“The Spread of Pre-Raphaelite Idea(l)s via the Mass Media.”
Thomas J. Tobin
CUNY Victorian seminar, 31 March 2004.

[SLIDE 0: TITLE] [SLIDE 1: QUOTATION] The hieroglyphics in question are “P. R. B.,” and they are the initials of the words “Præ-Raffaelite Brotherhood.” . . . A glance at some of the minor exhibitions now open will prove what really clever men have been bitten by this extraordinary art-whim, of utterly banishing and disclaiming perspective and everything like rotundity of form. It has been suggested that the globe-shape of the world must be very afflicting to the ingenious gentlemen in question.1

	During the second half of the nineteenth century, the Pre-Raphaelite movement had a far-reaching and lasting impact on global culture. Scholarship on the movement has until recently focused on its place in English (or, at most, continental European) art and literature. We should put to rest the traditional view of Pre-Raphaelitism—a brief, reactionary, and narrowly English artistic movement during eight years of the mid-nineteenth century that was outside the “mainstream” development from Romanticism to Aestheticism. Instead, we should envision a wide-ranging, vibrant, enduring, and globally significant Pre-Raphaelitism.
	What is Pre-Raphaelitism? In 1850, this question would have been answered easily enough. Pre-Raphaelitism was a stunt cooked up by three students at the Royal Academy of Art in order to distinguish themselves from their peers and thumb their noses at the establishment. [SLIDE 3: ALL SEVEN PRBs] The three students—child genius John Everett Millais, son of Italian expatriates Gabriel Dante Rossetti, and the poor but talented William Holman Hunt—formed the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (P. R. B.) in 1848 with four other young men: William Michael Rossetti, James Collinson, Thomas Woolner, and Frederic George Stephens. The members of this new secret society drew up several documents attesting to their aims and ideals, among which were the faithful representation of nature in art [SLIDE 4: NATURE]; the superiority of Italian and Flemish painting before the era of Raphael [SLIDE 5: PRE-RAPHAEL ART]; the interdependence of the literary, plastic, and painterly arts [SLIDE 6: BLAKE]; and the need for art to instruct its audience [SLIDE 7: DIDACTIC ART]. The early paintings of the Brotherhood adhered to these principles, and although their mannered presentation was likely to catch the attention of the critics, the “movement,” such as it was, seemed fated to be little more than a footnote in the progress of the arts.
	The critical press in the 1850s also had little difficulty in defining “Pre-Raphaelitism”: it was an extension of continental European Romanticism. The Pre-Raphaelites took many of their subjects and painting styles from Romantic literature and painting in England, France, Germany, and Italy. There were in their canvases several characteristics of earlier Romantic and Neoclassical paintings: a “hard” finish crammed with minute detail and characterized by scant differentiation of highlights and shadows, a preference for subjects from European literary texts of the medieval and Renaissance eras, and overtly didactic intent in the compositions. The Pre-Raphaelites were connected easily to the paintings of their predecessor and mentor Ford Madox Brown [SLIDE 8: FMB AND MANFRED], as well as to the earlier Nazarene movement of the 1830s [SLIDE 9: NAZARENES], whose religiosity, preference for Italian painting before the 1400s, and moral-subject paintings prefigured the Pre-Raphaelite movement.
	In the early decades of the nineteenth century, Brown was beginning his painting education on the continent. In his work, we can see the development of some principles that would be fully expressed by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. As a young man, Brown studied in Bruges and Ghent under Albert Gregorius, who himself had been a pupil of Jacques-Louis David; Brown’s early works fit well with the 1830s revival of neoclassical sentiment in European art. Brown moved to the Antwerp Academy in 1837 to study under Baron Wappers, from whom Brown learned the ages-old “wash and varnish” techniques of the Dutch schools, a technique that produced muddy, hazy paintings. Most important to the story of Pre-Raphaelitism, Brown next traveled to Rome and met the Nazarenes, a group of expatriate German painters led by Peter Cornelius and Friedrich Overbeck, who intended to purify German painting by returning to religious and cultural archaism, the result of which was an adherence to Roman Catholicism and to the painting techniques of quattrocento German and Italian masters. The “clean line” and “simple faith” of the quattrocento were by no means the exclusive province of eccentric German painters. Many English painters on the “Grand Tour” were influenced by the painting techniques and subjects of fifteenth-century paintings. By the late 1840s, there was a general interest in late-medieval design—so much so that the Arundel Society was formed in 1848 to disseminate engravings of important works.
	Given this background, why has the Pre-Raphaelite movement come to be seen as an insular and particularly English phenomenon? Part of the answer may lie in the way in which the movement laid claim in several media to a reactionary English identity, while at the same time as it was mining foreign influences during its early years. Early criticism of the movement often inaccurately dubbed them the “Young England” school [SLIDE 10: YOUNG ENGLAND],2 mistaking the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood with a group of literary reactionaries whose aims were indeed markedly xenophobic and Anglocentric. Over time, the mislabeling became gospel, especially in light of the early canvases from the Brotherhood and their associates depicting contemporary English scenes, such as Holman Hunt’s Our English Coasts [Strayed Sheep] (1853) and Brown’s The Last of England (1855) [SLIDE 11: STRAYED SHEEP AND LAST OF ENGLAND].
	During the remainder of the nineteenth century, the concept of Pre-Raphaelitism rapidly took on new meanings, new adherents, new detractors, and new theoretical directions. For example, in 1850, the Brotherhood began its own literary magazine [SLIDE 12: GERM INSIDE], The Germ, in adherence to its adoption of the Horatian ideal of ut pictura poesis, which holds that painting and poetry are sister arts. The Germ lasted only four issues but served to expand the possible media in which one could be thought a Pre-Raphaelite: the literary contributors to The Germ were a mix of members of the original Brotherhood—Dante Rossetti, William Michael Rossetti (who was not a painter), Thomas Woolner, and William Holman Hunt—and new voices from outside the original movement. Jerome McGann’s ideas about The Germ help to support the idea that Pre-Raphaelitism began as a loosely defined movement:

There are strong circumstances to suggest that the magazine was not strictly representative of the aims and ideas of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, which had been meeting since 1848. For instance, although the Brotherhood itself was rigorously opposed to expanding beyond its original seven members, The Germ featured numerous articles by non-members, such as Christina Rossetti, Coventry Patmore, and Ford Madox Brown. None of the poetic works reviewed in the four issues of The Germ were produced by Pre-Raphaelite writers, yet the reviews (written by William Rossetti) were, as a matter of policy, highly favorable. All of this points to an ethos of inclusion associated with The Germ uncharacteristic of the P. R. B. to that point. In addition, William Rossetti was later to emphasize repeatedly that the various theoretical pieces in The Germ were at best incomplete expressions of Pre-Raphaelite ideas. Most significant was the fact that The Germ never mentioned, in its contents or on its wrappers [SLIDE 13: GERM WRAPPER], the term “Pre-Raphaelite.”3

Early on, Pre-Raphaelitism thus came to typify a literary style as well as an artistic one. Later, Thomas Woolner’s sculpture and poetry, along with the literary and art criticism penned by William Michael Rossetti and Frederic George Stephens, expanded the idea of Pre-Raphaelitism even further in terms of media and theoretical stance, so that by the end of the nineteenth century, Pre-Raphaelitism encompassed not only a style of painting, but an entire theoretical apparatus supporting many sister arts [SLIDE 14: MANY MEDIA].
	Almost as soon as the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood became known to the larger English art-appreciating public, the Pre-Raphaelite movement began to grow beyond the original seven members of the Brotherhood. As noted, the establishment of The Germ expanded the number of artists and authors considered to be Pre-Raphaelites. John Ruskin, upon learning that the Brotherhood had based many of their precepts on his own Modern Painters (1843), offered support to the fledgling movement with letters to the editor of the London Times, and, after a while, a pamphlet entitled Pre-Raphaelitism (1851) [SLIDE 15: RUSKIN AND PRISM], in which he argued that the Pre-Raphaelites and John M. W. Turner were among the vanguard of English painting because both the Pre-Raphaelites and Turner discarded the false progress of English art since the Middle Ages and began afresh, building their art on the last “true” art characterized by particularly English principles: namely, Ruskin’s principles.4
	In the 1860s, after the Brotherhood had effectively disbanded, two students, William Morris and Edward Jones [SLIDE 16: MORRIS AND B-JONES], made contact with Dante Rossetti and initiated the “second wave” of Pre-Raphaelitism, one which differed radically in its aims and methods from those of the first Brotherhood. The members of what is sometimes termed the Early Aesthetic movement focused on the development of English culture as a part of the early origins of pan-European culture during the Middle Ages. Morris translated several Icelandic sagas, and Burne-Jones, as he eventually styled himself, found subject matter in Greek myths and the Grail legends of continental Europe as well as England.
	Nineteenth-century writers on Pre-Raphaelitism also began minting “new” members of the Pre-Raphaelite movement because of their literary or artistic similarities to the works of the established Pre-Raphaelites. Two examples may serve to illustrate this trend, which was sometimes based on thin evidence. The poet William Bell Scott [SLIDE 17: WB SCOTT AND IRON AND COAL], although he knew many of the members of the original Brotherhood during its ascendancy, did not identify himself as a Pre-Raphaelite poet until he was retrospectively dubbed one by George W. Thornbury, who, in the Athenaeum for 24 February 1855, “revealed” Scott’s Poems to be a Pre-Raphaelite work.5 In a similar vein, the French critic Henri Viel-Castel conjured a “new” member of the Pre-Raphaelite movement in June 1855 [SLIDE 18: MONSIEUR SCHAW]:

MM. Schaw, Millais et Hunt représentent l’école de réalisme tel que le comprennent nos alliés d’outre-Manche, et comme ces trois artistes forment une exception dans l’exposition anglaise, nous croyons devoir commencer par leurs œuvres l’examen de l’art britannique. [Messrs. Schaw, Millais, and Hunt represent the school of realism such as it is understood by our friends of the outer-Marches, and as these three artists form an exception in the English gallery, we believe it right to begin our examination of British art with their works.]6

As for the identity of the mysterious Monsieur Schaw, the Art-Journal critic clears up the mystery some weeks later:

All this time many of our readers . . . may be lost in perplexity as to the identity of this new leader of the pre-Raffaelites—this Monsr. Schaw: we confess to have ourselves been for some time in the same predicament, until having . . . eliminated the Teutonic c from the name, we found a most estimable artist, Mr. Shaw, known, as we have just intimated, to the literary as well as the artistic world, before Young England had learned to lisp the names of Van Eyck or Perugino, as a most skilful archaeologist—a retrospective reviewer of the old monkish illuminations; some of the choicest of which he gave with a singularly faithful pencil to the public, and who little dreamt that he was becoming the apostle of the new and true school of painting while making facsimiles of those quaint curiosities, wherein the infant struggles of Art are so conspicuous, and in which the suggestions of perspective both of line and tint are so unceremoniously dealt withal. Mr. Shaw will probably be as much surprised as any of us at the paragraph commencing in the Parisian periodical with the words “MM. Schaw, Millais et Hunt represent l’école de realisme.”7
	
	As Viel-Castel’s article suggests, the artists of the movement—indeed, the concept of Pre-Raphaelitism itself—gradually spread beyond of England, as well, helped along by the mass media. Thomas Woolner emigrated to Australia and began to sculpt and write poetry there; the “American Pre-Raphaelites” set up a magazine in emulation of The Germ, [SLIDE 19: THE CRAYON] named the Crayon; and French art critics began to proclaim the similarities between the Pre-Raphaelites and the new French Realist school of painting led by Courbet [SLIDE 20: BURIAL AT ORNANS]. Criticism and theory about Pre-Raphaelitism appeared in England, the United States [SLIDE 21: ENGAND & US], Scotland, Canada [SLIDE 22: SCOTLAND & CANADA], Wales, France [SLIDE 23: WALES & FRANCE], Spain, Italy [SLIDE 24: SPAIN & ITALY], Germany, Sweden, Hungary [SLIDE 25: GERMANY, SWEDEN, HUNGARY]—even Japan8 and Russia9 [SLIDE 26: JAPAN & RUSSIA] most of which described the Pre-Raphaelite movement in terms of its relation to and influence on the arts in the critics’ own countries. Thus, Pre-Raphaelitism was a typically Japanese movement to the Japanese, and the French saw the Pre-Raphaelites as having espoused French ideals.
	The media claimed “new” Pre-Raphaelites not only in terms of style and geography, but helped to move the largely androcentric Pre-Raphaelite movement beyond a single gender. Beginning in the late 1850s, magazine and newspaper critics began “reclaiming” women painters as having been Pre-Raphaelites. For example, the Critic, in its review of the Royal Academy exhibition for 1859 [SLIDE 27: SPRING & GOD’S GOTHIC], spent an equal amount of space and praise on Spring by John Everett Millais and God’s Gothic (currently untraced and presumed destroyed) by Anna Blunden, calling the latter “femininely gentle in treatment, yet powerfully truthful as regards the fact.”10 Blunden’s earlier Song of the Shirt, as seen here, displays a similar Pre-Raphaelite focus on social issues of the day. This painting is based on Thomas Hood’s 1841 poem of the same name about the poor working conditions of seamstresses.
	The media also saw Pre-Raphaelite marks in Jane Behnahm Hay’s works: in May 1861, the Times called her Cloister of the Convent at Fiesole, England and Italy, and Tobit Restoring his Father’s Eyesight “faithful picture[s] of the scene at hand.” The reviewer also notes that

Time has been when pictures like this from a woman’s hand would have excited a furore of astonishment. Now Miss Hay, like Mrs. Wells [SLIDE 28: WELLS], . . . takes her rank unquestioned, and is judged among the painters of the year, without indulgence asked or given to sex.11

When Joanna Boyce Wells passed away in early 1861, the elegist in the Critic proudly noted that 

the writings of Mr. Ruskin kindled her warmest sympathies, and did much in helping to form her taste, though in no slavish spirit. The example of such men as Millais, D. G. Rossetti, and Holman Hunt, did more. From their works she derived invaluable stimulus, assimilating to herself much that is best in the spirit of them, borrowing nothing of the letter, as the common run of your so-called pre-Raffaelites do.12

Beginning in the 1860s, Christina Rossetti’s poetry [SLIDE 30: GOBLIN MARKET], too, was increasingly identified by the press as Pre-Raphaelite, despite being radically different in tone, form, and effect from the works of Dante Rossetti, Algernon Swinburne, and William Morris.
	Pre-Raphaelitism moved beyond its original didactic aims, as well, beginning with the overt didactic morality of Holman Hunt’s Awakening Conscience (1853) [SLIDE 31: AWAKENING CONSCIENCE] and arriving at the decorative and aesthetic qualities of Dante Rossetti’s Astarte Syriaca (1877) [SLIDE 32: ASTARTE SYRIACA], for example. 
	The movement came to be defined and re-defined throughout the nineteenth century in terms of which artists and authors were “really” or “secretly” Pre-Raphaelites, what qualities of their work made them so, and how the movement’s embrace of new figures and theoretical stances could be made consistent with the original Brotherhood’s aims and methods. Often this was difficult, if not impossible, to do, since the original Brotherhood lasted for so short a time (it broke up around 1854) and consisted of such diverse members, each of whom applied the nebulous ideals of the movement in his or her own way. 
	Further muddying the definition of Pre-Raphaelitism is the sheer multivalence of the term by the end of the nineteenth century. In 1900, one could talk about Pre-Raphaelite painters, sculptors, poets, essayists, and critics: Pre-Raphaelites were men and women from several different countries, some of whose work came before and some after the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood formally existed in England between 1848 and 1854. Pre-Raphaelitism included realistic, didactic genre painting about contemporary social evils [SLIDE 33: FMB WORK]; fancifully medieval-looking history painting [SLIDE 34: EBJ ROSE BOWER]; mannered translations of Icelandic sagas [SLIDE 35: MORRIS VOLSUNGA]; religious paintings done in situ in Palestine [SLIDE 36: WHH SHADOW OF DEATH]; poems about the connection between spiritual and physical love [SLIDE 37: DGR HOUSE OF LIFE]; Pre-Raphaelite sculpture [SLIDE 38: MUNRO]; hand-crafted wallpaper and tapestries [SLIDE 39: MORRIS ACANTHUS]; and a society to protect historic buildings from destruction [SLIDE 40: SPAB]. 
	Thus, by the end of the nineteenth century, many different and sometimes contradictory media, artists, and theories about art had been “claimed” by the popular media for the Pre-Raphaelite camp [SLIDE 41: FINAL COLLAGE OF MANY IMAGES]. These layers of signifying each expanded what the umbrella term “Pre-Raphaelitism” could contain, reaching further and further beyond the movement’s supposedly Anglocentric nineteenth-century origins. [END SLIDE SHOW: LIGHTS UP]
	This talk would not be complete without a postscript. Pre-Raphaelitism as it is studied in the current sense would likely not exist without the bibliographical scholarship of William E. Fredeman. Fredeman’s Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study (1965) nearly single-handedly re-energized the field of Pre-Raphaelite studies. Fredeman’s bibliography was notable for several reasons, chief among them his generously inclusive policy about minor figures loosely associated with the movement. Fredeman’s work touched off a revival of Pre-Raphaelite scholarship, and his framework has set the boundaries of the movement, with few exceptions, since 1965. Fredeman’s inclusion of minor figures such as Thomas Gordon Hake and Arthur O’Shaughnessy helped to boost them into the accepted canon of Pre-Raphaelitism.
	Interestingly, although Fredeman cites in his bibliography several non-English-language pieces of scholarship and criticism which place Pre-Raphaelitism in a worldwide frame, his introduction perpetuates the narrower, more Anglocentric view of the movement, in keeping with the widely-held view of the Pre-Raphaelite movement as an anomaly apart from the progression from Romantic to Aesthetic thought. Fredeman simultaneously gave new vigor to the field of Pre-Raphaelite studies while strengthening its focus on the English qualities of the movement, a stance that would not be significantly challenged until the late 1990s.
	By that time, the definition of Pre-Raphaelitism had significantly broadened: scholars were rediscovering the contemporary citations about women artists, followers, and minor associates of the Brotherhood. Several academic theories had been applied to the movement, but the one area of Pre-Raphaelitism that had actually narrowed was its perceived geographic scope: Pre-Raphaelitism, especially in its first flowering, was considered to be an exclusively English phenomenon. As Quentin Bell reports,

The original Brotherhood, although it may have looked abroad for some of its ideas, was essentially an English movement. It had very little commerce with Europe. The second generation gradually attained an international character. The Arts and Crafts movement became known in Belgium and Central Europe, the influence of Ruskin was felt, and late in his career Burne-Jones excited the attention of the French Symbolists. Thus the movement as a whole may be regarded as a withdrawal from, and then a gradual rapprochement with, the art of the Continent.13

Thus, after more than 150 years, the question, “what is Pre-Raphaelitism?” now takes on a complicated cast.
	If recent publications are a reliable measure, the scope of Pre-Raphaelitism seems still to be expanding. Recent scholarly works by Elizabeth Prettejohn14 and the editing team of Alicia Craig Faxon and Susan Casteras15 evince a willingness to continue to broaden the movement in terms of its members, ideologies, and influences on and from other movements in literature and art. Recent titles on Pre-Raphaelitism demonstrate the desire to add to the canon by many means: since 1990, scholarship on Pre-Raphaelitism has gone “beyond the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood”;16 it has been “read,”17 “re-viewed,”18 “re-framed,”19 placed into its larger “European Context,”20 “collected,”21 and “haunted.”22 It has been examined in terms of gender,23 sexuality,24 ethics,25 and has even been implicated in an “Ecclesiastical Crisis.”26 The critical reaction to Pre-Raphaelitism has become a legitimate topic of study in itself, with bibliographies27 and theoretical studies28 on the subject appearing recently.
	The signifier “Pre-Raphaelitism,” as it has been passed down, has been diffused into and has incorporated other discourses, creating texts and contexts “haunted” by the idea of Pre-Raphaelitism. Pre-Raphaelitism indeed began narrowly, as an extension of the continental Romantic school of thought. It transformed itself throughout the lives of its early practitioners, the better to reflect the literary and artistic currents of an increasingly global perspective, mirroring the increasing rapidity of communications technology and the opening of trade on the world markets during the late nineteenth century.
	Taken as a whole, the reaction of the media during the nineteenth century strongly suggests that Pre-Raphaelitism be viewed in a worldwide frame, a frame which augments our understanding of the common threads of Pre-Raphaelitism: truth to nature, minuteness of detail, and sensitivity to the past. Pre-Raphaelitism began by borrowing its ideology from several continental art movements, and itself became a literary, artistic, and historical trope from which many cultures and theoretical systems have borrowed. The global spread of Pre-Raphaelitism speak to the multivalence of the movement and hints at the extent to which the current theoretical weltanschauung posits Pre-Raphaelitism as being an inclusively global movement whose traces bridge Romantic European ideas and the global aestheticism of the fin de siécle, as opposed to the isolated English artistic movement that took place between 1848 and 1854. Rather than being a regressive movement working against the flow of developments in world events, Pre-Raphaelitism is an extension of—an integral part of—the development not only of European thought at the end of the nineteenth century, but of the spread of aestheticism throughout the world, the echoes of which can be discerned in the critical writings and artwork of the later nineteenth century.

Notes
1 R[each], A[ngus] B[ethune]. “Town Talk and Table Talk.” Illustrated London News 4 May 1850: 306.
2 See, for example, the following critical articles: [Frank Stone], “Royal Academy: The Eighty-Third Exhibition—1851,” Art-Journal 13 (1 June 1850): 153-163; Charles Dickens, “Old Lamps for New Ones,” Household Words 12 (15 June 1850): 12-14; R[alph] N[icolson] Wornum, “Modern Moves in Art. Christian Architecture. Young England,” Art-Journal 1 Sep. 1850: 270-271; “Fine Arts: Pre-Raphaelitism,” Daily News [London] 1629 (13 Aug. 1851): 3; and “French Criticism on British Art,” Art-Journal 17 (1 Sep. 1855): 250-252.
3 [Jerome McGann], “Introduction to The Germ.” http://www.iath.virginia.edu/courses/ennc986/class/grpintro.html.
4 This is perhaps one source of the notion that Pre-Raphaelitism was an insular English movement.
5 [George Walter Thornbury], “Poems,” Athenaeum no. 1426 (24 Feb. 1855): 229-230.
6 Henri Viel-Castel, “Exposition Universelle des Beaux-arts: Peinture.—École Anglaise,” L’Athenaeum Français 4.24 (16 Jun. 1855): 507-509.
7 “French Criticism on British Art,” Art Journal 17 (1 Sep. 1855): 250-252.
8 Two examples among many are Kaneko Umaji, “The Poetic Imagination of Rossetti, Distinguished Poet of Romanticism,” Waseda Bungaku [Tokyo Magazine] 54 (Meiji 26 [Dec. 1893]): 105-108 and Koya Tozawa, “Annotated Review of English Poetry,” Myojo [Morning Star] 6 (Sep. 1900): 20-22.
9 V[ladimir] V[iktorovitch] Chuiko. “Dorafaelisty I Ikh Poslîedovateli eh Anglii,” Vestnik Iziashchnykh Iskustv 4 (1886): 271-304, 339-374.
10 “Art and Artists. The Royal Academy.—Middle Room. No. III,” Critic (21 May 1859): 497.
11 “Exhibition of the Royal Academy (Second Article),” Times [London] (13 May 1861): 6.
12 “Art and Artists. The Late Mrs. Wells,” Critic (27 Jul. 1861): 109-110.
13 Quentin Bell, A New and Noble School: The Pre-Raphaelites (London: Macdonald, 1982), 10.
14 Elizabeth Prettejohn, The Art of the Pre-Raphaelites (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2000).
15 Susan P. Casteras and Alicia Craig Faxon, eds., Pre-Raphaelite Art in its European Context (Madison, NJ: London: Fairleigh Dickinson UP; Associated UP, 1995).
16 Debra N. Mancoff, John Everett Millais: Beyond the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (New Haven: Yale UP, 2001).
17 Tim Barringer, Reading the Pre-Raphaelites (New Haven: Yale UP, 1998).
18 Marcia Pointon, Pre-Raphaelites Re-Viewed (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1990).
19 Ellen Harding, ed., Re-Framing the Pre-Raphaelites (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 1996).
20 Casteras and Faxon.
21 Margaretta Frederick Watson, ed., Collecting the Pre-Raphaelites (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 1997).
22 David Latham, ed., Haunted Texts: Studies in Pre-Raphaelitism (Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2003).
23 Jan Marsh and Pamela Nunn, Pre-Raphaelite Women Artists (London: Thames and Hudson, 1999) and Christina Elmerfeldt-Böhner, Das Weibliche in Werk und Leben der Präraffaeliten (Egelsbach; New York: Fouqué Literaturverlag, 1999).
24 Rickie Burman, From Prodigy to Outcast: Simeon Solomon—Pre-Raphaelite Artist (London: Jewish Museum, 2001).
25 Kathryn K. Varness, From Wickedness to Innovation: Three Victorian Reactions to Early Pre-Raphaelitism (Dissertation, 2000).
26 Erika Lynne Szendrey, William Holman Hunt’s Our English Coasts, 1852 (Strayed Sheep): Victorian England’s Ecclesiastical Crisis (Dissertation, 2000).
27 Thomas J. Tobin, Pre-Raphaelitism in the Nineteenth-Century Press (Vancouver: ELS Press, 2002); and Rachael Green, The Brotherhood of Seven: A Select Bibliography of the Pre-Raphaelite Movement, 1848-1914 (N. p.: n. p., 1995).
28 Examples include Jennifer L. Rinalducci, The 1857-58 American Exhibition of British Art: Pre-Raphaelite Art and the American Critical Reception (Dissertation, 2000); Rachel Barnes, The Pre-Raphaelites and Their World (London: Tate Gallery, 1998); Steve Rizza, Criticism as Art: The Reception of Pre-Raphaelitism in Fin de Siècle Vienna (Frankfurt am Main; New York: P. Lang, 1997); and Thomas J. Tobin, The Critical Reception of Pre-Raphaelite Painting and Poetry: 1850–1900 (North Manchester, IN: Heckman, 1996).