Hunt a commission, denied,
after the outcry against the Brotherhood had arisen, that he had ever
done so. Millais knew what it was to have left on his hands a picture,
the money promised for which had been spent beforehand on the mere
necessaries of life for his parents and himself. Happily, in this case
the friend in need soon turned up. The young artists may or may not
have known it from the outset, but they had chosen the hardest way for
themselves of accomplishing their object; and there is gain, both to one's
self and others, in bravely overcoming difficulties.
Where was Madox Brown all this time? He was going his own
way, independently of the Brethren, and getting as his portion, not
abuse, but mere neglect. Nor did he obtain the approval and defence
of Ruskin. It may be said, therefore, that his lot was a worse one than
that of the Brethren ; and perhaps this is true. Was it wrong, then,
to say that, in choosing revolt, they had chosen the hardest way? No;
because, at the first, their pictures sold, and it was at least as much their
open defiance of authority as the character of their work that raised the
outcry against them. Madox Brown's work has not even yet, perhaps,
obtained as general approval as was soon obtained by that of the Pre-
Raphaelites. This is not said in his disparagement. The present writer
has more than admiration, he has reverence, for the genius of the man
who painted Jesus Washeth Peter's Feet, Cordelia's Portion , Work, The
Last of England , and the mural paintings in the Manchester Town Hall.
But it was needful to say what has been said in order to determine his
relation to the organised Pre-Raphaelite movement. He himself did
not wholly approve of it. No wrong is done to him, therefore, by showing
that he played no part in it.
way, independently of the Brethren, and getting as his portion, not
abuse, but mere neglect. Nor did he obtain the approval and defence
of Ruskin. It may be said, therefore, that his lot was a worse one than
that of the Brethren ; and perhaps this is true. Was it wrong, then,
to say that, in choosing revolt, they had chosen the hardest way? No;
because, at the first, their pictures sold, and it was at least as much their
open defiance of authority as the character of their work that raised the
outcry against them. Madox Brown's work has not even yet, perhaps,
obtained as general approval as was soon obtained by that of the Pre-
Raphaelites. This is not said in his disparagement. The present writer
has more than admiration, he has reverence, for the genius of the man
who painted Jesus Washeth Peter's Feet, Cordelia's Portion , Work, The
Last of England , and the mural paintings in the Manchester Town Hall.
But it was needful to say what has been said in order to determine his
relation to the organised Pre-Raphaelite movement. He himself did
not wholly approve of it. No wrong is done to him, therefore, by showing
that he played no part in it.
Little has been said hitherto with regard to the other members of the
Brotherhood, and there is not much to say. Mr. William Rossetti has
been quoted more than once. He was a writer from the outset, not an
artist, and his work was to act as secretary to the Brotherhood and
as editor of its short-lived organ, the Germ . Mr. F. G. Stephens, an art
student in the days of the Brotherhood, early abandoned art for art
criticism. James Collinson made little mark as a painter. He became
a Roman Catholic and resigned his membership of the Brotherhood, and
his place was taken by Walter Howell Deverell, a painter of much promise,
destined, however, to remain unfulfilled, as he died in 1854. The re- maining original member of the Brotherhood, Thomas Woolner, the
sculptor, exercised but little influence on its fortunes. He emigrated to
Australia in 1851.
Brotherhood, and there is not much to say. Mr. William Rossetti has
been quoted more than once. He was a writer from the outset, not an
artist, and his work was to act as secretary to the Brotherhood and
as editor of its short-lived organ, the Germ . Mr. F. G. Stephens, an art
student in the days of the Brotherhood, early abandoned art for art
criticism. James Collinson made little mark as a painter. He became
a Roman Catholic and resigned his membership of the Brotherhood, and
his place was taken by Walter Howell Deverell, a painter of much promise,
destined, however, to remain unfulfilled, as he died in 1854. The re- maining original member of the Brotherhood, Thomas Woolner, the
sculptor, exercised but little influence on its fortunes. He emigrated to
Australia in 1851.
The Brotherhood itself lapsed within three or four years. Its members
soon ceased to add the letters “P.R.B.” after their signatures. Each of
the three principal ones went his own way. If accurate rendering of detail
is to be looked upon as an essential of Pre-Raphaelitism, Mr. Holman Hunt
was the only one whose work, in after years, deserved the name. Millais,
whom Holman Hunt had converted to his point of view, was wavering
in 1858 and became a pervert soon after. Ruskin denounced his change
of style as rather catastrophe than fall. It is not within our province to
follow his after-career. “This looks easy,” he remarked to one who was
watching him paint one of his later landscapes, “but I could not do it
had I not first painted Autumn Leaves .” To him “the minute rendering
of natural objects” had been a useful discipline which he abandoned
when he thought it had served its purpose. As early as 1853 he had
been elected an Associate of the Royal Academy, and he lived to occupy
the presidential chair. Whether his change of style be approved or dis-
approved, this is certain : his life-work would have been very different
from what it was had he remained “an emulator of the pseudo-classical
Etty,” instead of coming under the influence of Holman Hunt.
soon ceased to add the letters “P.R.B.” after their signatures. Each of
the three principal ones went his own way. If accurate rendering of detail
is to be looked upon as an essential of Pre-Raphaelitism, Mr. Holman Hunt
was the only one whose work, in after years, deserved the name. Millais,
whom Holman Hunt had converted to his point of view, was wavering
in 1858 and became a pervert soon after. Ruskin denounced his change
of style as rather catastrophe than fall. It is not within our province to
follow his after-career. “This looks easy,” he remarked to one who was
watching him paint one of his later landscapes, “but I could not do it
had I not first painted Autumn Leaves .” To him “the minute rendering
of natural objects” had been a useful discipline which he abandoned
when he thought it had served its purpose. As early as 1853 he had
been elected an Associate of the Royal Academy, and he lived to occupy
the presidential chair. Whether his change of style be approved or dis-
approved, this is certain : his life-work would have been very different
from what it was had he remained “an emulator of the pseudo-classical
Etty,” instead of coming under the influence of Holman Hunt.
Rossetti's Pre-Raphaelitism was even shorter lived than Millais's.
He did not exhibit between 1850 and 1853, and by this date he had
ceased to trouble himself about fidelity to natural fact and had begun to
produce designs in water-colour of entirely romantic and idealist character.
He was only Pre-Raphaelite in that he went his own, not the Academic
way; but his way was widely different from that of Holman Hunt and
from either the earlier or later one of Millais. The three were agreed
not to go the way of the generality of English artists of their time ; but,
as already said, they differed too much from each other for one mode
of expression to suffice for all of them. Nor, in later years, were they
more at one as to the things to which they sought to give expression.
Holman Hunt became, in the main, the earnest interpreter of the life
and work of Christ ; Millais looked out upon life, and read and interpreted
it, in accordance with the instincts, habits, and point of view of a healthy,
simple-minded Englishman. Rossetti, poet as well as painter, becoming
more and more a recluse, created a world of his own imagining, a world
luxuriously beautiful, rich in colour and with heavily scented air, a land
like the land of the lotus-eaters, where we fear lest the moral fibre be re-
laxed. So widely different did the work of each of these painters become
from that of the others, that not without difficulty, and only by putting
their early works side by side, can we think of them as having together
fought a great fight for art.
He did not exhibit between 1850 and 1853, and by this date he had
ceased to trouble himself about fidelity to natural fact and had begun to
produce designs in water-colour of entirely romantic and idealist character.
He was only Pre-Raphaelite in that he went his own, not the Academic
way; but his way was widely different from that of Holman Hunt and
from either the earlier or later one of Millais. The three were agreed
not to go the way of the generality of English artists of their time ; but,
as already said, they differed too much from each other for one mode
of expression to suffice for all of them. Nor, in later years, were they
more at one as to the things to which they sought to give expression.
Holman Hunt became, in the main, the earnest interpreter of the life
and work of Christ ; Millais looked out upon life, and read and interpreted
it, in accordance with the instincts, habits, and point of view of a healthy,
simple-minded Englishman. Rossetti, poet as well as painter, becoming
more and more a recluse, created a world of his own imagining, a world
luxuriously beautiful, rich in colour and with heavily scented air, a land
like the land of the lotus-eaters, where we fear lest the moral fibre be re-
laxed. So widely different did the work of each of these painters become
from that of the others, that not without difficulty, and only by putting
their early works side by side, can we think of them as having together
fought a great fight for art.
A few words must be said about the influence of the movement on
the after-course of English painting. It was not enough that the men who
took part in it should win recognition for their theory and practice of art. It was needful that the whole lump should be leavened, or, to revert
to the figure with which we started, that the whole body, which was
sick, should be re-invigorated. And the movement did, in fact, accom-
plish what was required of it. Not merely did it quicken a few artists
into life, it permeated the whole art of the nation. First came those who
may be classed as disciples and imitators, such as Charles Allston Collins,
Arthur Hughes, Frederick Sandys, W. S. Burton, W. L. Windus, George
Martineau, W. J. Webbe, H. W. B. Davis, and John Brett. Most con-
spicuous of all was Rossetti's pupil, Edward Burne-Jones, with whom, we
may say, came William Morris and Walter Crane, and after him Spencer
Stanhope and J. M. Strudwick. Frederic Shields has a place of his own,
uniting a religious enthusiasm more intense than that of Holman Hunt
with an instinct for symbolism and design akin to that of Rossetti.
These names are but a selection from a long list that is ever receiving
additions. One can hardly enter an exhibition today without seeing
work that plainly declares its Pre-Raphaelite ancestry.
the after-course of English painting. It was not enough that the men who
took part in it should win recognition for their theory and practice of art. It was needful that the whole lump should be leavened, or, to revert
to the figure with which we started, that the whole body, which was
sick, should be re-invigorated. And the movement did, in fact, accom-
plish what was required of it. Not merely did it quicken a few artists
into life, it permeated the whole art of the nation. First came those who
may be classed as disciples and imitators, such as Charles Allston Collins,
Arthur Hughes, Frederick Sandys, W. S. Burton, W. L. Windus, George
Martineau, W. J. Webbe, H. W. B. Davis, and John Brett. Most con-
spicuous of all was Rossetti's pupil, Edward Burne-Jones, with whom, we
may say, came William Morris and Walter Crane, and after him Spencer
Stanhope and J. M. Strudwick. Frederic Shields has a place of his own,
uniting a religious enthusiasm more intense than that of Holman Hunt
with an instinct for symbolism and design akin to that of Rossetti.
These names are but a selection from a long list that is ever receiving
additions. One can hardly enter an exhibition today without seeing
work that plainly declares its Pre-Raphaelite ancestry.
Of the wider influence that is semi-conscious, indirect, and partial,
that is a consequence of the general awakening rather than of the direct
stimulus of the three men who gave it a revolutionary character, this is
not the place to speak at length. Even if it came within our scope, an
exact estimate of the results of the movement is not yet possible. Our
task has been accomplished if we have shown how and by whom
Constable's prediction of the decay of English art was happily falsified
through a return to nature and a typically English assertion—like that of
Hogarth—of the right of the individual not to be made the slave of
tyrannous fashion, and of the age not to be held down by the dead hand
of the past.
that is a consequence of the general awakening rather than of the direct
stimulus of the three men who gave it a revolutionary character, this is
not the place to speak at length. Even if it came within our scope, an
exact estimate of the results of the movement is not yet possible. Our
task has been accomplished if we have shown how and by whom
Constable's prediction of the decay of English art was happily falsified
through a return to nature and a typically English assertion—like that of
Hogarth—of the right of the individual not to be made the slave of
tyrannous fashion, and of the age not to be held down by the dead hand
of the past.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Editorial Note (page ornament): Publisher's ornament depicting head of Mercury in profile (in winged helmet).
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
CHRIST WASHING PETER'S FEET
BY FORD MADOX BROWN
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
THE LAST OF ENGLAND
BY FORD MADOX BROWN
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE
CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
Note: Blank page.
CROMWELL, PROTECTOR OF THE VAUDOIS
BY FORD MADOX BROWN
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER
Note: Blank page.
THE COAT OF MANY COLOURS
BY FORD MADOX BROWN
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION FROM THE
ORIGINAL PAINTING IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION
Note: Blank page.
THE ROMANS BUILDING MANCHESTER
BY FORD MADOX BROWN
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
TOWN HALL COMMITTEE OF THE
MANCHESTER CORPORATION
Note: Blank page.
TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA
BY W. HOLMAN HUNT
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE
CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
THE FINDING OF THE SAVIOUR IN THE TEMPLE
BY W. HOLMAN HUNT
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE
CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
THE TRIUMPH OF THE INNOCENTS
BY W. HOLMAN HUNT
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION FROM THE
ORIGINAL PAINTING IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
THE BOAT OF LOVE (UNFINISHED)
BY D. G. ROSSETTI
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE
CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
LORENZO AND ISABELLA
BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION FROM THE
ORIGINAL PAINTING IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
THE RETURN OF THE DOVE
TO THE ARK
BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION
OF THE UNIVERSITY
GALLERIES, OXFORD
Note: Blank page.
THE BRIDESMAID
BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION FROM THE
FITZWILLIAM MUSEUM, CAMBRIDGE
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
PORTRAIT OF JOHN RUSKIN
BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF REAR-
ADMIRAL SIR W. A. DYKE-ACLAND, BART.
Note: Blank page.
THE BLIND GIRL
BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE
ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE
CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
THE ESCAPE OF A HERETIC
BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF
SIR W. H. HOULDSWORTH, BART.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Note: Blank page.
Electronic Archive Edition: 1
Source File:
ac-phythian.1905.rad.xml