By W. M. Rossetti: “ .” The only remark which I need to make on this somewhatponderous article is that I, as Editor of “,” was more or lessexpected to do the sort of work for which other “proprietors” had littleinclination—such especially as the regular reviewing of new poems.

By W. M. Rossetti: “.” As I havesaid elsewhere, my brother and I were at one time greatly addicted towriting sonnets together to bouts-rimés: the date may have beenchiefly 1848, and the practice had, I think, quite ceased for some littlewhile before “” commenced in 1850. This sonnet was oneof my bouts-rimés performances. I ought to have been more charythan I was of introducing into our seriously-intended magazine suchhap-hazard things as bouts-rimés poems: one reason for doing so wasthat we were often at a loss for something to fill a spare page.

By John L. Tupper: “.” The localityindicated in these very spirited descriptive lines is given as “SydenhamWood.” When I was compiling the posthumous volume of JohnTupper's “” which came out in 1897, I should, so far as meritis concerned, have wished to include this little piece: it was omittedsolely on the ground of its being already published.

By Christina Rossetti: “.” Written in March 1849.

By Collinson: “.” Collinson, as I have already said, was hardlya writing man, and I question whether he had produced a line of verseprior to undertaking this by no means trivial task. The poem, like theetching which he did for it, is deficient in native strength, nor is theremuch invention in the symbolical incidents which make it up: but itsgeneral level, and several of its lines and passages, always appeared tome, and still appear, highly laudable, and far better than could havebeen reckoned for. Here and there a telling line was supplied byDante Rossetti. Millais, when shortly afterwards in Oxford, foundthat the poem had made some sensation there. It is singular thatCollinson should, throughout his composition, speak of Nazareth asbeing on the sea-shore—which is the reverse of the fact. The Præ- raphaelites, with all their love of exact truth to nature, were a littlearbitrary in applying the principle; and Collinson seems to haveregarded it as quite superfluous to look into a map, and see whetherNazareth was near the sea or not. Or possibly he trusted to DanteRossetti's poem “,” in which likewise Nazareth is a marine town.My brother advisedly stuck to this in 1869, when I pointed out theerror 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 forhis background.” I cannot say whether Collinson, if put to it, wouldhave pleaded the like arbitrary and almost burlesque excuse: at anyrate he made the blunder, and in a much more detailed shape than inRossetti's lyric. “” is, I think, the only poem of anyimportance that he ever wrote.

By Christina Rossetti: “” On the wrapperof “” the writer's name is given as “Ellen Alleyn”: thiswas my brother's concoction, as Christina did not care to figure underher own name. “” was written in February 1848,when she was but little turned of seventeen. Taken as a personalutterance (which I presume it to be, though I never inquired as to that,and though it was at first named “ ”), it is remarkable; for it seems to show that, even at thatearly age, she aspired ardently after poetic fame, with a keen sense of“hope deferred.”

By F. G. Stephens (called “John Seward” on the wrapper): “.” This article speaks foritself as being a direct outcome of the Præraphaelite movement: itsaim is to enforce personal independent endeavour, based upon closestudy of nature, and to illustrate the like qualities shown in the earlierschool of art. It is more hortatory than argumentative, and is in facttoo short to develop its thesis—it indicates some main points forreflection.

By W. Bell Scott: “.” This poem delighted usextremely 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 ofexecution. It was republished in his volume of “,” 1875—withsome verbal changes, and shortened, I think damaged.

By Patmore: “.”

By Ford Madox Brown: “”: Part 1, the Design. It is by this time a well-recognized factthat Brown was one of the men in England, or indeed in Europe, mostcapable of painting a historical picture, and it is a matter of regret that“” came to an end before he had an opportunity of continuing and completing this serviceable compendium of precepts. He hadstudied art in continental schools; but I do not think he imported intohis article much of what he had been taught,—rather what he hadthought out for himself, and had begun putting into practice.

By W. M. Rossetti: “.” The first three ofthese were written to bouts-rimés . As to No. 1, “,” Ihave a tolerably clear recollection that the rhymes were prescribed to meby Millais, on one of the days in 1849 when I was sitting to him forthe head of Lorenzo in his first Præraphaelite picture from Keats's“.” No. 4, “,” was not a bouts-rimés performance. It was chiefly the outcome of an early afternoon spentlazily in Regent's Park.

By Walter H. Deverell: “” These sonnets arenot of very finished execution, but they have a dignified sustained toneand some good lines. Had Deverell lived a little longer, he mightprobably have proved that he had some genuine vocation as a poet, noless than a decided pictorial faculty. He died young in February 1854.

By Dante G. Rossetti: “” As to thiscelebrated poem much might be said; but I shall not say it here, partlybecause I wrote an Introduction to a reprint (published by Messrs.Duckworth and Co. in 1898) of the “” version of the poem,which is the earliest version extant, and in that Introduction I gave anumber of particulars forestalling what I could now set down. I willhowever take this opportunity of correcting a blunder into which I fellin the Introduction above mentioned. I called attention to “calm”and “warm,” which make a “cockney rhyme” in stanza 9 of this“” version; and I said that, in the later version printed in“” in 1856, a change in the linewas made, substituting “swam” for “calm,” and that the cockneyism,though shuffled, was not thus corrected. In “,”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. Whatis printed [in ‘’] is ‘swarm,’ not‘swam,’ and the rhyme with ‘warm’ is perfect, stultifying the editor'scriticism completely.” Probably the critic considered my error asunaccountable as it was serious; and yet it could be fully accountedfor, though not fully excused. I had not been “a very hasty reader oftexts” in the sense indicated by “.” The fact isthat, not possessing a copy of “,”I had referred to the book brought out by Mr. William Sharp in 1882, “,” in which are given(with every appearance of care and completeness) the passages of “” as they appeared in “,” with the alterationsprinted in “.”From the latter, the line in question is given by Mr. Sharp as “Waste sea of worldsthat swam”; and I, supposing him to be correct (though I allow thatmemory ought to have taught me the contrary), reproduced that line tothe same effect. “Always verify your references” is a precept to whicheditors and commentators cannot too carefully conform. Many thanksto the writer in “” for showing that, while I, andalso Mr. Sharp, had made a mistake, my brother had made none.

By W. M. Rossetti: “ , by A. ” As we all now know, “A.” was Matthew Arnold, andthis was his first published volume; but I, at the time of writing thereview, knew nothing of the identity of “A.,” and even had I been toldthat he was Matthew Arnold, that would have carried the matter hardlyat all further. I remember that, after I had written the whole or mostof this admiring review, I found that the volume had been abused in“”; a fact of sweet savour to myself and otherP.R.B.'s, as we entertained a hearty detestation of that magazine, withits blustering “Christopher North,” and its traditions of truculencyagainst Keats, Shelley, Leigh Hunt, Tennyson, Ruskin, and someothers. I read “A.'s” volume with great attention, and piqued myselfsomewhat upon having introduced into my review some reference (detailedor cursory) to every poem in it. Possibly (but I hardly think so) thecritique was afterwards shortened, so as to bereave it of this merit.

By Madox Brown (the etching) and by W. M. Rossetti (the verses):“ ” For the belated No. 3 of “” we were much at aloss for an illustration. Mr. Brown offered to accommodate us byetching this design, one of a series from “” which he haddrawn in Paris in 1844. That series, though not very sightly to theeye, is of extraordinary value for dramatic insight and energy. Wegladly accepted, and he produced this etching with very little self-satis-faction, so far as the technique of execution is concerned. Dante Rossettiwas to have furnished some verses for the etching; but for this he didnot find time, so I was put in as a stopgap, and I am not sure that anyreader of “” has ever thanked me for my obedience to thecall of duty.

By Patmore: “” In this interesting and well-considered paper Mr. Patmore assumes that he was the first person toput into writing the opinion that Macbeth, before meeting with thewitches, had already definitely conceived and imparted the idea of obtaining the crown of Scotland by wrongful means. I have alwaysfelt some uncertainty whether Mr. Patmore was really the first; if hewas, it certainly seems strange that the train of reasoning which hefurnishes in this essay—forcible, even if we do not regard it as un-answerable—should not have presented itself to the mind and pen ofsome earlier writer. The Essay appears to have been left incomplete inat least one respect. In speaking of “the fifth scene,” the author refersto “postponement of comment” upon Macbeth's letter to his wife, andhe “leaves it for the present.” But the comment never comes.

By Christina Rossetti: “.” This rather long poem, writtenin December 1847 on a still broader scale, was never republished by theauthoress, although all her other poems in “” were so. Shedid 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 “,” issued in 1896,I included “”—for I think that some of the considerationswhich apply to the works of an author while living do not remain inanything like full force after death.

By Dante G. Rossetti: “.”These verses, and some others further on in “,” were writtenduring the brief trip, in Paris and Belgium, which my brother madealong with Holman-Hunt in the autumn of 1849. He did not re-publish “”; but he left in MS. an abridged form of it,with the title “,” and this I included in his“,” 1886. The only important change was the omissionof stanzas 1 and 4.

By Dante G. Rossetti: “.” Altering somephrases in this lyric, and adding two stanzas, Rossetti republished itunder the name of “.”

By W. M. Rossetti: “.” The first four werewritten to bouts-rimés : not the fifth, “,” whichis, I think, as old as 1848, or even 1847.

By John L. Tupper: “.” This grotesque outburst, thoughsprightly and clever, was not well-suited to the pages of “”My attention had been called to it at an earlier date, when my editorialpower was unmodified, but I then staved it off, and indeed John Tupperhimself did not deem it appropriate. It will be observed that “MS.Society” is said not to mean “Manuscript Society.” I forget what itdid mean—possibly “Medical Student Society.” The whole thing isreplete with semi-private sous-entendus sous-entendus , and banter at Free Trade,medical and anatomical matters, etc. The like general remarks apply to No. 4, “,” by the same writer. It is a rollicking semi-intelligiblechaunt, 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 Tupperexercised a quasi-privacy, and was called (owing to his thinness, muchover-stated in the poem) “The Spectro-cadaveral King.” No. 5,“,” is again by John Tupper, and is the only item in “” which seems, in tone and method, to be reasonablyappropriate for “.”

By Alexander Tupper: No. 2, “.”

By George I. F. Tupper: No. 3, “.” This also, in thescrappy condition which it here presents, reads rather as a joke than asa serious proposition: I believe it was meant for the latter.

By John L. Tupper: “” The verses are not ofmuch significance. The etching by Deverell, however defective intechnique, claims more attention, as the Viola was drawn from MissElizabeth Eleanor Siddal, whom Deverell had observed in a bonnet-shopsome few months before the etching was done, and who in 1860 becamethe 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 someresemblance to Christina Rossetti: I think however that it was drawn,not from her, but from a sister of the artist.

By John Orchard: “.” The brief remarksprefacing this dialogue were written by Dante Rossetti. The dictionof the dialogue itself was also, at Orchard's instance, revised to someminor extent by my brother, and I dare say by me. Orchard was apainter of whom perhaps no memory remains at the present day: heexhibited some few pictures, among which I can dimly remember one of“.” His age may, Isuppose, have been twenty-seven or twenty-eight years at the date of hisdeath. In our circle he was unknown; but, conceiving a deep admirationfor Rossetti's first exhibited picture (1849), “ ,” he wrote to him, enclosing a sonnet upon the picture—a verybad sonnet in all executive respects, and far from giving promise of thespirited, if unequal, poetic treatment which we find in the lines in“,” “.”This led to a call from Orchard to Rossetti. I think there was onlyone call, and I, as well as my brother, saw him on that occasion.Afterwards, he sent this dialogue for “.” The dialogue hasalways, and I think justly, been regarded as a remarkable performance.The form of expression is not impeccable, but there is a large amount ofeloquence, coming in aid of definite and expansive thought. From 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 mayindeed have assimilated in some points to theirs, but he was not in anydegree the mouthpiece of their organization, nor prompted by anymember of the Brotherhood. In the dialogue, the speaker whose opinionsappear manifestly to represent those of Orchard himself is Christian,who is mostly backed up by Sophon. Christian forces ideas of purismor puritanism to an extreme, beyond anything which I can recollect ascharacterizing any of the P.R.B. His upholding of the painters whopreceded 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'sprefatory note a question is raised of publishing any other writingswhich Orchard might have left behind. None such, however, werefound. Dr. W. C. Bennett (afterwards known as the author of“,” etc.), who had been intimate with Orchard, aidedmy brother in his researches.

By F. G. Stephens (called “Laura Savage” on the wrapper):“”

By Dante G. Rossetti: “.” Republished by the author,with some alterations, under the title of “.”

By Dante G. Rossetti: “.” No. 1, “,” was not reprinted by Rossetti, but isincluded (with a few verbal alterations made by him in MS.) in his“.” No. 2, “.” A similar observation. No. 3, “,” was republished by Rossetti, with some verbalalterations. No. 4, “”—the like.The alterations here are of considerable moment. Rossetti, in a pub-lished letter of October 8, 1849, referred to the Giorgione picture asfollows: “A Pastoral—at least, a kind of Pastoral—by Giorgione,which is so intensely fine that I condescended to sit down before it andwrite a sonnet. You must have heard me rave about the engravingbefore, 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 centretwo men and another naked woman, who seem to have paused for amoment in playing on the musical instruments which they hold.” Nos. 5 and 6, “,” werealso reprinted by the author, with scarcely any alteration. Patmore, onreading these two sonnets, was much struck with their truthfulness ofquality, as being descriptive of paintings. As to some of the othersonnets, Mr. W. M. Hardinge wrote in “,” several yearsago, an article containing various pertinent and acute remarks.