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.

page: [fly-leaf recto]
Manuscript Addition: Lucy Saunders / March 8th 1911 / fr. M.A.S.
Manuscript Addition: (1905) / 1 s edn / £28
page: [fly-leaf verso]
Note: blank page
page: [0 recto]
Note: blank page
page: [0 verso]
Note: blank page
page: [i]
Editorial Note (page ornament): Scrolled publishers' figure for Newnes' Art Library
THE PRE-RAPHAELITE BROTHERHOOD



page: [ii]
Note: blank page
page: [iia recto]
Note: blank page
page: [iia verso]
Note: Frontispiece: Autumn Leaves by J.E. Millais
No Image AvailableAUTUMN LEAVES

from the painting by Sir J. E. Millais, P.R.A.

By permission of the Manchester City Art Gallery
page: [iii]
Editorial Note (page ornament): Publishers' figure depicting three cherubs. Green ink.
The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood



LONDON: GEORGE NEWNES LIMITED

SOUTHAMPTON STREET STRAND W C

NEW YORK FREDERICK WARNE & CO 36 EAST 22
nd ST.

page: [iv]
The Ballantyne Press

Tavistock St. London

page: v
Note: The word Page is printed at the top of each column of numbers in the table of contents.
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
        • FRA ANGELICO
        • The Great Annunciation . . . . . . . . . . 2
        • Angel of the Tabernacle . . . . . . . . . . 3
        • The Last Judgment (Detail) . . . . . . . . . 4
        • 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
        • FORD MADOX BROWN
        • Christ washing Peter's Feet . . . . . . . . . . 10
        • Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
        • The Last of England . . . . . . . . . 12
        • Cromwell Protector of the Vaudois . . . . . . . . 13
        • The Coat of Many Colours . . . . . . . . . . 14
        • The Romans building Manchester . . . . . . . . . 15
      • page: vi
        • 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
page: vii
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.
THE PRE-RAPHAELITE

BROTHERHOOD
BY J. ERNEST PHYTHIAN
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.
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
page: viii
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.
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
page: ix
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
page: x
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.
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
page: xi
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
page: xii
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.
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.”
page: xiii
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.
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.
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
page: xiv
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.”
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
page: xv
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,
page: xvi
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.
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
page: xvii
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.
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
page: xviii
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.
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.
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-
page: xix
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.
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.
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
page: xx
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.
page: [xxi]
ILLUSTRATIONS
page: [xxii]
Editorial Note (page ornament): Publisher's ornament depicting head of Mercury in profile (in winged helmet).
page: 1
No Image Available Photo, Alinari

ADORATION OF THE MAGI

BY GENTILE DA FABRIANO

ACADEMY, FLORENCE
page: [1v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 2
No Image Available Photo, Brogi

THE GREAT ANNUNCIATION

BY FRA ANGELICO

BAPTISTERY, CORTONA
page: [2v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 3
No Image Available Photo, Anderson

ANGEL OF THE TABERNACLE

BY FRA ANGELICO

UFFIZI GALLERY, FLORENCE
page: [3v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 4
No Image Available Photo, Anderson

THE LAST JUDGEMENT (DETAIL)

BY FRA ANGELICO

ACADEMY, FLORENCE
page: [4v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 5
No Image Available Photo, Anderson

THE TRIBUTE MONEY

BY MASACCIO

CARMINE, FLORENCE
page: [5v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 6
No Image Available Photo, Anderson

THE CORONATION OF THE VIRGIN

BY FRA FILIPPO LIPPI

ACADEMY, FLORENCE
page: [6v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 7
No Image Available Photo, Braun

MADONNA DELLA VITTORIA

BY ANDREA MANTEGNA

LOUVRE, PARIS
page: [7v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 8
No Image Available Photo, Anderson

SPRING

BY SANDRO BOTTICELLI

ACADEMY, FLORENCE
page: [8v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 9
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

MADONNA DEGLI ANSIDEI

BY RAPHAEL SANZIO

NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
page: [9v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 10
No Image Available

CHRIST WASHING PETER'S FEET

BY FORD MADOX BROWN

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER
page: [10v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 11
No Image Available

WORK

BY FORD MADOX BROWN

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER
page: [11v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 12
No Image Available

THE LAST OF ENGLAND

BY FORD MADOX BROWN

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE

CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
page: [12v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 13
No Image Available

CROMWELL, PROTECTOR OF THE VAUDOIS

BY FORD MADOX BROWN

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER
page: [13v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 14
No Image Available

THE COAT OF MANY COLOURS

BY FORD MADOX BROWN

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION FROM THE

ORIGINAL PAINTING IN THE POSSESSION

OF THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION
page: [14v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 15
No Image Available

THE ROMANS BUILDING MANCHESTER

BY FORD MADOX BROWN

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

TOWN HALL COMMITTEE OF THE

MANCHESTER CORPORATION
page: [15v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 16
No Image Available

TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE

CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
page: [16v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 17
No Image Available

THE HIRELING SHEPHERD

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER
page: [17v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 18
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

CLAUDIO AND ISABELLA

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT
page: [18v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 19
No Image Available

THE AWAKENED CONSCIENCE

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF

SIR A. H. FAIRBAIRN, BART.
page: [19v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 20
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT
page: [20v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 21
No Image Available Photo, Rischgitz

THE SCAPEGOAT

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT
page: [21v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 22
No Image Available

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
page: [22v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 23
No Image Available

THE SHADOW OF DEATH

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER
page: [23v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 24
No Image Available

THE TRIUMPH OF THE INNOCENTS

BY W. HOLMAN HUNT

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION FROM THE

ORIGINAL PAINTING IN THE POSSESSION

OF THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION
page: [24v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 25
 

Borgia

Photo, Hollyer

THE BORGIA FAMILY

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [25v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 26
 

The First Anniversary of the Death of Beatrice

Photo, Mansell

DANTE DRAWING THE ANGEL

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [26v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 27
 

Found

Photo, Hollyer

FOUND

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [27v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 28
 

Paolo and Francesca

Photo, Hollyer

PAOLO AND FRANCESCA

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [28v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 29
 

The Bower Garden

Photo, Hollyer

THE BOWER GARDEN

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [29v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 30
 

The Salutation of Beatrice

Photo, Hollyer

THE SALUTATION OF BEATRICE

IN FLORENCE

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [30v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 31
 

The Salutation of Beatrice

Photo, Hollyer

THE SALUTATION OF BEATRICE

IN PARADISE

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [31v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 32
 

Lucrezia Borgia

Photo, Hollyer

LUCRETIA BORGIA

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [32v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 33
 

Lady Lilith

Photo, Hollyer

LADY LILITH

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [33v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 34
 

How They Met Themselves

Photo, Hollyer

HOW THEY MET THEMSELVES

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [34v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 35
 

Monna Rosa

Photo, Caswall Smith

MONA ROSA

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [35v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 36
 

The Loving Cup

Photo, Annan

THE LOVING CUP

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [36v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 37
 

Mariana

Photo, Hollyer

MARIANA

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [37v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 38
 

Veronica Veronese

Photo, Caswall Smith

VERONICA VERONESE

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [38v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 39
 

The Boat of Love



THE BOAT OF LOVE (UNFINISHED)

BY D. G. ROSSETTI

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE

CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM



page: [39v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 40
 

The Question

Photo, Mansell

THE SPHINX

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [40v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 41
 

The Blessed Damozel

Photo, Caswall Smith

THE BLESSED DAMOZEL

BY D. G. ROSSETTI



page: [41v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 42
 

Astarte Syriaca



ASTARTE SYRIACA

BY D. G. ROSSETTI

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER



page: [42v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 43
No Image Available

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
page: [43v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 44
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

CHRIST IN THE CARPENTER'S SHOP

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [44v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 45
No Image Available

THE RETURN OF THE DOVE

TO THE ARK

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION

OF THE UNIVERSITY

GALLERIES, OXFORD
page: [45v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 46
No Image Available

THE BRIDESMAID

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION FROM THE

FITZWILLIAM MUSEUM, CAMBRIDGE
page: [46v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 47
No Image Available Photo, Newnes

OPHELIA

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [47v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 48
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

THE HUGUENOT

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [48v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 49
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

THE ORDER OF RELEASE

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [49v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 50
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

THE PROSCRIBED ROYALIST

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [50v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 51
No Image Available

PORTRAIT OF JOHN RUSKIN

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF REAR-

ADMIRAL SIR W. A. DYKE-ACLAND, BART.
page: [51v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 52
No Image Available

THE BLIND GIRL

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF THE

ART GALLERY COMMITTEE OF THE

CORPORATION OF BIRMINGHAM
page: [52v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 53
No Image Available Photo, Braun

SIR ISUMBRAS AT THE FORD

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [53v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 54
No Image Available

THE ESCAPE OF A HERETIC

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.

REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF

SIR W. H. HOULDSWORTH, BART.
page: [54v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 55
No Image Available Photo, Francis, Ellis and Hayward

THE VALE OF REST

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [55v]
Note: Blank page.
page: 56
No Image Available Photo, Mansell

THE BLACK BRUNSWICKER

BY SIR J. E. MILLAIS, P.R.A.
page: [56v]
Note: Blank page.
Electronic Archive Edition: 1