Note: An ornamental “PRB” is stamped in the lower right-hand corner of the cover.
Preface
By W. M. Rossetti
page: [1]
THE GERM
1850
page: [2]
page: [3]
THE GERM:
Thoughts towards Nature in Poetry, Literature
and Art
BEING
A
FACSIMILE REPRINT OF THE LITERARY
ORGAN OF THE PRE-RAPHAELITE
BROTHERHOOD, PUBLISHED
IN 1850
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY
WILLIAM MICHAEL ROSSETTI
LONDON
ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1901
page: [4]
page: [5]
Note: The initial “O” of the essay is a large capital.
Of late years it has been my fate or my whim to write a
good
deal about the early days of the Præraphaelite movement, the
members of the
Præraphaelite Brotherhood, and especially my
brother Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and my
sister Christina Georgina
Rossetti. I am now invited to write something further on the
subject,
with immediate reference to the Præraphaelite magazine “
The
Germ
,” republished in this volume. I
know of no particular reason
why I should not do this, for certain it is that few people
living know,
or ever knew, so much as I do about “
The Germ,”; and if some press-
critics who
regarded previous writings of mine as superfluous or ill-
judged should entertain a like
opinion now, in equal or increased
measure, I willingly leave them to say so, while I
pursue my own course
none the less.
“
The Germ” is here my direct theme, not the Præraphaelite
Brotherhood; but it seems
requisite to say in the first instance something
about the Brotherhood—its members,
allies, and ideas—so as to exhibit
a raison d'être for
the magazine. In doing this I must necessarily
repeat some things which I have set forth
before, and which, from the
writings of others as well as myself, are well enough known
to many.
I can vary my form of expression, but cannot introduce much novelty
into my
statements of fact.
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 his 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 in an early stage.
On the whole the school had
sunk very far below what it had been in
the days of Hogarth, Reynolds, Gainsborough, and
Blake, and its
page: 6
ordinary average had come to be something for which commonplace is a
laudatory
term, and imbecility a not excessive one.
There were in the late summer of 1848
, in the Schools
of the Royal
Academy or barely emergent from them, four young men to whom
this
condition of the art seemed offensive, contemptible, and even scandalous.
Their
names were William Holman-Hunt, John Everett Millais, and
Dante Gabriel Rossetti,
painters, and Thomas Woolner, sculptor. Their
ages varied from twenty-two to
nineteen—Woolner being the eldest, and
Millais the youngest. Being little more than
lads, these young men
were naturally not very deep in either the theory or the practice
of art:
but they had open eyes and minds, and could discern that some things
were
good and other bad—that some things they liked, and others they hated.
They
hated the lack of ideas in art, and the lack of character; the
silliness and vacuity
which belong to the one, the flimsiness and make-
believe which result from the other.
They hated those forms of execution
which are merely smooth and prettyish, and those
which, pretending to
mastery, are nothing better than slovenly and slapdash, or what
the
P.R.B.'s called “sloshy.” Still more did they hate the notion that each
artist
should not obey his own individual impulse, act upon his own
perception and study of
Nature, and scrutinize and work at his
objective material with assiduity before he could
attempt to display and
interpret it; but that, instead of all this, he should try to be
“like
somebody else,” imitating some extant style and manner, and applying
the
cut-and-dry rules enunciated by A from the practice of B or C.
They determined to do the
exact contrary. The temper of these strip-
lings, after some years of the current
academic training, was the temper
of rebels: they meant revolt, and produced revolution.
It would be a
mistake to suppose, because the called themselves Præraphaelites,
that
they seriously disliked the works produced by Raphael; but they disliked
the
works produced by Raphael's uninspired satellites, and were resolved
to find out, by
personal study and practice, what their own several
faculties and adaptabilities might
be, without being bound by rules and
big-wiggeries founded upon the performance of
Raphael or of any one.
They were to have no master except their own powers of mind
and
hand, and their own first-hand study of Nature. Their minds were to
furnish them
with subjects for works of art, and with the general scheme
of treatment; Nature was to
be their one or their paramount storehouse
of materials for objects to be represented;
the study of her was to be
deep, and the representation (at any rate in the earlier
stages of self-
discipline and work) in the highest degree exact; executive methods
were
to be learned partly from precept and example, but most essentially
from
practice and experiment. As their minds were very different in range
page: 7
and direction,
their products also, from the first, differed greatly; and
these soon ceased to have any
link of resemblance.
The Præraphaelite Brothers entertained a deep respect and a
sincere
affection for the works of some of the artists who had preceded Raphael;
and
they thought that they should more or less be following the lead of
those artists if
they themselves were to develop their own individuality,
disregarding school-rules. This
was really the sum and substance of
their “Præraphaelitism.” It may freely be allowed
that, as they
were very young, and fired by certain ideas impressive to their
own
spirits, they unduly ignored some other ideas and theories which have
none the
less a deal to say for themselves. They contemned some things
and some practitioners of
art not at all contemptible, and, in speech still
more than in thought, they at times
wilfully heaped up the scorn. You
cannot have a youthful rebel with a faculty who is
also a model head-
boy in a school.
The P.R.B. was completed by the accession of three members to
the
four already mentioned. These were James Collinson, a domestic
painter; Frederic
George Stephens, an Academy-student of painting;
and myself, a Government-clerk. These
again, when the P.R.B. was
formed towards September
1848,
were all
young, aged respectively
about twenty-three, twenty-one, and nineteen.
This Præraphaelite Brotherhood was the independent creation
of
Holman-Hunt, Millais, Rossetti, and (in perhaps a somewhat minor
degree) Woolner:
it cannot be said that they were prompted or abetted
by any one. Ruskin, whose name has
been sometimes inaccurately
mixed up in the matter, and who had as yet published only
the first
two volumes of “Modern Painters,” was wholly unknown to them
personally, and in his writings was probably known
only to Holman-
Hunt. Ford Madox Brown had been an intimate of Rossetti since
March
1848,
and he sympathized, fully as much as any of these younger
men,
with some old-world developments of art preceding its ripeness or
over-ripeness: but he
had no inclination to join any organization for
protest and reform, and he followed his
own course—more influenced,
for four or five years ensuing, by what the P.R.B.'s were
doing than
influencing them. Among the persons who were most intimate with
the
members of the Brotherhood towards the date of its formation, and
onwards till
the inception of “
The Germ,” I
may mention the following.
For Holman-Hunt, the sculptor John Lucas Tupper, who had been
a
fellow Academy-student, and was now an anatomical designer at Guy's
Hospital: he
and his family were equally well acquainted with Mr.
Stephens. For Millais, the painter
Charles Allston Collins, son of the
well-known painter of domestic life and coast-scenes
William Collins;
page: 8
the painter
Arthur Hughes; also his own brother, William Henry
Millais, who had musical aptitudes
and became a landscape-painter.
For Rossetti, William Bell Scott (brother of David
Scott), painter, poet,
and Master of the Government School of Design in
Newcastle-on-Tyne;
Major Calder Campbell, a retired Officer of the Indian army, and
a
somewhat popular writer of tales, verses, etc.; Alexander Munro the
sculptor;
Walter Howell Deverell, a young painter, son of the Secretary
to the Government Schools
of Design; James Hannay, the novelist,
satirical writer, and journalist; and (known
through Madox Brown)
William Cave Thomas, a painter who had studied in the severe
classical
school of Germany, and had earned a name in the Westminster
Hall
competitions for frescoes in Parliament. For Woolner, John Hancock
and Bernhard
Smith, sculptors; Coventry Patmore the poet, with his
connections the Orme family and
Professor Masson; also William
North, an eccentric young literary man, of much
effervescence and
some talent, author of “Anti-Coningsby” and other novels. For
Collinson, the prominent painter of romantic and
biblical subjects John
Rogers Herbert, who was, like Collinson himself, a Roman
Catholic
convert.
The Præraphaelite Brotherhood having been founded in
September
1848
, the members exhibited in 1849
works
conceived in the new spirit.
These were received by critics and by the public with more
than moderate
though certainly not unmixed favour: it had not as yet transpired
that
there was a league of unquiet and ambitious young spirits, bent upon
making a
fresh start of their own, and a clean sweep of some effete re-
spectabilities. It was
not until after the exhibitions were near closing
in
1849
that any
idea of bringing out a magazine came to be discussed.
The author of the project was
Dante Gabriel Rossetti. He alone among
the P.R.B.'s had already cultivated the art of
writing in verse and in
prose to some noticeable extent (“
The Blessed Damozel” had been pro-
duced before May
1847
), and he was better
acquainted than any other
member with British and foreign literature. There need be no
self-
conceit in saying that in these respects I came next to him. Holman-
Hunt,
Woolner, and Stephens, were all reading men (in British litera-
ture only) within
straiter bounds than Rossetti: not any one of them,
I think, had as yet done in writing
anything worth mentioning. Millais
and Collinson, more especially the former, were men
of the brush, not
the pen, yet both of them capable of writing with point, and even
in
verse. By July
13
and 14, 1849,
some steps were
taken towards dis-
cussing the project of a magazine. The price, as at first proposed,
was
to be sixpence; the title, “
Monthly Thoughts in Literature, Poetry,
and Art
”; each number was to have an etching. Soon afterwards
page: 9
a price of one
shilling was decided upon, and two etchings per
number: but this latter intention was
not carried out. * All the
P.R.B.'s were to be proprietors
of the magazine: I question however
whether Collinson was ever persuaded to assume this
responsibility,
entailing payment of an eventual deficit. We were quite ready
also
to have some other proprietors. Mr. Herbert was addressed by Col-
linson, and
at one time was regarded as pretty safe. Mr. Hancock
the sculptor did not resist the
pressure put upon him; but after all he
contributed nothing to “
The Germ,” either in work or in money.
Walter
Deverell assented, and paid when the time came. Thus there
seem to have been eight, or
else seven,
de facto
proprietors—not one
of
them having any spare cash, and not all of them much steadiness of
interest in
the scheme set going by Dante Rossetti.
With so many persons having a kind of co-equal right to decide
what
should be done with the magazine, it soon became apparent that some-
body ought
to be appointed Editor, and assume the control. I, during
an absence from London, was
fixed upon for this purpose by Woolner
and my brother—with the express or tacit assent,
so far as I know, of
all the others, I received notice of my new dignity on September
23,
1849,
being just under twenty years of age, and I forthwith
applied
myself to the task. It had at first been proposed to print upon
the
prospectus and wrappers of the magazine the words “Conducted
by
Artists,” and also (just about this time) to entitle it “The
P.R.B.
Journal.” I called attention to the first of these points as
running
counter to my assuming the editorship, and to the second as in
itself
inappropriate: both had in fact been already set aside. My brother
had ere
this been introduced to Messrs. Aylott and Jones, publishers in
Paternoster Row
(principally concerned, I believe, with books of evan-
gelical religion), and had
entered into terms with them, and got them
to print a prospectus.
“P.R.B.” was at first printed on the latter,
but to this Mr. Holman-Hunt
objected in November, and it was omitted.
The printers were to be Messrs. Tupper and
Sons, a firm of lithographic
and general printers in the City, the same family to which
John Lucas
Tupper belonged. The then title, invented by my brother, was
“Thoughts
towards Nature,” a phrase which, though somewhat
extra-peculiar,
indicated accurately enough the predominant conception of the
Præ-
raphaelite Brotherhood, that an artist, whether painter or writer, ought
to be
bent upon defining and expressing his own personal thoughts, and
Transcribed Footnote (page 9):
* Many of the particulars here given regarding “
The Germ” appear in
the so-called “P.R.B. Journal,” which was published towards December
1899, in the volume named “Preraphaelite Diaries and Letters”, edited by
W.M. Rossetti.” At the date when I wrote the present introduction,
that
volume had not been offered for publication.
page: 10
that these ought to be based upon a direct study of Nature, and harmon-
ized with her
manifestations. It was not until December
19,
when the
issue of our
No. 1 was closely impending, that a different title, “
The
Germ
,” was proposed. On that evening there was
a rather large
gathering at Dante Rossetti's studio,
72
Newman Street;
the seven
P.R.B.'s, Madox Brown, Cave Thomas, Deverell, Hancock, and John
and George
Tupper. Mr. Thomas had drawn up a list of no less than
sixty-five possible titles (a
facsimile of his MS. of some of them appears
in the
“
Letters of Dante Gabriel Rossetti to William Allingham,”
edited by George Birkbeck Hill—
Unwin, 1897
). Only a few of them
met with favour; and one of them, “The Germ,”
going to the vote along
with “The Seed” and “The Scroll,” was approved by a vote of six
to
four. The next best were, I think, “The Harbinger,” “First
Thoughts,” “The
Sower,” “The Truth-Seeker,” and “The Acorn.”
Appended to the new title we retained, as a
sub-title, something of what
had been previously proposed; and the serial appeared as
“
The Germ.
Thoughts towards Nature
in Poetry, Literature, and Art.” At this
same meeting Mr. Woolner suggested
that authors' names should not be
published in the magazine. I alone opposed him, and
his motion was
carried. I cannot at this distance of time remember with any
precision
what his reasons were; but I think that he, and all the other
artists
concerned, entertained a general feeling that to appear publicly as
writers,
and especially as writers opposing the ordinary current of
opinions on fine art, would
damage their professional position, which
already involved uphill work more than
enough.
“
The
Germ
,” No.
1,
came out on or about January 1, 1850.
The
number of copies printed was
700
. Something like
200
were sold, in
about equal proportions by the publishers, by
ourselves among
acquaintances and well-wishers. This was not encouraging, so
we
reduced the issue of No.
2
to 500
copies. It sold
less well than No.
1
.
With this number was introduced the change of
printing on the wrapper
the names of most of the contributors: not of all, for some
still
preferred to remain unnamed, or to figure under a fancy designation.
Had we
been left to our own resources, we must now have dropped the
magazine. But the
printing-firm—or Mr. George I.F. Tupper as
representing it—came forward, and undertook
to try the chance of two
numbers more. The title was altered (at Mr. Alexander
Tupper's
suggestion) to “
Art and Poetry, being Thoughts towards Nature, con-
ducted
principally by Artists
”; and Messrs. Dickinson and Co., of New
Bond Street, the printsellers,
consented to join their name as publishers
to that of Messrs. Aylott and Jones. Mr.
Robert Dickinson, the head
of this firm, and more especially his brother, the able
portrait-painter
page: 11
Mr. Lowes Dickinson, were well known to Madox Brown, and through
him to members of the
P.R.B. I continued to be editor; but, as the money
stake of myself and my colleagues in
the publication had now ceased, I
naturally accommodated myself more than before to any
wish evinced by
the Tupper family. No.
3
, which ought to have appeared
March
1,
was delayed by these uncertainties and changes till March
31.
No. 4
came out on April
30
.
Some small amount of advertising was done,
more particularly by posters carried about in
front of the Royal
Academy (then in Trafalgar Square), which opened at the beginning
of
May. All efforts proved useless. People would not buy “
The Germ,”
and would scarcely consent to know of
its existence. So the magazine
breathed its last, and its obsequies were conducted in
the strictest privacy.
Its debts exceeded its assets, and a sum of £
33
odd, due on Nos.
1
and
2,
had to be cleared off by
the seven (or eight) proprietors, conscientious
against the grain. What may have been
the loss of Messrs. Tupper on
Nos.
3
and 4
I am
unable to say. It is hardly worth specifying that
neither the editor, nor any of the
contributors whether literary or artistic,
received any sort of payment. This was
foreseen from the first as being
“in the bond,” and was no grievance to anybody.
“
The Germ,” as we have seen, was a most decided failure, yet it
would be a mistake to
suppose that it excited no amount of literary
attention whatsoever. There were laudatory
notices in “The Dispatch,”
“The Guardian,” “Howitt's Standard of Freedom,” “John Bull,”
“The Critic,” “Bell's Weekly Messenger,” “The Morning Chronicle,”
and I dare say some other
papers. A pat on the back, with a very
lukewarm hand, was bestowed by “The Art Journal.” There were
notices also—not eulogistic—in “
The Spectator” and elsewhere. The
editor of “The Critic,” Mr. (afterwards Serjeant) Cox, on the faith
of doings in “
The Germ,” invited me, or some other of the art-writers
there, to undertake the fine-art
department—picture-exhibitions, etc.—of
his weekly review. This I did for a short time,
and, on getting trans-
ferred to “
The Spectator,” I was succeeded on “The Critic” by Mr.
F.G. Stephens. I also received some letters consequent upon “
The
Germ
,” and made some
acquaintances among authors; Horne, Clough,
Heraud, Westland Marston, also Miss Glyn the
actress. I as editor
came in for this; but of course the attractiveness of “
The Germ”
depended upon the writings of others, chiefly Messrs. Woolner,
Patmore,
and Orchard, my sister, and above all my brother, and, among
the
artist-etchers, Mr. Holman-Hunt.
I happen to be still in possession of the notices which appeared
in
“The Critic,” “Bell's Weekly Messenger,” and “The Guardian,” and
of extracts (as given in our present facsimile) from those in “John Bull,”
page: 12
“The Morning Chronicle,” and “The Standard of Freedom”: I here
reproduce the first three for the curious reader's perusal. First
comes
the review which appeared in “The Critic” on February
15, 1850,
followed by a second review on June
1
. The former was (as shown by
the initials) written by Mr. Cox, and I
presume the latter also. Major
Calder Campbell must have called the particular attention
of Mr. Cox
to “
The Germ.”
My own first personal acquaintance with this gentle-
man may have been intermediate
between
15
February and 1
June.
The Germ. Thoughts towards Nature in Poetry, Literature, and Art.
Nos. I. and II. London: Aylott and Jones.
We depart from our usual plan of noticing
the periodicals under one
heading, for the purpose of introducing to our readers a new
aspirant for
public favour, which has peculiar and uncommon claims to attention, for
in
design and execution it differs from all other periodicals.
The Germ
is the
somewhat affected and unpromising title give to a small monthly
journal,
which is devoted almost entirely to poetry and art, and is the production
of
a party of young persons. This statement is of itself, as we are well
aware,
enough to cause it to be looked upon with shyness. A periodical
largely
occupied with poetry wears an unpromising aspect to readers who
have
learned from experience what nonsensical stuff most fugitive
magazine-poetry
is; nor is this natural prejudice diminished by the knowledge that it
is the
production of young gentlemen and ladies. But, when they have read a
few
extracts which we propose to make, we think they will own that for
once
appearances are deceitful, and that an affected title and an
unpromising
theme really hides a great deal of genius; mingled however, we must
also
admit, with many conceits which youth is prone to, but which time
and
experience will assuredly tame.
That the contents of
The Germ
are the production of no common minds
the following extracts will sufficiently
prove, and we may add that these are
but a small portion of the contents which might
prefer equal claims to
applause.
“
My Beautiful Lady,” and
“
Of my Lady in Death,” are
two poems in a
quaint metre, full of true poetry, marred by not a few
affectations—the
genuine metal, but wanting to be purified from its dross.
Nevertheless, it is
pleasant to find the precious ore anywhere in these unpoetical
times.
To our taste the following is replete with poetry. What a
picture it
is!
A poet's tongue has told what an artist's eye has seen. It is the first of
a
series to be entitled “Songs of One Household.” [Here
comes Dante Ros-
setti's poem, “
My
Sister's Sleep
,” followed by Patmore's “Seasons,” and
Christina Rossetti's “
Testimony.”] We have not space to take any
speci-
mens of the prose, but the essays on art are conceived with an equal
ap-
preciation of its
meaning and requirements. Being such,
The Germ
has our
heartiest wishes for its success; but we scarcely dare to
hope that it may win
the popularity it deserves. The truth is that it is too
good for the time. It
is not
material enough for the age.
Art and Poetry: being Thoughts towards Nature. Conducted
principally
by Artists. Nos. 3 and 4. London: Dickinson and Co.
Some time since we had occasion to direct the attention of our readers to
a
periodical then just issued under the modest title of
The Germ
. The
surprise and pleasure with which we read it was, as we are informed,
very
generally shared by our readers upon perusing the poems we extracted from
it;
and it was manifest to every person of the slightest taste that the
con-
tributors were possessed of genius of a very high order, and that
The Germ
was not wantonly so entitled, for it abounded with the promise of a rich
harvest
to be anticipated from the maturity of those whose youth could
accomplish so much.
page: 13
But we expressed also our fear lest the very excellence of this magazine
should be
fatal to its success. It was too good—that is to say, too refined
and of too lofty a
class, both in its art and in its poetry—to be sufficiently
popular to pay even the
printer's bill. The name, too, was against it, being
somewhat unintelligible to the
thoughtless, and conveying to the considerate
a notion of something very juvenile.
Those fears were not unfounded, for it
was suspended for a short time; but other
journals after a while discovered
and proclaimed the merit that was scattered
profusely over the pages of
The
Germ
, and, thus encouraged, the enterprise has been resumed, with a change
of name
which we must regard as an improvement.
Art and Poetry
precisely describes its character. It is wholly devoted to them, and it aims
at
originality in both. It is seeking out for itself new paths, in a spirit
of
earnestness, and with an undoubted ability which must lead to a new era.
The
writers may err somewhat at first, show themselves too defiant of pre-
scriptive
rules, and mistake extravagance for originality; but this fault
(inherent in youth
when, conscious of its powers, it first sets up for itself)
will after a while work
its own cure, and with experience will come soberer
action. But we cannot contemplate
this young and rising school in art and
literature without the most ardent
anticipations of something great to grow
from it, something new and worthy of our age,
and we bid them God speed
upon the path they have adventured.
But our more immediate purpose here is with the poetry, of which about
one-half of
each number is composed. It is all beautiful, must of it of extra-
ordinary merit, and
equal to anything that any of our known poets could
write, save Tennyson, of whom the
strains sometimes remind us, although
they are not imitations in any sense of the
word. [The Reviewer next pro-
ceeds to quote, with a few words of comment, Christina
Rossetti's “
Sweet
Death
,” John Tupper's “
Viola and Olivia,” Orchard's “
Whit-Sunday Morn,”
and (later on) Dante Rossetti's “
Pax Vobis.”]
Almost one half of the April number is occupied with a “Dialogue on
Art,”
the composition of an Artist whose works are well known to the public.
It
was written during a period of ill health, which forbad the use of the
brush,
and, taking his pen, he has given to the world his thoughts upon art in
a
paper which the
Edinburgh Review in its best days might have been proud to
possess.
Sure we are that not one of our readers will regret the length at which we
have
noticed this work.
The short and unpretending critique which I add from “Bell's
Weekly Messenger” was written, I believe, either by or at the instance
of Mr. Bellamy, a
gentleman who acted as secretary to the National
Club. His son addressed me as editor of
“
The Germ,” in terms
of
great ardour, and through the son I on one occasion saw the father as
well.
Art and Poetry. Nos. I., II., and III. London, Dickinson and Co.
The present numbers are the commencement of a very useful publication,
conducted
principally by artists, the design of which is to “express thoughts
towards
Nature.” We see much to commend in its pages, which are also
nicely
illustrated in the mediæval style of art and in outline. The paper upon
Shakespeare's
tragedy of “Macbeth,” in the third number, abounds with
striking passages, and will be found to
be well worthy of consideration.
I now proceed to “The Guardian.” The notice came out on August
20, 1850,
some months after
“
The Germ” had expired. I do not
now know who wrote it, and (so far as memory serves me)
I never did
know. The writer truly said that Millais “contributes
nothing” to the
magazine. This however was not Millais's fault, for he made an
page: 14
etching for a
prose story by my brother (named “
An Autopsychology,”
or now “
St. Agnes of Intercession”); and this etching, along with the
story, had been expected to appear in a No.
5 of “
The Germ” which
never came out. The “very curious but very striking
picture” by
Rossetti was the “
Annunciation,” now in the National British Gallery.
Art and Poetry. Being Thoughts towards Nature. Conducted
principally
by Artists. Dickinson and Co., and Aylott and Jones.
We are very sorry to find that, after a short life of four monthly numbers,
this
magazine is not likely to be continued. Independently of the great
ability displayed
by some of its contributors, we have been anxious to see the
rising school of young
and clever artists find a voice, and tell us what they
are aiming at, and how they
propose to reach their aim. This magazine was
to a great extent connected with the
Pre-Raffaelle Brethren, whose paintings
have attracted this year a more than ordinary
quantity of attention, and an
amount of praise and blame perhaps equally extravagant.
As might have
been expected, the school has been identified with its cleverest
manipulator,
Mr. Millais, and his merits or defects have been made the measure of
the
admiration or contempt bestowed by the public upon those whom it chooses
to
class with him. This is not matter of complaint, but it is a mistake. As far
as
these papers enable us to judge, Mr. Millais is by no means the leading
mind among his fraternity; and judged by the principles of some clever
and
beautiful papers upon art in the magazine before us, his pictures would
be
described by them as wanting in some of the very highest artistic
qualities,
although possessing many which entitle them to attention and respect.
The
chief contributors to this magazine (to which Mr. Millais contributes
nothing)
are other artists, as yet not greatly known, but with feeling and purpose
about
them such as must make them remarkable in time. Some of the best papers
are
by two brothers named Rossetti, one of whom, Mr. D. G. Rossetti, has a
very curious
but very striking picture now exhibiting in the Portland
Gallery. Mr. Deverell, who
has also a very clever picture in the same
gallery, contributes some beautiful poetry.
It is perhaps chiefly in the
poetry that the abilities of these writers are displayed;
for, with somewhat
absurd and much that is affected, there is yet in the poetical
pieces of these
four numbers a beauty and grace of language and sentiment, and not
seldom
a vigour of conception, altogether above the common run. Want of
purpose
may be easily charged against them as a fault, and with some justice, but it
is
a very common defect of youthful poetry, which is sure to disappear with
time
if there be anything real and manly in the poet. The best pieces are too
long
to extracted in entire, and are not to be judged of fairly except as
wholes.
There is a very fine poem called “
Repining” of which this is particularly true.
[Next comes a quotation of Christina
Rossetti's “
Dream Land,”
and of a
portion of Dante Rossetti's “
Blessed Damozel.”] The last number contains
a remarkable dialogue on
Art, written by a young man, John Orchard, who
has since died. It is well worth study.
Kalon, Kosmon, Sophon, and
Christian, whose names, of course, represent the opinions
they defend, discuss
a number of subjects connected with the arts. Each character is
well sup-
ported, and the wisdom and candour of the whole piece is very
striking,
especially when we consider the youth and inexperience of the writer.
Art
lost a true and high-minded votary in Mr. Orchard [A rather long extract
from
the “
Dialogue” follows here.]
It is a pity that the publication is to stop. English artists have hitherto
worked
each one by himself, with too little of common purpose, too little of
mutual support,
too little of distinct and steadily pursued intellectual object.
We do not believe
that they are one whit more jealous than the followers of
other professions. But they
are less forced to be together, and the little
jealousies which deform the natures of
us all have in their case, for this
reason, freer scope, and tend more to isolation.
Here, at last, we have a
school, ignorant it may be, conceited possibly, as yet with but vague
and un-
realised objects, but working together with a common purpose, according to
page: 15
certain admitted principles, and looking to one another for help and
sympathy.
This is new in England, and we are very anxious it should have a fair
trial.
Its aim, moreover, however imperfectly attained as yet, is high and pure.
No
one can walk along our streets and not see how debased and sensual our
tastes
have become. The saying of Burke (so unworthy of a great man), that
vice
loses half its evil by losing all its grossness, is practically acted upon,
and
voluptuous and seductive figures, recommended only by a soft effeminacy,
swarm
our shop-windows and defile our drawing-rooms. It is impossible to
over-state the
extent to which they minister to, and increase the foul sins of,
a corrupt and
luxurious age. A school of artists who attempt to bring back
the popular taste to the
severe draperies and pure forms of early art are at
least deserving of encouragement.
Success in their attempt would be a
national blessing.
Shrivelling in the Spring of 1850
, “
The Germ” showed no further
sign of sprouting for many years, though I suppose it may
have been
known to the promoters of “
The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine,”
produced in
1856
, and may have furnished some incitement
towards
that enterprise—again an unsuccessful one commercially. Gradually
some
people began to take a little interest in the knowledge that such a
publication had
existed, and to inquire after stray copies here and there.
This may perhaps have
commenced before
1870
, or at any rate shortly
afterwards, as in that
year the “
Poems” of Dante Rossetti were
brought out, exciting a great amount of attention and
admiration, and
curiosity attached to anything that he might have published
before.
One heard of such prices as ten shillings for a set of the “
The Germ,”
then £
2
, £10
, £30
,
etc., and in
1899
a copy handsomely bound by
Cobden-Saunderson was
sold in America for about £
104
. Will
that high-water mark ever be
exceeded? For the sake of common-sense,
let us hope not.
I will now go through the articles in “
The Germ” one by one.
Wherever any of them may seem to invite a few words of
explanation
I offer such to the reader; and I give the names of the authors, when
not
named in the magazine itself. Those articles which do not call for
any
particular comment receive none here.
On the wrapper of each number is to be found a sonnet, printed in
a rather
aggressively Gothic type, beginning, “When whoso merely
hath a little
thought.” This sonnet is my performance; it had been
suggested that one or other
of the proprietors of the magazine should
write a sonnet to express the spirit in which
the publication was under-
taken. I wrote the one here in question, which met with
general
acceptance; and I do not remember that any one else competed. This
sonnet
may not be a good one, but I do not see why it should be
considered unintelligible. Mr.
Bell Scott, in his “Autobiographical
Notes,” expressed the opinion that to master the production would
almost need a
Browning Society's united intellects. And he then gave
page: 16
his
interpretation, differing not essentially from my own. What I
meant is this: A writer
ought to think out his subject honestly and
personally, not imitatively, and ought to
express it with directness and
precision; if he does this, we should respect his
performance as
truthful, even though it may not be important. This indicated,
for
writers, much the same principle which the P.R.B. professed
for
painters,—individual genuineness in the thought, reproductive genuine-
ness in
the presentment.
By Thomas Woolner: “
My Beautiful
Lady
,” and “
Of My
Lady
in Death
.” These compositions were, I think, nearly the first
attempts
which Mr. Woolner made in verse; any earlier endeavours must have
been few
and slight. The author's long poem “
My Beautiful Lady,”
published in
1863
, started from these beginnings. Coventry
Patmore,
on hearing the poems in September
1849
, was considerably
impressed
by them: “the only defect he found” (as notified in a letter
from
Dante Rossetti) “being that they were a trifle too much in earnest
in
the passionate parts, and too sculpturesque generally. He means by
this that
each stanza stands too much alone, and has its own ideas too
much to
itself.”
By John L. Tupper: “
The Subject
in Art
.” Two papers, which do
not complete the important thesis here
undertaken. Mr. Tupper was,
for an artist, a man of unusually scientific mind; yet he
was not, I think,
distinguished by that power of orderly and progressive exposition
which
befits an argumentation. These papers exhibit a good deal of thought,
and
state several truths which, even if partial truths, are not the less
deserving of
attention; but the dissertation does not produce a very
clear impression, inasmuch as
there is too great a readiness to plunge
in medias res
, checked by too great a tendency to harking back, and
re-stating some
conclusion in modified terms and with insecure corollaries.
Two points which Mr. Tupper
chiefly insists upon are:
(1)
that the
subject in a work of art
affects the beholder in the same sort of way as
the same subject, occurring as a fact or
aspect of Nature, affects him;
and thus whatever in Nature excites the mental and moral
emotion of
man is a right subject for fine art ; and
(2)
, that
subjects of our own
day should not be discarded in favour of those of a past time.
These
principles, along with others bearing in the same direction, underlie
the
propositions lately advanced by Count Leo Tolstoy in his most inter-
esting and valuable
(though I think one-sided) book entitled “ What is
Art? ”—and the like may be said of the principles announced in the
“
Hand and Soul” of Dante Rossetti, and in the “
Dialogue on Art”
by John Orchard, through the mouths of two of the speakers, Christian
page: 17
and Sophon. I have once or twice seen these papers by Mr. Tupper
commented
upon to the effect that he wholly ignores the question of art-
merit in a work of art,
the question whether it is good or bad in form,
colour, etc. But this is a mistake, for
in fact he allows that this is a
relevant consideration, but declines to bring it within
his own lines of
discussion. There is also a curious passage which has been
remarked
upon as next door to absurd; that where, in treating of various forms
of
still life as inferior subjects for art, he says that “the dead pheasant
in a picture
will always be as ‘food,’ while the same at the poulterer's
will be but a dead
pheasant.” I do not perceive that this is really
absurd. At the poulterer's (and Mr.
Tupper has proceeded to say as
much in his article) all the items are in fact food, and
therefore the spec-
tator attends to the differences between them ; one being a
pheasant, one
a fowl, one a rabbit, etc. But, in a varied collection of pictures, most
of
the works representing some subject quite unconnected with food; and, if
you see
among them one, such as a dead pheasant, representing an
article of food, that is the
point which primarily occurs to your mind
as distinguishing this particular picture from
the others. The views
expressed by Mr. Tupper in these two papers should be regarded as
his
own, and not by any means necessarily those upheld by the Præ-
raphaelite
Brotherhood. The members of this body must however have
agreed with several of his
utterances, and sympathized with others, apart
from strict agreement.
By Patmore: “
The
Seasons
.” This choice little poem was
volunteered to “
The Germ” in September, after the author had read
our prospectus, which impressed him
favourably. He withheld his
name, much to our disappointment, having resolved to do so
in all
instances where something of his might be published pending the issue
of a
new volume.
By Christina Rossetti: “
Dream
Land
.” Though my sister was
only just nineteen when this remarkable
lyric was printed, she had
already made some slight appearance in published type (not to
speak of
the privately printed “Verses” of
1847
), as two small poems of hers
had been inserted in
“
The Athenæum” in October
1848
. “
Dream
Land
” was written in April
1849
, before “
The Germ” was thought
of; and it may be as well to say that all my sister's
contributions to
this magazine were produced without any reference to publication
in
that or in any particular form.
By Dante G. Rossetti: “
My Sister's Sleep.” This purports to be
No.
1
of “
Songs of One Household.” I do not much think that
Dante
Rossetti ever wrote any other poem which would have been proper to
such a
series. “
My Sister's Sleep” was composed very soon after he
page: 18
emerged from a
merely juvenile stage of work. I believe that it dates
before “
The Blessed Damozel,” and therefore before May
1847
. It is
not founded upon any
actual event affecting the Rossetti family, nor
any family of our acquaintance. As I
have said in my Memoir of my
brother
(1895)
, the poem was shown,
perhaps early in
1848
, by Major
Calder Campbell to the editress of the
“
Belle Assemblée,” who heartily
admired it, but, for one reason or another, did not publish it.
This
composition is somewhat noticeable on more grounds than one; not
least as being
in a metre which was not much in use until it became
famous in Tennyson's “In Memoriam,” published in
1850
, and of
course totally unknown to
Rossetti when he wrote “
My Sister's Sleep.”
In later years my brother viewed this early work with some distaste,
and
he only reluctantly reprinted it in his “
Poems,”
1870
. He then
wholly omitted the four stanzas
7, 8,
12, 13,
beginning: “Silence
was speaking,” “I said,
full knowledge,” “She stood a moment,”
“Almost
unwittingly”; and he made some other verbal alterations.*
It will be observed that this poem was written long before the Præ-
raphaelite
movement began. None the less it shows in an eminent
degree one of the influences which
guided that movement: the intimate
intertexture of a spiritual sense with a material
form; small actualities
made vocal of lofty meanings.
By Dante G. Rossetti: “
Hand
and Soul
.” This tale was, I think,
written with an express view to its
appearing in No.
1
of our magazine,
and Rossetti began making for it
an etching, which, though not ready
for No.
1
, was intended to appear
in some number later than the second.
He drew it in March
1850
; but,
being disgusted with the performance,
he scratched the plate over, and tore up the
prints. The design showed
Chiaro dell' Erma in the act of painting his embodied Soul.
Though
the form of this tale is that of romantic metaphor, its substance is a
very
serious manifesto of art-dogma. It amounts to saying, The only
satisfactory works of art
are those which exhibit the very soul of the
artist. To work for fame or self-display is
a failure, and to work for
direct moral proselytizing is a failure; but to paint that
which your
own perceptions and emotions urge you to paint promises to be a
success
for yourself, and hence a benefit to the mass of beholders. This was
the
core of the “Præraphaelite” creed; with the adjunct (which
hardly came within the scope
of Rossetti's tale, and yet may be partly
traced there) that the artist cannot attain to
adequate self-expression
Transcribed Footnote (page 18):
* I may call attention to Stanza 16, “She stooped an instant.” The
word
is “stooped” in “
The
Germ
,” and in the “
Poems” of 1870. This is un-
doubtedly correct; but in my brother's re-issue of the
“
Poems,” 1881, the
word got mis-printed “stopped”;and I find the same mis-print in
subsequent
editions.
page: 19
save through a stern study and realization of natural appearances.
And it may be said
that to this core of the Præraphaelite creed Rossetti
always adhered throughout his
life, greatly different though his later
works are from his earlier ones in the
externals of artistic style. Most
of “
Hand and Soul” was written on December
21, 1849,
day and night,
chiefly in
some five hours beginning after midnight. Three currents of
thought may be traced in
this story:
(1)
A certain amount of knowledge
regarding the beginnings
of Italian art, mingled with some ignorance,
voluntary or involuntary, of what was
possible to be done in the middle
of the thirteenth century;
(2)
a
highly ideal, yet individual, general
treatment of the narrative; and
(3)
a curious aptitude at detailing
figments as if they were facts. All about
Chiaro dell' Erma himself,
Dresden and Dr. Aemmster, D'Agincourt, pictures at the Pitti
Gallery,
the author's visit to Florence in
1847
, etc., are pure
inventions or “mys-
tifications”; but so realistically put that they have in various
instances
been relied upon and cited as truths. I gave some details as to this in
my
Memoir of Dante Rossetti. The style of writing in “
Hand and
Soul
” is of a very exceptional kind. My brother had at that time a
great affection
for “Stories after Nature,” written by Charles Wells
(author of “Joseph and his Brethren”), and these he kept in view to some
extent as a model, though the direct
resemblance is faint indeed. In the
conversation of foreign art-students, forming the
epilogue, he may have
been not wholly oblivious of the scene in Browning's “Pippa Passes”
(a prime favourite of his), where some “foreign students of
painting
and sculpture” are preparing a disagreeable surprise for the
French
sculptor Jules. There is, however, no sort of imitation; and
Rossetti's
dialogue is the more markedly natural of the two. In re-reading
“Hand and Soul,” I am struck by two passages which came true
of
Rossetti himself in after-life:
(1)
“Sometimes after
nightfall he
would walk abroad in the most solitary places he could
find—hardly
feeling the ground under him because of the thoughts of the day
which
held him in fever.”
(2)
“Often he would remain
at work through
the whole of a day, not resting once so long as the light
lasted.” When
Rossetti, in
1869
, was collecting his poems, and
getting them privately
printed with a view to after-publication, he thought of
including
“
Hand and Soul” in the same volume, but did not eventually do so.
The privately-printed copy
forms a small pamphlet, which has some-
times been sold at high prices—I believe
£
10
and upwards. At this
time I pointed out to him that the church at
Pisa which he named San
Rocco could not possibly have borne that name—San Rocco being
a
historical character who lived at a later date: the Church was then
re-named “San
Petronio,” and this I believe is the only change of the
page: 20
least
importance introduced into the reprint. In December 1870 the
tale was published in
“
The Fortnightly Review.” The Rev. Alfred
Gurney (deceased not long ago) was a great admirer of Dante
Rossetti's
works. He published in
1883
a brochure named “A Dream of Fair
Women, a Study of some Pictures by Dante Gabriel
Rossetti”; he also
published an essay on “
Hand and Soul,” giving a more directly religious
interpretation to the story than its author
had at all intended. It is
entitled “A Painter's Day-dream.”
By W. M. Rossetti: “
Review of Clough's Bothie of
Toperna-
fuosich
.” The only remark which I need to make on this somewhat
ponderous article is
that I, as Editor of “
The Germ,” was more or less
expected to do the sort of work for which other
“proprietors” had little
inclination—such especially as the regular reviewing of new
poems.
By W. M. Rossetti: “
Her First Season: Sonnet.” As I have
said elsewhere, my brother and I were at one time greatly addicted
to
writing sonnets together to
bouts-rimés:
the date may have been
chiefly
1848
, and the practice had,
I think, quite ceased for some little
while before “
The Germ” commenced in
1850
. This sonnet was one
of my
bouts-rimés
performances. I ought to have been more chary
than I was of introducing into
our seriously-intended magazine such
hap-hazard things as
bouts-rimés
poems: one reason for doing so was
that we were often at a loss for something
to fill a spare page.
By John L. Tupper: “
A Sketch from Nature.” The locality
indicated in these very spirited descriptive lines is given as
“Sydenham
Wood.” When I was compiling the posthumous volume of John
Tupper's “Poems” which came out in
1897
, I should, so far as merit
is
concerned, have wished to include this little piece: it was omitted
solely on the ground
of its being already published.
By Christina Rossetti: “
An End.” Written in March
1849
.
By Collinson: “
The Child Jesus, a Record Typical of the Five
Sorrowful
Mysteries
.” Collinson, as I have already said, was hardly
a writing man, and I question
whether he had produced a line of verse
prior to undertaking this by no means trivial
task. The poem, like the
etching which he did for it, is deficient in native strength,
nor is there
much invention in the symbolical incidents which make it up: but
its
general level, and several of its lines and passages, always appeared to
me, and
still appear, highly laudable, and far better than could have
been reckoned for. Here
and there a telling line was supplied by
Dante Rossetti. Millais, when shortly
afterwards in Oxford, found
that the poem had made some sensation there. It is singular
that
Collinson should, throughout his composition, speak of Nazareth as
being on the
sea-shore—which is the reverse of the fact. The Præ-
page: 21
raphaelites,
with all their love of exact truth to nature, were a little
arbitrary in applying the
principle; and Collinson seems to have
regarded it as quite superfluous to look into a
map, and see whether
Nazareth was near the sea or not. Or possibly he trusted to
Dante
Rossetti's poem “
Ave,” in which likewise Nazareth is a marine town.
My brother advisedly stuck to
this in
1869
, when I pointed out the
error to him: he replied,
“I fear the sea must remain at Nazareth:
you know an old painter would have made
no bones if he wanted it for
his background.” I cannot say whether Collinson,
if put to it, would
have pleaded the like arbitrary and almost burlesque excuse: at
any
rate he made the blunder, and in a much more detailed shape than in
Rossetti's
lyric. “
The Child Jesus” is, I think, the
only
poem of any
importance that he
ever wrote.
By Christina Rossetti: “
A
Pause of Thought
.” On the wrapper
of “
The Germ” the writer's name is given as “Ellen Alleyn”: this
was my
brother's concoction, as Christina did not care to figure under
her own name. “
A Pause of Thought” was written in February
1848
,
when she was but little turned
of seventeen. Taken as a personal
utterance (which I presume it to be, though I never
inquired as to that,
and though it was at first named “
Lines in Memory of Schiller's Der
Pilgrim
”), it is remarkable; for it seems to show that, even at that
early age, she
aspired ardently after poetic fame, with a keen sense of
“hope deferred.”
By F. G. Stephens (called “John Seward” on the wrapper): “The
Purpose and Tendency of Early Italian Art.” This article speaks
for
itself as being a direct outcome of the Præraphaelite movement: its
aim is to
enforce personal independent endeavour, based upon close
study of nature, and to
illustrate the like qualities shown in the earlier
school of art. It is more hortatory
than argumentative, and is in fact
too short to develop its thesis—it indicates some
main points for
reflection.
By W. Bell Scott: “
Morning Sleep.” This poem delighted us
extremely when Mr. Scott sent it in reply to a request
for contributions.
I still think it a noticeably fine thing, and one of his most equable
pieces of
execution. It was republished in his volume of “Poems,”
1875
—with
some verbal changes, and shortened, I think
damaged.
By Ford Madox Brown: “
On the Mechanism of a Historical
Picture
”: Part
1
, the Design. It is by this time a well-recognized
fact
that Brown was one of the men in England, or indeed in Europe, most
capable of
painting a historical picture, and it is a matter of regret that
“
The Germ” came to an end before he had an opportunity of continuing
page: 22
and completing
this serviceable compendium of precepts. He had
studied art in continental schools; but
I do not think he imported into
his article much of what he had been taught,—rather what
he had
thought out for himself, and had begun putting into practice.
By W. M. Rossetti: “
Fancies at Leisure.” The first three of
these were written to
bouts-rimés
. As to No. 1
, “
Noon Rest,” I
have a tolerably clear recollection that the rhymes were prescribed to
me
by Millais, on one of the days in
1849
when I was sitting to him
for
the head of Lorenzo in his first Præraphaelite picture from Keats's
“Isabella.” No.
4
, “Sheer Waste,” was not a
bouts-rimés
performance. It was chiefly the outcome of an early afternoon spent
lazily in
Regent's Park.
By Walter H. Deverell: “
The
Light Beyond
.” These sonnets are
not of very finished execution, but
they have a dignified sustained tone
and some good lines. Had Deverell lived a little
longer, he might
probably have proved that he had some genuine vocation as a poet,
no
less than a decided pictorial faculty. He died young in February
1854.
By Dante G. Rossetti: “
The
Blessed Damozel
.” As to this
celebrated poem much might be said; but I
shall not say it here, partly
because I wrote an Introduction to a reprint (published by
Messrs.
Duckworth and Co. in
1898) of the “
Germ” version of the poem,
which is the earliest version extant, and in that
Introduction I gave a
number of particulars forestalling what I could now set down. I
will
however take this opportunity of correcting a blunder into which I fell
in the
Introduction above mentioned. I called attention to “calm”
and “warm,” which make a
“cockney rhyme” in stanza
9 of this
“
Germ” version; and I said that, in the later version printed in
“
The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine” in
1856, a change in the line
was made, substituting “swam”
for “calm,” and that the cockneyism,
though shuffled, was not thus corrected. In “The Saturday Review,”
June
25, 1898, the publication of Messrs. Duckworth was
criticized;
and the writer very properly pointed out that I had made a crass
mistake.
“Mr. Rossetti,” he said, “must be a very hasty reader of
texts. What
is printed [in ‘
The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine’] is ‘swarm,’ not
‘swam,’ and the rhyme with ‘warm’ is perfect, stultifying
the editor's
criticism completely.” Probably the critic considered my error
as
unaccountable as it was serious; and yet it could be fully accounted
for, though
not fully excused. I had not been “a very hasty reader of
texts” in the
sense indicated by “The Saturday Review.” The fact is
that, not possessing a copy of “
The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine,”
I had referred to the book brought out by Mr. William Sharp in 1882,
page: 23
“Dante Gabriel Rossetti: A Record and a
Study,” in which are given
(with every appearance of care and completeness) the
passages of “The
Blessed Damozel” as they appeared in “
The Germ,” with the alterations
printed in “
The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine.”
From the latter, the line in question is given by Mr. Sharp as “Waste
sea of worlds
that swam”; and I, supposing him to be correct (though I allow
that
memory ought to have taught me the contrary), reproduced that line to
the same
effect. “Always verify your references” is a precept to which
editors and commentators
cannot too carefully conform. Many thanks
to the writer in “The Saturday Review” for showing that, while I, and
also Mr. Sharp, had made a mistake, my brother
had made none.
By W. M. Rossetti: “
Review of the Strayed Reveller and other
Poems, by A.
” As we all now know, “A.” was Matthew Arnold, and
this was his first published
volume; but I, at the time of writing the
review, knew nothing of the identity of “A.,”
and even had I been told
that he was Matthew Arnold, that would have carried the matter
hardly
at all further. I remember that, after I had written the whole or most
of
this admiring review, I found that the volume had been abused in
“Blackwood's Magazine”; a fact of sweet savour to myself and other
P.R.B.'s, as we entertained a
hearty detestation of that magazine, with
its blustering “Christopher North,” and its
traditions of truculency
against Keats, Shelley, Leigh Hunt, Tennyson, Ruskin, and
some
others. I read “A.'s” volume with great attention, and piqued myself
somewhat
upon having introduced into my review some reference (detailed
or cursory) to every poem
in it. Possibly (but I hardly think so) the
critique was afterwards shortened, so as to
bereave it of this merit.
By Madox Brown (the etching) and by W. M. Rossetti (the verses):
“
Cordelia.” For the belated No.
3
of “
The Germ” we were much at a
loss for an illustration. Mr. Brown offered to accommodate
us by
etching this design, one of a series from “King Lear” which he had
drawn in Paris in
1844
. That series, though not
very sightly to the
eye, is of extraordinary value for dramatic insight and energy.
We
gladly accepted, and he produced this etching with very little
self-satis-
faction, so far as the technique of execution is concerned. Dante
Rossetti
was to have furnished some verses for the etching; but for this he did
not
find time, so I was put in as a stopgap, and I am not sure that any
reader of “
The Germ” has ever thanked me for my obedience to the
call of duty.
By Patmore: “
Essay on
Macbeth
.” In this interesting and well-
considered paper Mr. Patmore
assumes that he was the first person to
put into writing the opinion that Macbeth,
before meeting with the
witches, had already definitely conceived and imparted the idea of
page: 24
obtaining the
crown of Scotland by wrongful means. I have always
felt some uncertainty whether Mr.
Patmore was really the first; if he
was, it certainly seems strange that the train of
reasoning which he
furnishes in this essay—forcible, even if we do not regard it as
un-
answerable—should not have presented itself to the mind and pen of
some earlier
writer. The Essay appears to have been left incomplete in
at least one respect. In
speaking of “the fifth scene,” the author refers
to “postponement
of comment” upon Macbeth's letter to his wife, and
he “leaves it for the
present.” But the comment never comes.
By Christina Rossetti: “
Repining.” This rather long poem, written
in December
1847
on a still
broader scale, was never republished by the
authoress, although all her other poems in
“
The Germ” were so. She
did not think that its deservings were such as to call for
republication.
I apprehend that herein she exercised a wise discretion: none the
less,
when I was compiling the volume of her “New Poems,” issued in
1896
,
I included “
Repining”—for I think that some of the considerations
which apply to the works of an
author while living do not remain in
anything like full force after death.
By Dante G. Rossetti: “
The Carillon, Antwerp and Bruges.”
These verses, and some others further on in “
The Germ,” were written
during the brief trip, in Paris and Belgium, which my brother
made
along with Holman-Hunt in the autumn of
1849
. He did not
re-
publish “
The Carillon”; but he left in MS. an abridged form of it,
with the title “
Antwerp and Bruges,” and this I included in his
“
Collected Works,”
1886
. The only important change was the omission
of stanzas
1
and 4
.
By John L. Tupper: “
Papers of the MS. Society; No. 1, An
Incident in the Siege
of Troy
.” This grotesque outburst, though
sprightly and clever, was not well-suited to
the pages of “
The Germ.”
My
attention had been called to it at an earlier date, when my editorial
power was
unmodified, but I then staved it off, and indeed John Tupper
himself did not deem it
appropriate. It will be observed that “MS.
Society” is said not to mean
“Manuscript Society.” I forget what it
did mean—possibly “Medical Student Society.” The
whole thing is
replete with semi-private sous-entendus
sous-entendus
, and banter at Free Trade,
medical and anatomical matters, etc. The like
general remarks apply to
page: 25
No.
4
, “
Smoke,” by the same writer. It is a rollicking semi-intelligible
chaunt, a forcible
thing in its way, proper in the first instance (I believe)
to a sort of club of medical
students, Royal Academy students, and others
—highly-seasoned smokers most of them—in
which John Tupper
exercised a quasi-privacy, and was called (owing to his thinness,
much
over-stated in the poem) “The Spectro-cadaveral King.” No.
5
,
“Rain,” is again by John Tupper, and is the only
item in “The Papers
of the MS. Society” which seems, in tone
and method, to be reasonably
appropriate for “
The Germ.”
By George I. F. Tupper: No. 3
, “
Mental Scales.” This also, in the
scrappy condition which it here presents, reads rather as a
joke than as
a serious proposition: I believe it was meant for the latter.
By John L. Tupper: “
Viola and
Olivia
.” The verses are not of
much significance. The etching by
Deverell, however defective in
technique, claims more attention, as the Viola was drawn
from Miss
Elizabeth Eleanor Siddal, whom Deverell had observed in a bonnet-shop
some
few months before the etching was done, and who in
1860
became
the
wife of Dante Rossetti. This face does not give much idea of hers,
and yet it is not
unlike her in a way. The face of Olivia bears some
resemblance to Christina Rossetti: I
think however that it was drawn,
not from her, but from a sister of the artist.
By John Orchard: “
A Dialogue on Art.” The brief remarks
prefacing this dialogue were written by Dante Rossetti. The
diction
of the dialogue itself was also, at Orchard's instance, revised to
some
minor extent by my brother, and I dare say by me. Orchard was a
painter of whom
perhaps no memory remains at the present day: he
exhibited some few pictures, among
which I can dimly remember one of
“The Flight of Archbishop Becket
from England.” His age may, I
suppose, have been twenty-seven or twenty-eight
years at the date of his
death. In our circle he was unknown; but, conceiving a deep
admiration
for Rossetti's first exhibited picture
(1849)
, “
The Girlhood of Mary
Virgin
,” he wrote to him, enclosing a sonnet upon the picture—a very
bad sonnet in all
executive respects, and far from giving promise of the
spirited, if unequal, poetic
treatment which we find in the lines in
“
The Germ,” “
On a Whit-Sunday Morn in the Month of May.”
This led to a call from Orchard to Rossetti. I think there was only
one
call, and I, as well as my brother, saw him on that occasion.
Afterwards, he sent this
dialogue for “
The Germ.” The dialogue has
always, and I think justly, been regarded as a remarkable
performance.
The form of expression is not impeccable, but there is a large amount
of
eloquence, coming in aid of definite and expansive thought. From
page: 26
what is here
said it will be understood that Orchard was quite uncon-
nected with the P.R.B. He
expressed opinions of his own which may
indeed have assimilated in some points to
theirs, but he was not in any
degree the mouthpiece of their organization, nor prompted
by any
member of the Brotherhood. In the dialogue, the speaker whose opinions
appear
manifestly to represent those of Orchard himself is Christian,
who is mostly backed up
by Sophon. Christian forces ideas of purism
or puritanism to an extreme, beyond anything
which I can recollect as
characterizing any of the P.R.B. His upholding of the painters
who
preceded Raphael as the best men for nurturing new and noble develop-
ments of
art in our own day was more in their line. In my brother's
prefatory note a question is
raised of publishing any other writings
which Orchard might have left behind. None such,
however, were
found. Dr. W. C. Bennett (afterwards known as the author of
“Songs for Sailors,” etc.), who had been intimate with Orchard, aided
my brother in his
researches.
By F. G. Stephens (called “Laura Savage” on the
wrapper):
“
Modern
Giants
.”
By Dante G. Rossetti: “
Pax Vobis.” Republished by the author,
with some alterations, under the title of “
World's Worth.”
By Dante G. Rossetti: “
Sonnets for Pictures.” No. 1, “
A Virgin
and Child, by Hans Memmeling
,” was not reprinted by Rossetti, but is
included (with a few verbal alterations
made by him in MS.) in his
“
Collected Works.” No.
2
, “
A Marriage of St. Katherine, by the
same
.” A similar observation. No.
3
, “
A Dance of Nymphs, by
Andrea Mantegna
,” was republished by Rossetti, with some verbal
alterations. No.
4
, “
A Venetian Pastoral, by Giorgione”—the like.
The alterations here are of considerable moment. Rossetti, in a
pub-
lished letter of October
8, 1849
, referred to the Giorgione
picture as
follows: “A Pastoral—at least, a kind of Pastoral—by
Giorgione,
which is so intensely fine that I condescended to sit down before it
and
write a sonnet. You must have heard me rave about the engraving
before, and, I
fancy, have seen it yourself. There is a woman, naked,
at one side, who is dipping a
glass vessel into a well, and in the centre
two men and another naked woman, who seem
to have paused for a
moment in playing on the musical instruments which they
hold.” Nos.
5
and 6
, “
Angelica Rescued from the Sea-Monster, by Ingres,” were
also reprinted by the author, with scarcely any alteration. Patmore,
on
reading these two sonnets, was much struck with their truthfulness of
quality, as
being descriptive of paintings. As to some of the other
sonnets, Mr. W. M. Hardinge
wrote in “Temple Bar,” several years
ago, an article containing various pertinent and acute
remarks.
page: 27
By W. M. Rossetti: “Review of Browning's Christmas Eve and
Easter Day.” The only observation I need make upon this review—
which was merely
intended as introductory to a fuller estimate of the
poem, to appear in an ensuing
number of “
The Germ”—is that it
exemplifies that profound cultus of Robert Browning which,
commenced
by Dante Rossetti, had permeated the whole of the
Præraphaelite
Brotherhood, and formed, not less than some other ideas, a bond
of
union among them. It will be readily understood that, in Mr. Stephens's
article,
“
Modern Giants,” the person spoken of as “the greatest
perhaps of modern poets”
is Browning.
By W. M. Rossetti: “
The Evil under the Sun: Sonnet.” This
sonnet was composed in August
1849
, when the great
cause of the
Hungarian insurrection against Austrian tyranny was, like
revolutionary
movements elsewhere, precipitating towards its fall. My original
title
for the sonnet was, “
For the General Oppression of the Better by the
Worse
Cause, Autumn
1849
.” When the verses had to be published
in “
The Germ,” a magazine which did not aim at taking any
side
in politics, it was thought that this title was inappropriate, and the
other
was substituted. At a much later date the sonnet was re-
printed with yet another and
more significant title, “
Democracy Down-
trodden
.”
Having now disposed of “
The Germ” in general, and singly of
most of the articles in it, I have very little to
add. The project of
reprinting the magazine was conceived by its present publisher,
Mr.
Stock, many years ago—perhaps about
1883
. At that time
several
contributors assented, but others declined, and considerations of
copy-
right made it impracticable to proceed with the project. It is only now
that
lapse of time has disposed of the copyright question, and Mr. Stock
is free to act as he
likes. I was from the first one of those (the
majority) who assented to the
republication, acting herein on behalf
of my brother, then lately deceased, as well as
of myself. I am quite
aware that some of the articles in “
The Germ” are far from good, and
some others, though good in essentials, are to a
certain extent juvenile;
but juvenility is anything but uninteresting when it is that of
such men
as Coventry Patmore and Dante Rossetti. “
The Germ” contains
nothing of which, in spirit and in purport, the writers need be
ashamed.
If people like to read it without paying fancy prices for the
original
edition, they were and are, so far as I am concerned, welcome to do
so.
Before Mr. Stock's long-standing scheme could be legally carried into
effect, an
American publisher, Mr. Mosher, towards the close of
1898
,
brought out
a handsome reprint of “
The Germ” (not in any wise a
page: 28
facsimile),
and a few of the copies were placed on sale in London.*
Mr. Mosher gave as an introduction to his volume an article by the late
J. Ashcroft
Noble which originally appeared in an English magazine
in May
1882
.
This article is entitled “A Pre-Raphaelite Magazine.”
It is
written in a spirit of generous sympathy, and is mostly correct in
its facts. I may here
mention another article on “
The Germ,” also
published, towards
1868
, in some magazine. It is by
John Burnell
Payne (originally a Clergyman of the Church of England), who died
young
in
1869
. He wrote a triplet of articles, named “Præraphaelite
Poetry and Painting,” of which Part
I
. is on “
The Germ.” He ex-
presses himself sympathetically
enough; but his main drift is to show
that the Præraphaelite movement, after passing
through some immature
stages, developed into a quasi-Renaissance result. A perusal of
his
paper will show that Mr. Payne was one of the persons who supposed
Chiaro
dell'Erma, the hero of “
Hand and Soul,” to have been a real
painter, author of an extant picture.
Mr. Stock's reprint is of the facsimile order, and even faults of print
are
reproduced. I am not called upon to say with any precision what
there are. On page
45
I observe “ear,” which should be “car”; on
page
62
, Angilico, and Rossini (for Rosini). On page
155
the words,
“I believe that the thought-wrapped philosopher,” ought
to begin a new
sentence. On page
159
“Phyrnes” ought of course to be “Phrynes.”
The punctuation could
frequently be improved.
I will conclude by appending a little list (it makes no pretension
to
completeness) of writings bearing upon the Præraphaelite Brotherhood
and its
members. Writings of that kind are by this date rather
numerous; but some readers of the
present pages may not well know
where to find them, and might none the less be inclined
to read up the
subject a little. I give these works in the order (as far as I know
it)
of their dates, without any attempt to indicate the degree of their
importance.
That is a question on which I naturally entertain opinions
of my own, but I shall not
intrude them upon the reader.
Transcribed Footnote (page 28):
* I have seen in the “Irish Figaro”, May 6, 1899, a very pleasant notice, signed “J. Reid,” of this
reprint.
- Ruskin: Pre-Raphaelitism, 1854, and other later writings.
- F. G. Stephens: William Holman-Hunt and his Works, 1860.
- William Sharp: Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1882.
- Hall Caine:
Recollections of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1882.
- Walter Hamilton: The Æsthetic Movement in England, 1882.
- T. Watts-Dunton: The Truth about Rossetti, 1883, and other
writings.
page: 29
- W. Holman-Hunt: The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, 1884 (?).
- Earnest Chesneau: La Peinture Anglaise, 1884 (?).
- Joseph Knight: Life of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1887.
- W. M. Rossetti:
Dante Gabriel Rossetti as Designer and Writer,
1889.
- Harry Quilter: Preferences in Art, 1892.
- W. Bell Scott: Autobiographical Notes, 1892.
- Esther Wood: Dante Rossetti and the Pre-Raphaelite
Movement,
1894.
- Robert de la Sizeranne: La Peinture Anglaise Contemporaine,
1895.
- Dante G. Rossetti:
Family Letters, with Memoir by W. M.
Rossetti
, 1895.
- Richard Muther: The History of Modern Painting, vols. ii. and
iii., 1896.
- Ford H. M. Hueffer: Ford Madox Brown, 1896.
- Dante G. Rossetti: Letters to William
Allingham, edited by Dr.
Birkbeck Hill,
1897.
- M. H. Spielmann: Millais and his Works, 1898.
- Antonio Agresti: Poesie di Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Traduzione
con uno Studio
su la Pittura Inglese, etc., 1899.
- Fraulein Wilmersdoerffer: Dante Gabriel Rossetti und sein Einflusz,
1899.
- Edited by W. M. Rossetti: Ruskin, Rossetti, Præraphaelitism,
1899.
- J. Guille Millais: Life and Letters of Sir John Everett
Millais,
1899.
- Percy H. Bate: The English Præraphaelite Painters, 1899.
- H. C. Marillier:
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1899.
- Edited by W. M. Rossetti: Præraphaelite Diaries and Letters,
1899.
There are also books on Burne-Jones and Willaim Morris with
which I am not
accurately acquainted. It seems strange that no
memoir of Thomas Woolner has yet been
published; a fine sculptor
and remarkable man known to and appreciated by all sorts of
people,
and certain to have figured extensively in correspondence. He died
in
October 1892. Mr. Holman-Hunt is understood to have been
engaged for a long while past
upon a book on Præraphaelitism
page: 30
which would
cast into the shade most of the earlier literature on the
subject.,
W. M. ROSSETTILondon,
July 1899.
N.B.—When the third number of the magazine was about to
appear, with a
change of title from “
The Germ” to “
Art and
Poetry
,” two fly-sheets were drawn up, more, I think, by Messrs.
Tupper the
printing-firm than by myself. They contain some
“Opinions of the Press,”
already referred to in this Introduction, and
an explanation as to the change of title.
The fly-sheets appear in
facsimile as follows:
page: 31
Published Monthly.—Price One Shilling.
“Art and Poetry,”
Being Thoughts towards Nature.
Conducted principally
by Artists.
Of the little worthy the name of writing that has ever been
written
upon the principles of Art, (of course excepting that
on the mere mechanism), a very
small portion is by Artists
themselves; and that is so scattered, that one scarcely
knows
where to find the ideas of an Artist except in his pictures.
With a view to obtain the thoughts of Artists, upon Nature
as evolved in Art, in
another language besides their
own
proper
one, this Periodical has been
established. Thus, then,
it is not open to the conflicting opinions of all who handle
the
brush and palette, nor is it restricted to actual practitioners;
but is intended
to enunciate the principles of those who, in
the true spirit of Art, enforce a rigid
adherence to the sim-
plicity of Nature either in Art or Poetry, and
consequently
regardless whether emanating from practical Artists, or from
those who
have studied nature in the Artist's School.
Hence this work will contain such original Tales (in prose
or verse), Poems,
Essays, and the like, as may seem conceived
in the spirit, or with the intent, of
exhibiting a pure and
unaffected style, to which purpose analytical Reviews
of
current Literature—especially Poetry—will be introduced;
as also illustrative
Etchings, one of which latter, executed
with the utmost care and completeness, will
appear in each
number.
Published by Messrs.
DICKINSON, 114, NEW BOND STREET,
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOK AND PRINTSELLERS.
page: 32
Note: The text of this flysheet was originally in hand-written script.
The Subscribers to this Periodical are
respectfully informed that in future
it will
appear under the title of
“
Art and Poetry”
instead of the original arbitrary one, which
occasioned much
misapprehension—This
alteration will not be productive of any ill
consequence, as
the title has never occurred
in the work itself, and Label will be
supplied for
placing on the old wrappers, so as
to make them conformable to the new—
It should also be noticed that the Numbers
will henceforward be published on
the last day
of the Month for which they are dated—
Town Subscribers will oblige by filling up &
returning the
accompanying form, which will
ensure the Numbers being duly forwarded
as
directed.—
Country Subscribers may obtain their copies by
kindly forwarding their
orders to any Booksellers in
their respective Neighborhoods.—
page: 33
Published Monthly.—Price One Shilling.
“Art and Poetry,”
Being Thoughts towards Nature.
Conducted principally by Artists.
Of the little worthy the name of writing that has ever been
written
upon the principles of Art, (of course excepting that
on the mere mechanism), a very
small portion is by Artists
themselves; and that is so scattered, that one scarcely
knows
where to find the ideas of an Artist except in his pictures.
With a view to obtain the thoughts of Artists, upon Nature
as evolved in Art, in
another language besides their
own
proper
one, this Periodical has been
established. Thus, then,
it is not open to the conflicting opinions of all who handle
the
brush and palette, nor is it restricted to actual practitioners;
but is intended
to enunciate the principles of those who, in
the true spirit of Art, enforce a rigid
adherence to the sim-
plicity of Nature either in Art or Poetry, and
consequently
regardless whether emanating from practical Artists, or from
those who
have studied nature in the Artist's School.
Hence this work will contain such original Tales (in prose
or verse), Poems,
Essays, and the like, as may seem conceived
in the spirit, or with the intent, of
exhibiting a pure and
unaffected style, to which purpose analytical Reviews
of
current Literature—especially Poetry—will be introduced;
as also illustrative
Etchings, one of which latter, executed
with the utmost care and completeness, will
appear in each
number.
Published by Messrs.
DICKINSON, 114, NEW BOND STREET,
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOK AND PRINTSELLERS.
page: 34
Note: The text of this flysheet was originally in hand-written script.
. . . Original Poems, stories to develop thought and principle, essays con
cerning Art & other subjects, are the materials which are to compose this unique
addition to our periodical literature Among the poetry, there are some
rare gems of
poetic conception; among the prose essays, we notice “
the
Subject in Art
” which treats of Art itself in a noble and lofty tone, with
the view which he
must take of it who would, in the truest sense of the
word, be an Artist, and another
paper, not less interesting, on “
the
Purpose and Tendency of Early Italian Art
” A well executed Etching
in the medieval style, accompanies each number”
John Bull.
“. . . There are so many original and beautiful thoughts in these pages —
indeed
some of the poems & tales are in themselves so beautiful in spirit & form—
that we have hopes of the writers, when they shall have got rid of those ghosts of
mediæval art which now haunt their every page. The essay ‘
On the Mechanism
of a Historical Picture
’ is a good practical treatise, and indicates the kind of
writing which is much
wanted among artists ”
Morning Chronicle.
“We depart from our usual plan of noticing the periodicals under one heading, for the
purpose of introducing to our readers a new aspirant for public favour, which has pecu
liar and uncommon claims to attention, for in design & execution it differs from
all
other periodicals . . . A periodical largely occupied with poetry wears an
unpromising
aspect to readers who have learned from experience what nonsensical stuff
most fugitive
Magazine poetry is . . . . But, when they have read a few extracts which
we propose to make,
we think they will own that for once appearances are deceitful . . .
. That the
contents of this work are the productions of no common minds, the following
extracts will
sufficiently prove . . . . We have not space to take any specimens of the
prose; but
the essays on Art are conceived with an equal appreciation of its
meaning & requirements.
Being such, this work has our heartiest
wishes for its success, but we scarcely dare to
hope
that it may win the popularity it deserves. The truth is that it is too good for the
time. It
is not
material enough for the age”
Critic.
“. . . It bears unquestionable evidences of true inspirations and, in fact, is so
thoroughly
spiritual that it is more likely to find ‘the fit audience though few’ than
to attract the
multitude . . . The prose articles are much to our taste . . . We know,
however, of no
periodical of the time which is so genuinely poetical and artistic in its
tone.”
Standard of Freedom.
page: 35
Note: back cover of wrapper
page: [backcoververso]