Pre-Raphaelitism in the Nineteenth-Century Press: A Bibliography

Thomas J. Tobin

English Literary Studies No. 87, 2002
ISBN 0-920604-81-1

“Many are the pearls of high and precious imaginings which
are lost for want of being gathered together and strung.”

Elizabeth Touatt, Belle Assemblée, August 1848

Cover illustration: detail, “The Choice of Paris: An Idyll, by Miss Florence Claxton.” Illustrated London News 36 (2 June 1860): 541.
Contents

Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................................................iv
Preface............................................................................................................................................................................vi
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................1
	The Genesis of Pre-Raphaelitism.....................................................................................................................4
	An Overview of Pre-Raphaelite Bibliography.................................................................................................7
	Methodology and Sources..............................................................................................................................10
	Notes on the Scope of This Study...................................................................................................................16
	Works Cited in the Introduction.....................................................................................................................24
	Arrangement and Format of Entries...............................................................................................................27
The Bibliography
1846-1850.......................................................................................................................................................28
1851-1860.......................................................................................................................................................31
1861-1870.......................................................................................................................................................47
1871-1880.......................................................................................................................................................67
1881-1890.......................................................................................................................................................88
1891-1900.....................................................................................................................................................118
Addenda......................................................................................................................................................................167
Author Index...............................................................................................................................................................171
Acknowledgments

	I should be remiss were I not to thank all of those who have helped me to complete this project.  The late Dr. William E. Fredeman, Professor Emeritus of the University of British Columbia, whose Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study is the foundation for my work, was kind enough to allow me access to his unique collection of books and periodicals dealing with Pre-Raphaelitism; I must also thank him for his generous help in deciphering hand-written notes in the press-clipping book of William Michael Rossetti.  The inter-library loan librarians at five institutions worked in creative and often mysterious ways to procure hard-to-find sources; I offer heartfelt thanks to Dara Middleton at Indiana State University Cunningham Memorial Library, Kathy Julius at Duquesne University Gumberg Memorial Library, Peggy Daub at the University of Michigan Library System, and Theresa Iverson at the University of British Columbia Library.  The staff at the Library of Congress put up with many requests for items that appeared “lost in cataloging,” “not on shelf,” or nonexistent until I “uncovered” them; I am especially grateful to Julie Boddy, Michelle Moffatt, and Frederick Wilson.
	Further, there are those who acted as my eyes at distant libraries, those whose generosity and willingness to “trade” research in Paris for research in Pittsburgh made my task much easier, and those without whose support I would never have been able to complete this undertaking.  Chief among these are François Xavier Bernard at the University of Lyon; Sandrine Gerard of Nancy, France;  Beatrice Laurent at the University of Avignon; Carol Digel of Wilmington, Delaware; Francesco Fiumara at Johns Hopkins University; Mark Samuels Lasner, President of the William Morris Society in the United States (whose hospitality and graciousness I have especially enjoyed); Paul Hardwick of the Pre-Raphaelite Society, London; David Latham of the Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies; Kraig Binkowski and Margaretta Frederick at the Delaware Museum of Art; Dr. Thomas Derrick of Indiana State University—for teaching me how to be a bibliographer; Dr. Kenneth Sroka of Canisius College; Larry Pfaff of the Art Gallery of Ontario Edward Taylor Research Library and Archives; Solveig C. Robinson of the Research Society for Victorian Periodicals; and a host of others impractical to list here, for their courtesies and shared fervor for this project.
	I conclude with a special thanks to my wife Mary Ann for her crucial role in the development of this project.  Not only was she my most ardent supporter, but her logical, argumentative, and editing skills helped me to remain focused on my task.  Mary Ann’s love of Charles Dickens drove me to take on a task I originally thought to be so anti-Dickensian that I would be safe from Dickens’s all-pervading influence on the Victorian era (alas, see entry 1850.155, written by Dickens himself in Household Words).

Preface

This bibliography addresses the need for an up-to-date method of finding periodical materials related to the Pre-Raphaelite movement.   Timothy Hilton concludes in Pre-Raphaelitism (1970) that the nineteenth-century critical public, not knowing quite what it was seeing and reading when looking at Pre-Raphaelite painting or reading Pre-Raphaelite poetry, tended to label the output of the movement as retrograde and childish in its simplicity and minute study of nature.  Only after most of the original seven members of the movement had died, says Hilton, did the critical press begin to accept Pre-Raphaelitism and to take it seriously as a “school.”  The contemporary critics all seemed to cry out with one voice of denunciation and ridicule against the Pre-Raphaelites.  Hilton’s argument is based on a rather small sampling of the writings of the critical press between the 1850s and the turn of the century.
While working on my master’s thesis in 1995 and 1996, I often consulted William E. Fredeman’s Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study (1965), which catalogues all of the then-known sources relating to Pre-Raphaelitism from 1848 to 1965: books, journal articles, magazine articles, pamphlets, exhibition catalogues, and so on.  In comparing Hilton’s bibliography with Fredeman’s, it became clear that Hilton’s grasp of the critical response to the Pre-Raphaelite movement was limited; Fredeman listed nearly 500 periodical citations from 1848 to 1900 alone; Hilton relied on evidence from only twenty sources—from only twelve periodicals.  In doing research for other projects, I often ran across articles not listed in Fredeman’s book, and even attending a lecture (Nancy Armstrong’s fascinating 1995 talk at Indiana State University on the advent of Victorian photography) could turn up new material.  It therefore became increasingly clear that a complete understanding of the contemporary response to the Pre-Raphaelites required access to and a synthesis of the wealth of periodical literature on the movement. This bibliography adds to, updates, and in some instances corrects William Fredeman’s excellent but limited 1965 work.  Throughout the course of completing this bibliography, I have come to appreciate the enormous amount of labor that Fredeman’s groundbreaking work represents.  I am honored to be able to augment it.
INTRODUCTION

	This bibliography contains citations to the known nineteenth-century periodical criticism about the Pre-Raphaelite movement—a movement that has proved difficult to define.  Pre-Raphaelitism was both an art-historical and a literary phenomenon, and there is still debate after more than a hundred and fifty years about when the movement began, who started it, what forces influenced it, who its members were, and when it ended.  These questions are central to an understanding of Pre-Raphaelitism, and form the basis of discussions begun by the nineteenth-century writers of the entries in this bibliography.  Rather than attempt to settle these issues, I have concentrated on harnessing and exploring the dissonance inherent in assessing the impact of Pre-Raphaelitism on the nineteenth century.  Indeed, the citations in this bibliography revisit many long-forgotten—and currently unresolved—queries and conundrums about Pre-Raphaelitism’s place in the artistic, literary, and cultural history of Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States.
	Consequently, this bibliography is both an investigation into the specific reception of Pre-Raphaelitism and a window into the cultural milieu of the second half of the nineteenth century.  The opinions of the critics listed here are based in many ways on a set of shared (or assumed to be shared) cultural values, including views on religious viewpoint, class relations, and the nature and function of art.  A few examples will demonstrate the utility of looking at the entries in this bibliography as cultural-studies primers.
	Religious feeling was one of the strongest issues dividing Britons during the nineteenth century, with the majority Anglican Church split into High-, Low-, and Broad-Church factions, and Roman Catholicism gaining new converts in the country it had “lost” when Henry VIII cut ties with Rome.  The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was seen by most critics as too popish.  In early Pre-Raphaelite painting, the treatment, handling, and iconography were often branded as Mariolatry; even the eminent critic John Ruskin, in his defense of two Pre-Raphaelite paintings in a 13 May 1851 letter to the London Times, makes it clear that his support is for the artists, but not for their apparent religious leanings:
Let me state, in the first place, that I have no acquaintance with any of these artists, and very imperfect sympathy with them.  No one who has met with any of my writings will suspect me of daring to encourage them in their Romanist and Tractarian tendencies.  I am glad to see that Mr. Millais’s lady in blue is heartily tired of her painted window and idolatrous toilet-table, and I have no particular respect for Mr. Collins’s lady in white, because her sympathies are limited by a dead wall, or divided between some gold fish and a tadpole (the latter Mr. Collins may, perhaps, permit me to suggest, en passant, as he is already half a frog, is rather too small for his age).  (8-9)
Ruskin reads into John Everett Millais’s Mariana not the doubt of a pious Catholic woman, as suggested by the crucifix and candles on the “idolatrous” side table, but a Protestant turning away from them; likewise, Ruskin sees in Charles Allston Collins’s Convent Thoughts a picture of sadness: the nun locked away behind the cloister walls, left there to contemplate banalities.  These attitudes represent the views of many social critics of the day, who felt that Roman Catholic practices were invalid forms of worship, and that Tractarianism, also known as the Oxford Movement, whose adherents attempted to reconcile high-church Anglican and Roman Catholic doctrines, presented popish dogmatic enemies to reason and pure faith.
	Another division in Victorian society was that of class, and Pre-Raphaelitism challenged class boundaries and definitions as much as it pushed against the religious issues of the day.  William Holman Hunt’s The Awakening Conscience (1854) depicts a louche young man of the middle class reclining in a parlor chair before a piano, with a young prostitute rising suddenly from his lap, caught in the moment of realizing the wickedness of her profession.  Critics had a very difficult time with the subject.  The Athenaeum critic, on 6 May 1854, suggests that 
Innocent and unenlightened spectators suppose it to represent a quarrel between a brother and sister: it literally represents the momentary remorse of a kept mistress, whose thoughts of lost virtue, guilt, father, mother, and home have been roused by a chance strain of music.  (562)
This is the strongest language about the picture anywhere in the periodical press, but the article lacks any mention of the class inequality inherent in the painting.  For a class-conscious review of a Pre-Raphaelite work, we turn to William Michael Rossetti, writing in the Spectator for 2 June 1855 about John Barwell’s The London Gazette, 1854 (1855):
Præraphaelitism is the generic character of . . . “The London Gazette, 1854,” by Mr. Barwell, [which] is one of what may be classed as the “Sebastopol Pictures” of the year, and (without prejudice to Mr. Cope’s maturer practice be it said) certainly the best of them.  The personages are two women of the working class, who have broken off the getting-up of some linen to read the Gazette; in which the younger has found the death (we may suppose) of her lover, and falls forward, crushed in heart, across her companion’s lap.  There are seriousness and well-grounded study in the whole presentment; the expression and action are reserved, yet feeling; and, for the rest, witness the good broad style of design in the girl’s arms, and the analogous qualities in the treatment of her drapery.  (575)
In characterizing Barwell’s painting as one of the “Sebastopol pictures,” which refers to the effects of the Crimean War upon those left at home, Rossetti signals a concern for the lives of the common soldiery and their lower-class families; he also locates emotions and tropes such as heroism, pathos, and bathos in the lower classes, at a time when such traits were typically depicted on canvas as the qualities of military leaders.  Likewise, we see a concern with the working classes in John Lucas Tupper’s second article on “The Subject in Art” in the Pre-Raphaelites’ own short-lived magazine, The Germ:
And why not teach us to help what the laws cannot help?—why teach us to hate a Nero or an Appius, and not an underselling oppressor of workmen and betrayer of women and children?  Why to love a Ladie in bower, and not a wife’s fireside?  Why paint or poetically depict the horrible race of Ogres and Giants, and not show Giant Despair dressed in that modern habit he walks the streets in?  (121)
This didactic tendency toward using art as a means to arouse social consciousness and lead to social change—art and literature serving as a moral barometer for society—leads to a discussion of the function and nature of art, a topic which was already hotly debated by the time Pre-Raphaelitism came on the Victorian art and literary scene.
	The thinking on the nature and function of art prevalent during the 1850s held that art was primarily decorative in nature and should follow strictly prescribed formulae in order to arrive at beauty.  These formulae were challenged by John Ruskin in Modern Painters (1843–1846), wherein he put forth a competing view of the function of art:
In the close of the first volume of “Modern Painters,” I ventured to give the following advice to the young artists of England:—“They should go to Nature in all singleness of heart, and walk with her laboriously and trustingly, having no other thought but how best to penetrate her meaning; rejecting nothing, selecting nothing, and scorning nothing.”  (“Pre-Raphaelitism,” Builder 571)	
Ruskin advocated returning to the simplicity and directness of quattrocento Italian art, as suggested in the quotation, which deals with Renaissance art in Venice.  The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was united in its dissatisfaction with the traditional methods of teaching as practiced at the Royal Academy, taking up Ruskin as their model of progress (or, perhaps, “retrogress,” as Punch  called it in 1851) against the conservative academic worship of Raphael’s formalized harmony and balance: hence the term “Pre-Raphaelite” to describe their works.
	The issues of art theory, class, and religion appear in most of the contemporary criticism of Pre-Raphaelitism in varying degrees, and when critics found fault or merit in Pre-Raphaelite works, they did so to the extent that Pre-Raphaelite works challenged established dogmas.  The ideological leanings of individual critics are often implied most strongly in their denunciation or praise of Pre-Raphaelite works, which seem to have acted as lightning rods of scandal and dispute.  This variety of responses to the movement has only recently been noticed by scholars, who until the late 1980s focused their attention primarily on the manner in which Pre-Raphaelitism was seen as an aberration by the critical press of the day.  The rediscovery of contemporary critical resources from foreign-language periodicals and small-press magazines in the last twenty or so years has greatly enhanced our understanding of the complex social dynamics at play in the response to the Pre-Raphaelite movement.  By filling out the corpus of known periodical sources, this bibliography aims to deepen that understanding.

THE GENESIS OF PRE-RAPHAELITISM

	Any history of Pre-Raphaelitism must begin with the influences extant in European painting and literature prior to the movement.  In the early decades of the nineteenth century, Ford Madox 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 (Hilton 18).  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 importantly 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” (Hilton 19), 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 and other copies of important works.  The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was a continuation of this trend; it did not arise ex nihilo, as many scholars have claimed.  Timothy Hilton nicely sums up this point: 
The influence of the German Nazarenes, the adumbration of such principles as accuracy, archaism, a new look at the medieval past, and intensity of religious, human and literary feeling; all these are present in the course of English art before the formation of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and it must be recognized that the Brotherhood was part of this movement, not its source.  (25)
Indeed, recent scholarship has focused on reconnecting the Pre-Raphaelite movement to its continental influences, long disavowed by scholars intent on preserving the “Englishness” of the movement.  Alicia Craig Faxon declares in the introduction to Pre-Raphaelite Art in Its European Context that “the separation of Pre-Raphaelite art from European art is an arbitrary one created by modern art historians.  As artists, the Pre-Raphaelites used many of the same sources” as their continental counterparts, and “were affected by new sources of art patronage and new modes of exhibition” (11).
	Hilton’s Pre-Raphaelitism (1970) remains one of the best overviews of the movement for a lay audience, and part of his introduction may serve to set the scene:
Many of the paintings we designate “Pre-Raphaelite” do not look at all like each other.  How, one feels, can they belong to the same artistic movement?  There could hardly be a greater contrast than that between Edward Burne-Jones’s The Beguiling of Merlin and Ford Madox Brown’s Work, or between Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s Beata Beatrix and John Brett’s The Stonebreaker.  Stylistically, they do not have a common denominator. . . . To understand what it was about, we need to follow its differing paths, and it is often as important to describe differences as to record similarities.  (9)
Hilton’s assessment of the movement is quite perceptive.  Of the four paintings referred to above, only one, Brett’s Stonebreaker, was painted before 1860.  Each of the works Hilton uses in his example was painted in a different decade, under very different social, artistic, and ideological circumstances.  To “follow its differing paths,” we must first understand the common starting point of Pre-Raphaelitism.  The history of the movement is by no means a homogeneous whole; in just its first five years, the movement underwent many changes, lost some members, and gained new adherents, all the while subtly—and at times radically—changing with the ideas and views of its practitioners.  The movement proper began with the formation of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.
	The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was founded by three young students associated with the British Royal Academy of Art painting schools: John Everett Millais, William Holman Hunt, and Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  These three invited four of their contemporaries to join them in their Brotherhood: Rossetti’s brother William Michael Rossetti, Frederic George Stephens, Thomas Woolner, and Charles Allston Collins (Collins was denied membership when Woolner objected, and he was soon replaced by James Collinson).  Not all of these seven were painters.  Indeed, William Michael Rossetti was at the time a clerk, Stephens an aspiring poet, and Woolner a budding sculptor.  As I have already mentioned, the original aim of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was to follow John Ruskin’s advice in Modern Painters: “go to Nature in all singleness of heart, and walk with her laboriously and trustingly, having no other thought but how best to penetrate her meaning; rejecting nothing, selecting nothing, and scorning nothing.”  The members of the Brotherhood began work on paintings in this line, and plans were made for a literary magazine, entitled The Germ, as a showcase for the writings and etchings of the group concerning art and poetry.
	The first works of the group elicited thunder from the critical press, less because of the artists’ radical painting technique (many artists, like Ford Madox Brown and William Dyce, had already been painting medieval-style works for nearly a decade) than because of their obdurate secrecy.  No one knew what the initials “P. R. B.” meant on the paintings of the Brotherhood, and their fraternity seemed to the critical press to smack of the idea of the cosa nostra from which all but the privileged few were excluded.  The hallmarks of their paintings and poetry, indeed, were fairly uncontroversial: a photographic fidelity to nature in the description or delineation of all objects in poetry or on the canvas, a concern for the moral welfare of the reader or viewer, and a return to the more “pure” artistic forms of the quattrocento, before Raphael—hence the name “Pre-Raphaelite.”  The critical press seems at first to have sympathized with these aims, commenting on the quaint medievalism of the execution of Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s Girlhood of Mary Virgin.  Yet, once the truth about the nature of the Brotherhood was revealed, the periodical press began its campaign of denouncing the movement for its “misguided attempt to reform” the practice of painting, its seeming Roman Catholic overtones, and the perceived audacity of seven artists under the age of twenty telling their elders about “the truth” in art.

AN OVERVIEW OF PRE-RAPHAELITE BIBLIOGRAPHY

	Pre-Raphaelitism was a popular subject for academics in literature and art history until nearly the end of the 1920s.  Witness the many biographies of the movement’s leaders, such as M. H. Spielmann’s Millais (1898), and the published lectures of Lafcadio Hearn to his Japanese students in Pre-Raphaelite and Other Poets (1922).  Although there were no bibliographies of the movement published separately before 1965, many of its primary and secondary documents contained excellent bibliographical lists.  Nevertheless, many sources, especially periodical articles, became forgotten as later authors cannibalized earlier bibliographies for only those resources relevant to the task at hand.
	Also, the academic establishment, following the rise of Modernism in literature and art after the beginning of the twentieth century, soon dropped Pre-Raphaelitism from serious study, evidently because its aesthetic focus made it suspect, if not altogether disreputable.  “Serious” scholars largely abandoned Pre-Raphaelitism, and little was done or said in academia about the movement for many years.  In 1965, William E. Fredeman published Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study, a bibliography of citations for every item he was able to find regarding Pre-Raphaelitism.  This extensive study was aided, Fredeman told me in 1998, by two fortunate circumstances: first, he had the field mostly to himself—which made source material relatively easy and inexpensive to obtain for an avid collector, and second, and eighteen-month stay in Britain, supported by a Canada Council grant, greatly aided him in finding primary sources.  Fredeman simply visited every bookseller’s shop he could find and browsed the shelves for interesting-looking items.  In doing so, he managed to amass one of the largest collections of Pre-Raphaelite-related material, such as the original press-clipping book of William Michael Rossetti, mostly a collection of contemporaneous material on his brother Dante’s works—an invaluable aid to research, as it contains annotations in William’s own hand.  When Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study was published, it helped to re-legitimize the field of study by establishing a canon of primary and secondary texts for research.
	Soon after Fredeman’s book came Cecil Lang’s impressive edition of The Pre-Raphaelites and Their Circle (1975), and the Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies was established in 1977 as a scholarly forum.  Much of this early scholarship focused on rediscovering the seven original members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and on theorizing about how they fit into and went against the grain of Victorian values.  Since most of the scholarship in the 1970s was theoretical, little energy went into unearthing additional resources: Fredeman’s bibliography, with its wealth of previously unknown material, provided ample opportunity for original research.  The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies contained in its earliest numbers articles about the utility and relationship of sources largely to be found in Fredeman’s bibliography.
	In the early 1980s, scholars began to shift their focus away from the original Pre-Raphaelites and away from traditional theoretical models.  The Journal of the William Morris Society was established in the 1980s, welcoming articles on broader topics (and more minor figures of the movement) than those found in early issues of JPRS.  The 1980s saw many articles in both periodicals whose authors cited sources not found in Fredeman, but no bibliographical work was published to bring together these disparate “new” resources.
By the 1990s, the field seemed to have run itself nearly dry, despite having once more established the Pre-Raphaelites as a legitimate subject for academic study, and scholars began to examine minor players in the movement as potentially fruitful avenues of inquiry (see, for example, James Smetham: Artist, Author, Pre-Raphaelite Associate [1995] by Susan P. Casteras).  In response to the creation of this diaspora of scholarship that travels farther and farther from its original “home,”  there has been a counter tendency recently to return afresh to the original texts in the field.
Since 1965, scholars had been discovering and republishing small excerpts from the large corpus of nineteenth-century Pre-Raphaelite criticism, but few had attempted to consolidate all of the new discoveries.  Two studies have recently appeared, however, and each is useful to the scholar of Pre-Raphaelitism in a different way.  In 1997, Carolyn Hares-Stryker published An Anthology of Pre-Raphaelite Writing, containing selected short passages from epistolary, periodical, and primary texts of the movement.  Although Hares-Stryker’s selections impart the mixed flavors of the times in which Pre-Raphaelitism flourished, the work is very broadly conceived, presenting snippets from letters, diaries, books, essays, and critical reviews from each of the five decades of Pre-Raphaelitism during the nineteenth century, along with a few extracts from works leading up to 1920.  Since Hares-Stryker intends to provide a broad view of the movement, it would be unfair to assert that her work presents too limited a selection of texts.  Still, the texts represented in her study are all “canonical” because they are listed in Fredeman’s bibliography.  Her selection seems to have been based upon how importantly such texts have already figured in scholarship.  Hares-Stryker provides no explanatory notes, choosing instead simply to transcribe excerpts from the source texts.
A year after Hares-Stryker’s anthology came the massive four-volume The Pre-Raphaelites: Writings and Sources, edited by Inga Bryden.  This work is a 699-page collection of general sources from various aspects of the movement: periodical articles, book excerpts, pamphlets, poetry, letters, and diary entries.  It provides many features lacking in Hares-Stryker’s slimmer volume, and it is copiously annotated and fully indexed.  Most importantly, there is great depth of coverage in each of Bryden’s sections; many texts not previously considered part of the canon of Pre-Raphaelite scholarship are included alongside their more frequently cited cousins.
Because of the broad scope of both of these resources, each is able to address only a portion of the known sources.  Even Fredeman’s 1965 study, at the time the most complete listing of Pre-Raphaelite sources, is broad rather than deep, with many minor known resources not cited in favor of fuller annotation of more “canonical” material.  Since then, as I have indicated above, a wealth of new nineteenth-century sources has been discovered, and needs to be systematically catalogued and made available to scholars.  In focusing my attention only on periodical material, I lose the broad perspective on the movement provided by Hares-Stryker’s and Bryden’s works; however, I hope that the comprehensiveness of my coverage justifies this limitation.
The present bibliography attempts to satisfy a need  to update and to expand the canon of periodical criticism about the Pre-Raphaelite movement.  What Hares-Stryker and Bryden attempt to accomplish by choosing a few representative sources in order to show a picture of the whole of Victorian society, I aim to do here by including everything known within a single genre, one that allows scholars to question the previously established canon of what “Pre-Raphaelite criticism” was and how it developed over time.
Some of the sources not listed in Fredeman, but appearing in this bibliography, were first cited in the pages of the Review of the Pre-Raphaelite Society, the Victorian Periodicals Review, the Journal of the William Morris Society, and the Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies.  Peter Faulkner’s William Morris: The Critical Heritage (1988) has helped to establish a core body of the Morrisiana; likewise several artist- and author-specific bibliographies have been useful in locating sources.  Jan Marsh’s Christina Rossetti (1995) relies heavily on the periodical literature related to the poetess.  A good source against which to check entries has been the third edition of the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (1999).  The writings of the Pre-Raphaelites’ contemporaries occasionally shed light on periodical sources overlooked until now; among these are John Ruskin’s Arrows of the Chace (1880), William Holman Hunt’s Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1901), and John Guile Millais’s The Life and Letters of Sir John Everett Millais (1894).  More than 1,300 entries were discovered directly by combing through runs of the periodicals themselves, through online or CD-ROM searches, through the generous references of other scholars, and, on rare occasions, through sheer chance (for example, all of the entries from Cosmopolis—not listed in any of the sources I have yet consulted—are due to the happenstance of finding a full run on the shelves at Bryn Mawr College), sometimes stumbling across them while searching through microfilm records for other items.  Such discoveries attest to the extent to which Pre-Raphaelitism was cited in discussions in areas of nineteenth-century life that sometimes seem incongruous, such as economics, law, and foreign policy.  

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES

This bibliography adds to the established corpus of nineteenth-century works about Pre-Raphaelitism, both in number and kind.  Fredeman’s 1965 bibliography included approximately 500 periodical entries; the present bibliography has more than 2,240.  Every entry listed here is based on an examination of the original source; items which I have yet to examine are listed separately, in the Addenda.  New entries fall into four main categories: articles cited in other nineteenth-century literary texts, entries in languages other than English, entries from small-circulation periodicals, and brief mentions in articles on subjects other than Pre-Raphaelitism.
	For example, this bibliography significantly expands the number of known French-language articles about Pre-Raphaelitism, including some items that were later taken up by the British press in translation.  An exhibition of works from many continental countries and Great Britain was held in Paris in 1855, and the French press showed their knowledge of and disdain for Pre-Raphaelitism.  Both the Journal l’Union and Le Moniteur included short, biting attacks on Pre-Raphaelitism in their reviews of the international competition.  In its 25 August 1855 issue, the Journal Pour Rire published a series of cartoon parodies of works in the exhibition, including one on John Everett Millais’s The Return of the Dove to the Ark, in which Bertall—a pseudonym for the French satirical cartoonist Albert Arnoux (1820–1882)—portrays the two daughters of Noah as chubby country hayseeds, with the caption “La colombe revient toute mouillé pour revoir ses jeunes maîtresses, que l’on a emballées avec beaucoup de foin dans une caisse longue pour les faire voyager dans l’arche,” or, “The soaking-wet dove reunites with its young mistresses, who have been packed with plenty of straw in a large crate in order to make the voyage in the ark.”
	The crisp realism of the straw in the background of the painting is the target of another French review of the same painting, this time in Henri Viel-Castel’s “Exposition Universelle des Beaux-arts: Peinture.—École Anglaise,” in L’Athenaeum Français for 16 June 1855.  Viel-Castel lampoons Millais’s minuteness of detail, saying that
Dans le Retour de la colombe à l’Arche, les plumes de la colombe et le foin de son nid attirent d’abord les yeux du spectateur et dès les premiers jours de l’exposition, avant d’avoir retenu le nom de M. Millais, les visiteurs se demandaient mutuellement: “Avez-vous vu le foin de l’artiste anglais?”  Le foin devenait l’action, le personnage, il aurait fallu débaptiser le tableau et lui donner pour inscription: Le bonheur du foin au retour de la colombe.  [In the Return of the Dove to the Ark, the feathers of the dove and the straw of its nest initially attract the eyes of the spectator; on the first days of the show, before anyone had learned the name of Mr. Millais, the visitors asked each other: “did you see the English artist’s straw?”  The hay has become the action, the character; the painting might need to be unbaptized and given a new inscription: The Happiness of the Straw on the Return of the Dove.] (508)
Reading these French reviews of Pre-Raphaelite paintings allows us to see that the French critics were well aware of the exhibitions and painting styles of their contemporaries in Britain.  That there was communication between the two countries with regard to matters of taste and style is plain, especially when one considers William Michael Rossetti’s appreciation in the 13 October 1855 Spectator of Courbet as the leading French Realist painter: 
Courbet is another representative man of the school [of Realism]; but so exalté, that, shooting out of sight of such men as might be called his colleagues, he represents little except himself and his direct imitators.  His “Burial at Ornans,”  exhibited in 1850, created that amount of noise, abuse, and disputation, which is immediate fame; and he has since occupied in France, as the apostle of “Realism,” a position somewhat analogous to that of the Præraphaelites in England.  (1062)
Despite this apparent acknowledgment of the contemporaneity of the two movements, Rossetti is quick to point out the weakness of the French style, just as Bertall and Viel-Castel lampooned the coarseness of Pre-Raphaelite technique:
Admiring Courbet as we heartily do, both from sympathy with the movement which he belongs to and on compulsion from his own force, we cannot admit the analogy, however, without very serious restrictions.  Actual resemblance in method there is none whatever: the Frenchman is the roughest of the rough, the Englishmen the most exquisite of the elaborated.  The first paints with a scrubbing-brush clotted with coarse paint and chalk-grits; the second, with a fine camel’s hair dipped in the choicest and purest tints of the palette.  (1063)
In this latter passage, we hear the anglocentric views of British critics who claimed that Pre-Raphaelitism arose sui generis as a heretical art movement, making French Realism a weak imitation of true masterly British technique.  Immediately we encounter the equally vehement views of the French critics, who found Pre-Raphaelitism to be at best a poor imitation of the German Nazarene movement in the early 1820s and at worst a direct theft of the “royal robes” of French Realist techniques, ill-fitting and awkward in the hands of British amateurs.
	In addition to expanding the canon by way of non-English-language entries, this bibliography adds a number of articles from periodicals hitherto overlooked because of obscurity (i.e., small press runs and small circulation numbers).  Although Fredeman included some entries for articles from rare periodicals, his method of finding periodical titles was hit-and-miss, because he relied on London booksellers to recommend titles to him.  Thus Fredeman lists an entry from the Hastings and St. Leonard’s Review, a weekly with a circulation of just over five hundred, but only because he was fortunate enough to have found a reprint of the article in an 1891 volume entitled Poetic Scraps, given him by a bookseller (Fredeman, personal interview).   Most of the small-circulation periodical information about Pre-Raphaelitism has come from researchers working in local archives on other topics; for example, Francesco Fiumara was researching some materials on Llandalf Cathedral, and happened across articles in the Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian about the role played by minor members of the Pre-Raphaelite movement in the decoration of the organ panels.  Likewise, Elizabeth Touatt’s unsigned review in the August 1848 Belle Assemblée of Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s “My Sister’s Sleep” came to light only because of a happenstance discovery while David R. Bentley was researching another project in 1974.  This item is curious because it critiques a then-unpublished poem that would become one of the first to be seen as “Pre-Raphaelite” poetry;  in August 1848, however, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood had not yet been formed, and it is informative to note the difference between this generous and mild review of the poem and subsequent, “post-Pre-Raphaelite” (if such a term can be coined), attacks on its Pre-Raphaelite qualities.
	The present bibliography also includes a substantial number of hitherto unrecorded small-periodical entries.  In finding articles from limited-circulation periodicals, I used as my guide the writings of the primary members of the movement (such as William Holman Hunt’s Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, noted above), who often referred to reviews and criticism in periodicals now most likely to be found in academic-library rare book rooms, if at all.  Smaller American periodicals, especially those published in and around New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston, have proved especially fruitful for references to Pre-Raphaelitism; for instance, the New York biweekly Crayon published month-old news from the British art scene, as reported by William Michael Rossetti, and included letters from readers whose curiosity about Pre-Raphaelitism had been fired by a letter from John Ruskin to William Stillman, the editor of the magazine:
MESSRS. EDITORS:—As the term “pre-Raphaelite” has become a “household word” in Art criticism, and as many of your non-Artist readers may be in an equally unenlightened state, will you, in your next number, please explain the exact meaning of the term, provided it can be done without encroaching too much upon your space, and thus oblige
AN INTERESTED READER.  (Stillman 219)
Whether this letter, to which Stillman appended his own estimation of the movement, is an actual letter from a reader or an introductory strategy of Stillman’s to open the topic of Pre-Raphaelitism is a matter of conjecture; however, the supposed “household word” “Pre-Raphaelitism” was, even by 1855, a relatively unknown artistic movement in the United States, and the inclusion of limited-run American periodicals in this bibliography fills a significant but often-overlooked gap in the record.
	Likewise, smaller periodicals in the British Isles have seldom been included in bibliographies of Pre-Raphaelite criticism, despite their usefulness in gauging the extent and kind of reception afforded the movement in different locales, often quite different from city to city.  For instance, the Standard of Freedom was a short-lived, small London newspaper that had as its guiding principle the enrichment of the working classes through reporting on news events, stage productions, and literature that might bear on the welfare and happiness of the downtrodden.  In the 2 March 1850 issue, the article “Literature: The Germ” appears:
This is a periodical chiefly, it seems, conducted by a company of young artists, and expressly devoted to the expression of their ideas in art, and to the development of their poetic faculties.  It bears unquestionable evidences of true inspiration; and, in fact, is so thoroughly spiritual that it is more likely to find “the fit audience though few” than to attract the multitude.  Perhaps there is more affectation of quaintness and intellectual abstraction about it, however, than bold poetic power; and the writers would do well to leave behind them the echoes of the airs of Tennyson, and strike out into a field of their own.  The mind is charmed with novelty of phraseology or manner only for a moment; the next it seeks for some free and manly expression of great and new thoughts, and if it do not find these is cloyed and disappointed.  (11)
The Pre-Raphaelites themselves took great pride in claiming such a favorable review, excerpting two lines from the article in their flier “Opinions of the Press” to accompany new issues of The Germ.  Yet, up to the present day, only those two lines of praise have been cited by scholars.  The full review quotes a significant portion of Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s “My Sister’s Sleep” and mentions the reviewer’s support for The Germ as a production overseen by the common man for the common man (11).  While such a view of The Germ is debatable, the reviewer’s reactions provide an excellent example of the response from the lower classes to Pre-Raphaelitism—a response that was prized by the Pre-Raphaelites themselves yet went unnoticed for more than 150 years because of the scarcity of copies of the original source.
	Another new area encompassed by this bibliography is the brief mention of Pre-Raphaelitism in articles that deal primarily with other subjects.  Before the advent of digital texts, such fugitive short mentions of Pre-Raphaelitism were discovered only through serendipity or arduous and careful reading (both of which techniques have been employed in the creation of this bibliography).  But, now that many nineteenth-century periodicals are either online or have been published on CD-ROM, it has become relatively simple to search whole volumes for key words.  For instance, key-word searching has uncovered a number of items from periodicals encompassed by Oxford University’s Internet Library of Early Journals, which includes digitized pages from incomplete runs of Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Gentleman's Magazine, Notes and Queries, and The Builder.  In addition to articles whose themes center on Pre-Raphaelitism or individual artists of the movement, key-word searching has turned up such gems as a mention of Pre-Raphaelite principles being practiced by Welsh artists in “Wet Days at Bryn Cefn” from the January 1856 Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine:
Mr Boniface Milborde is a fair youth of about twenty, with finely-chiselled nose, short upper-lip, light eyes and ingenuous features, set off by fair hair of the hyacinthine kind, and the most delicate hint of an artistic mustache.  He is a Catholic, rather ultra-montane in his views, but no one, to look at him, would take him for a Jesuit.  As far as we can see, his ultra-montanism, is chiefly apparent, by a propensity to touch up his pictures on Sundays, which he does on principle, thinking that a religious thing, but which would have given him a very small chance of anything good in the eyes of an elder of the Free Kirk.  Of course he is a pre-Raphaelite of the most pronounced kind, and his tree-stems, foliage, and herbage are all most conscientiously drawn, but the outlines are a little stiff, and the distance comes uncomfortably forward into the eye; for pre-Raphaelite pictures, like the planet Mars, have no atmosphere, and ought to have been confined to studies in that planet, or in the moon, which is believed by wise men to be in the same predicament.  They may well be called religious on this ground, for they are certainly not of this world, which is given to robe its shame in a certain blue haze, said profanely, we suppose, by Southey, to “spiritualise the mountains of Britain.”  But, however that may be, Boniface shows worldly wisdom in his Welsh costume, for he comes in in a full suit of india-rubber, like Achilles vulnerable only in the feet.  When he wants to alter a pencil sketch, he has only to lift the hem of his garment, which saves the trouble of carrying that most fugitive of all possessions, a lump of caoutchouc, in his pocket.  If he could but make his academy boards as waterproof as himself he might have gone on for ever delineating the drifting rain with pre-Raphaelite fidelity.  (90)
The article from which this is taken is actually a reminiscence of a trip to the mountains of Wales, in which the author describes shaggy cattle in their mountainous fields, the dress of the Welsh people, their quaint traditions, and other common travel-narrative topics.  In this miniature sketch of Boniface Milborde, we see the issues of religion, class, and the nature and function of art brought into sharp focus in the person of the Welsh Pre-Raphaelite artist, and the author takes a few jabs at Pre-Raphaelite technique, as well.  Although key-word searching through online or CD-ROM archives is an efficient way to find and add sources like “Wet Days at Bryn Cefn” to the canon, the technology is yet in its infancy, with few periodicals having been transferred to digital format and few of those now digitized covering the span of their full runs.  These limitations make the entries in this bibliography found by such methods tantalizing promises of future discoveries, rather than a definitive record of the entire corpus of brief mentions of Pre-Raphaelitism.

NOTES ON THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY

	The entries in this bibliography cover two different but intertwined Pre-Raphaelitisms: the art movement, vilified by conservative critics of the day, and Pre-Raphaelite poetry, which was defined as such only retrospectively, beginning in the 1850s.  These entries vary greatly in subject and tone; some deal with the entire movement, while others discuss only certain individuals within it; some refer to lengthy discourses on the theories behind Pre-Raphaelitism, while others are excerpted snippets from larger notices of painting exhibitions.  
Much of the early criticism of Pre-Raphaelitism focused on defining what the movement was; most writers succeeded only in suggesting what Pre-Raphaelitism was not or should not attempt to be, as seen in an unsigned review of John Ruskin’s pamphlet Pre-Raphaelitism: 
Are the great masters to be wholly rejected, and their experience disregarded, so that each painter must begin de novo, as if painting had never been; or are they to be accepted under certain restrictions; and what are those restrictions?  The student ought to be told whether, if he reject Raphael, he may accept Giotto or Fra Bartolommeo; and if so, why so?  (“Ruskin’s Pre-Raphaelitism” 804)
Further, the critics of the 1850s spent a great deal of time calling for an end to the movement, while at the same time swelling the ranks of Pre-Raphaelite painters and poets by guessing that so-and-so was “really” a Pre-Raphaelite because of his handling of chiaroscuro, perspective, or subject matter.  For instance, the critic for the Knickerbocker, or New York Monthly Magazine agrees in January 1858 with John Ruskin’s assertion about what “true” Pre-Raphaelitism entails, citing William Holman Hunt’s The Light of the World:
As far as regards the technical qualities of Mr. Hunt’s painting, I would only ask the spectator to observe this difference between true Pre-Raphaelite work, and its imitations.  The true work represents all objects exactly as they would appear in nature in the position, and at the distance, which the arrangement of the picture supposes.  The false work represents them with all their details, as if seen through a microscope.  Examine closely the ivy on the door in Mr. Hunt’s picture, and there will not be found in it a single clear outline.  All is the most exquisite mystery of color; becoming reality at its due distance.  In like manner, examine the small gems on the robe of the figure.  Not one will be made out in form, and yet there is not one of all those minute points of green color, but it has two or three distinctly varied shades of green in it, giving it mysterious value and lustre.  (52, original italics)
	Especially as the decade went on and a new wave of Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s followers at Oxford replaced the old guard of the original Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, some critics began to see Pre-Raphaelites popping up in the most unlikely of places.  The French critic Henri Viel-Castel “created” a new member of the Pre-Raphaelite movement in 1855:
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 is it understand 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.] (Viel-Castel 509)
As for the identity of the mysterious “M. Schaw,” we find the Art-Journal critic enlightening:
All this time many of our readers, moderately familiar with our native men of rank in the walks of Art, 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 visited the pall and the beaker, and 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.” (“French Criticism on British Art” 251)
	Since many of the bibliography’s entries concern expositions of Pre-Raphaelite art, they hitherto have been considered the domain of the art historian and not the literary scholar.  However, the corpus of criticism related to Pre-Raphaelitism is itself a sort of literary canon, deserving of literary scrutiny in the same way that personal letters, unfinished manuscripts, and newspaper advertisements have come to be seen as useful texts.  The criticism applied to Pre-Raphaelite painting falls into roughly three kinds: notices, reviews, and criticism of John Ruskin.  While there are, of course, exceptions to these categories, it is easy to see that the press received by the movement in its early phase was for the most part accusatorily hostile in tone, reactive in judgment, and suspicious of the Pre-Raphaelites’ rejection of the visual principles of the Old Masters, which had been taught in the Royal Academy for centuries.
	The earliest criticism of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood took the form of notices, usually passing references to individual paintings within reviews of entire exhibitions.  The works of the Pre-Raphaelites were initially intended, at least in part, to serve a dual purpose: William Michael Rossetti reports that the members of the newly-formed Brotherhood agreed to sign their new pictures with the letters “P. R. B.” as a show of solidarity (P. R. B. Journal 26), but the periodicals of the time took little immediate notice of the new style.  Indeed, where individual Pre-Raphaelite paintings were mentioned early in 1849, they were lumped in with the medieval revival already under way in minor British painting.  Ford Madox Brown, for instance, had studied in Rome and had met members of the Nazarene school from Germany in the 1830s; his work from the 1840s, such as Manfred on the Jungfrau (1841), had already made a name for him as a throwback Romantic painter with an eye for sharp detail.  The new movement was seen as a slightly more ascetic development of then-current continental influences.  The Morning Chronicle for 26 March 1849 gives Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s Girlhood of Mary Virgin only two sentences in a four-page review article:
There is a striking picture by G. D. Rossetti, “The Girlhood of Mary Virgin,” remarkable, as the first work of a very young artist, for the feeling with which it adopts the “early religious” style, and reprehensible for the blind idolatry of the imitation.  But the head of the Virgin, the background, and the general details of the picture are finely conceived and executed. (5)
The mildness with which the reviewer treats the painting may be ascribed to the notion that Dante Rossetti is a “very young artist” who will improve with greater experience, and will likely give over his “blind idolatry” (also read “Roman Catholic Mary-worship”).  This mildness is apparent in other early notices, as in “The Free Exhibition of Modern Art” in the 31 March 1849 Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres:
We must not forget to direct attention to a very uncommon work, in emulation of the old missal style, highly finished, indeed, though in oil; it is stippled all over, and the hairs, every one of them, touched with gilding; it is called the “Girlhood of Mary Virgin,” and by G. D. Rossetti.  (239)
This especially uncritical notice is typical of the press given to emerging artists, if such artist merited notice at all.  The same critics who routinely lambasted long-established artists such as Thomas Creswick (1811–1869) and Frederick Richard Lee (1799–1879) for their silliness, triteness of subject matter, and sloppiness of form were often charitable to up-and-coming artists, seeing the promise of later mastery in current works.  For instance, the Morning Chronicle reviewer, above, says that The Girlhood of Mary Virgin is, “remarkable as the first work of a very young artist.”  This good-spiritedness lasted perhaps six months.
	By far the greatest number of entries in this bibliography deal with Pre-Raphaelitism as an object of derision, a deformed curiosity left over from continental Romanticism, taken to a silly extreme.  By late 1849, the “mystery” of the initials “P. R. B.” had been revealed—although none of the original Pre-Raphaelite Brothers confessed to breaking the silence—and the critical floodgates were opened.
	Although most mentions of Pre-Raphaelitism took the movement to task because of its quattrocento painting techniques and subject matter, there cropped up at the same time a number of John Ruskin’s critics who seized upon his championing of Joseph Mallord William Turner (1775–1851) and the Pre-Raphaelites, challenging Ruskinian theories by way of ridiculing Pre-Raphaelite practices.  Ruskin himself helped to fan such critical fires by submitting to the Times unsolicited letters of support for the fledgling movement, and by publishing a pamphlet entitled Pre-Raphaelitism, which the critic for the Times denounced:
This perversion of talent—if talent they [the Pre-Raphaelites] have—we take to be fairly obnoxious to criticism: and we trust the authority of the “Author of Modern Painters” will not have the opposite effect of perpetuating or increasing the defect of a style which, in spite of his assertions, we hold to be a flagrant violation of nature and truth.  In fact, Mr. Ruskin’s own works might prove the best antidote to any such false theory; for (if we remember rightly) he has laid it down, in his defence of Mr. Turner’s landscapes, that truth in painting is not the mere imitative reproduction of this or that object, as they are, but the reproduction or image of the general effect given by an assemblage of objects as they appear to the sight.  Mr. Millais and his friends have taken refuge in the opposite extreme of exaggeration from Mr. Turner; but, as extremes meet, they both find an apologist in the same critic.  Aërial perspective, powerful contrasts of light and shade, with form and colour fused in the radiance of the atmosphere, are characteristics of Mr. Turner.  The P. R. B.s, to whom the “Author of Modern Painters” has transferred his affections, combine a repulsive precision of ugly shapes with monotony of tone in such works as “Sylvia” or “Convent Thoughts,” or distorted expressions as in “Mariana” or the “Dove in the Ark.” Mere truth of imitation in the details of a flower or a lock of hair pretend to be truth in combination with the laws of effect.  Nobody compares the pimples on a face by Donner with the broad flesh of Titian.  (qtd. in Ruskin, “The Pre-Raphaelite Artists” 9)
	After 1855, Pre-Raphaelitism became a common, if not wholly accepted, mode of artistic expression.  The original Brotherhood had effectively disbanded: Walter Howell Deverell was dead from Bright’s Disease; Dante Gabriel Rossetti had largely retired from the fray after the adverse criticism of Ecce Ancilla Domini; Charles Allston Collins had gone from Convent Thoughts to more conventional genre pictures; his replacement James Collinson had entered a seminary; Thomas Woolner had emigrated to Australia; William Holman Hunt was  traveling in Egypt and the Holy Land.  The periodicals began retrospectives on the Pre-Raphaelite movement, under the assumption that it was dead. 
	In 1857, however, Edward “Ned” Jones and William Morris, two divinity students at Oxford, met Dante Rossetti at his class at the Working Men’s College, and Rossetti agreed to take them under his tutelage.  Thus the second wave of Pre-Raphaelitism began when they and other associates received the commission for the decoration of the Oxford Union library in the summer of 1857, bringing Rossetti into the center of a new group of artists.  
	Strictly speaking, this period in the history of Pre-Raphaelitism ought not to be labeled Pre-Raphaelitism at all, save that some of its practitioners were also the original members of the Brotherhood.  The aesthetic ideals of Burne-Jones (as he would later style himself) and William Morris were much less those of quattrocento Florence than those of trecento France and Scandinavia.  Arthurian legend, especially popular in the wake of Tennyson’s epic poems, became fused with Icelandic sagas to form the foundation of the new movement.  The critical press took notice of the Oxford and Cambridge Journal put out by the two students and their friends, marveling at the earnestness with which these young men were reshaping Pre-Raphaelitism.
	At this point, late in the 1850s, entries in the bibliography begin to concern Pre-Raphaelite poetry.  Although Dante Gabriel Rossetti had been writing verses since his very earliest days, most of the original members of the Brotherhood gave up their attempts at establishing themselves as poets soon after the demise of The Germ in 1850.  However, now that poets such as William Morris, Algernon Swinburne, and Dante Rossetti began in earnest to attempt to write in a “Pre-Raphaelite” manner—paying especial attention to small realistic details, using a medieval or exotic locale, and portraying powerful emotions—critics found themselves applying the hallmarks of the new Pre-Raphaelite poetry to poets of previous years who, it turned out, were really Pre-Raphaelite poets, too!  Like the critics who saw Pre-Raphaelite painters in every garret in London in the early 1850s, commentators at the end of the decade began to mint new Pre-Raphaelite poets retroactively.  William Allingham’s volume Poems was published in 1851, and duly noticed by the Fraser’s Magazine critic as good work:
A book of real poetry, a book which allures us on from page to page, and forbids us to make up our mind upon its merits till we have heard the author fairly out, and seen his best, is just as great an enjoyment to us as to others; and therefore, it was with heart-felt relief that, as we hunted wearily through our batch of new poets, we took up Poems, by W. Allingham, as yet unknown to us, and found ourselves, at the first page we opened, in a healthier and fresher atmosphere, which inspired us up and forward, till we can honestly say, that we have read the whole volume through from beginning to end, and intend, as soon as we can despatch these pages to press, to sit down, and read it once again.  (“The Prevailing Epidemic” 492)
Allingham’s verses, however, were not recognized as being particularly Pre-Raphaelite until 1856, when Edward Jones (later styled “Burne-Jones”) connected Allingham’s poetry with Dante Rossetti’s sketches, in the Oxford and Cambridge Magazine:
There is one more I cannot help noticing, for its marvelous beauty, a drawing of higher finish and pretension than the last, from the pencil of Rosetti [sic], in “Allingham’s Day and Night Songs,” just published[.]  (55)
	The elements of Pre-Raphaelite poetry may be seen, in one regard, as a constant over the life of the movement.  The original members of the Brotherhood set out what poetry sounded like, what its aims ought to be, and what devices were most effective for achieving those aims.  These precepts are strikingly similar to the attributes of Pre-Raphaelite painting: poetry was to sound as close to the “real” medieval speech of common folks as possible; it was to be primarily didactic; and the use of specific fine detail and symbolic motifs best expressed the purity of intent and form aspired to by Pre-Raphaelite poetry.  Their poetic formula was to change very little over the course of the movement’s history, spanning the poetry of Dante Rossetti and William Morris, well into the 1890s. 
	Before concluding this account of the bibliography’s the scope, a few words may be appropriate about one issue not often covered by contemporary critics during the first decade of the movement: the role of women artists in the Pre-Raphaelite movement.  Although Christina Rossetti is one of the main Pre-Raphaelite poets, and such painters as Joanna Boyce, Eleanor Fortescue Brickdale, and Evelyn de Morgan formed a significant phalanx of Pre-Raphaelitism, most of them flourished after 1860; until now there has been virtually no record of criticism of their works prior to 1861.  This bibliography fills this gap in the scholarship, uncovering early reviews of their works and adding to the number of known reviews published after 1860, as well (for an excellent recent overview of the role of women in the Pre-Raphaelite movement, see Pre-Raphaelite Women Artists by Jan Marsh and Pamela Gerrish Nunn).
	In selecting the citations for this bibliography, I have given preference to sources that mention Pre-Raphaelitism specifically, even in passing.  Sources that discuss the original seven members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood often make reference to the Pre-Raphaelite qualities of their work.  Many of the articles on the minor figures of the movement (including Algernon Charles Swinburne and Edward Burne-Jones) do not mention the Pre-Raphaelite qualities of their artistic output, and therefore are not included.  For example, Swinburne’s A Study of Ben Jonson has very little to do with Pre-Raphaelitism, and only two reviews of this book mention Swinburne as a Pre-Raphaelite: both talk about A Study of Ben Jonson as a departure from Swinburne’s usual Pre-Raphaelite style.  Thus, only items which mention or allude to the Pre-Raphaelite qualities of an artist’s work are included in this bibliography.
	Making this compilation, I have learned much more about the world in which the Pre-Raphaelites lived than I had thought I might.  Where once I knew what the Pre-Raphaelites painted, wrote, and thought, I am now better able to judge what was thought of them, how they offended the popular Victorian sensibility, and how they fit into the cultural milieu of later nineteenth-century Europe and America.  In this study, the reader will find not only Rossetti, Hunt, Millais, and Brown, but also Poe, Sir Thomas Browne, Milton, Whitman, the Psalmist, and a curious imaginary censor named Mrs. Grundy.  
The items collected here trace the criticism of the Pre-Raphaelite movement until 1900.  With the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 comes also the “death” of Pre-Raphaelitism—the major figures of the movement have all retired or passed away; the art and literary worlds have become enamored of Impressionist painting and Modernist writing, and the periodical critics have begun to write retrospectives on the Pre-Raphaelite movement, citing earlier criticism to support their encomiums. When criticism begins to refer not to the Pre-Raphaelites themselves but to previous critics, one may in good conscience let drop the curtain, and there have an end.  
Yet this is not the place for an ending, but rather, a time to begin.  It is 1846.  The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood is two and a half years away from being formed, and the Art Union critic sees promise in a small painting from the hand of a child genius, John Everett Millais.

WORKS CITED IN THE INTRODUCTION

Beetz, Kirk. H. Algernon Charles Swinburne: A Bibliography of Secondary Works, 1861-1980. London: Scarecrow P, 1982.
Bertall [Arnoux, Albert].  “Le Salon Dépeint et Dessiné par Bertall.”  Journal Pour Rire 25 August 1855: n. pag.
“British and French Art in New-York.” Knickerbocker, or New York Monthly Magazine 51 (Jan. 1858): 52-61.
Bryden, Inga, ed. The Pre-Raphaelites: Writings And Sources. New York: Routledge, 1998.
[Burne-Jones, Edward].  “Essay on the Newcomes.”  Oxford and Cambridge Magazine 1 (Jan. 1856): 50–61.
Casteras, Susan.  “Pre-Raphaelite Challenges to Victorian Canons of Beauty.” The Pre-Raphaelites in Context.  13–36.
---.  “The Pre-Raphaelite Legacy to Symbolism: Continental Response and Impact on Artists in the Rosicrucian Circle.” Pre-Raphaelite Art in Its European Context.  33–49.
“The Exhibition as it Might Have Been in Days of Yore: by a Disciple of Retrogress.” Punch; or, the London Charivari 20 (21 May 1851): 12.
“Fine Arts: The Royal Academy.”  Athenaeum 1.1384 (6 May 1854): 559–562.
Fredeman, William E., ed. and introd.  The P. R. B. Journal 1849–1853, Together with Other Pre-Raphaelite Documents.  Oxford: Clarendon, 1975.
---.  Personal interview.  20 July 1998.
---.  Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1965.
“The Free Exhibition of Modern Art.”  The Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres 1.1860 (31 March 1849): 239.
“French Criticism on British Art.”  Art Journal 17 (1 Sep. 1855): 250–252.
The Germ: Thoughts Toward Nature in Poetry, Literature, and Art; Being a Facsimile Reprint of the Literary Organ of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Published in 1850.  Introd.  William Michael Rossetti.  London, 1901; Rpt. in The Germ: A Pre-Raphaelite Little Magazine.  Ed.  Robert Stahr Hosmon.  Coral Gables, FL: U of Miami P, 1970. 
Hares-Stryker, Carolyn, ed.  An Anthology of Pre-Raphaelite Writings.  New York: New York UP, 1997.
Hearn, Lafcadio.  Pre-Raphaelite and Other Poets.  New York: Dodd, Mead, 1930. 
Hilton, Timothy.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  London: Thames and Hudson, 1970.
Hunt, William Holman.  Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.  2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1905.
The Internet Library of Early Journals.  London: Oxford U.  <http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/ilej>.  9 Feb. 2000.
“Literature: The Germ.”  Standard of Freedom 2 Mar. 1850: 11.
Marsh, Jan, and Pamela Gerrish Nunn.  Pre-Raphaelite Women Artists.  Manchester: Manchester City Art Galleries, 1997.
Marsh, Jan.  “Women and Art 1850–1900.” Pre-Raphaelite Women Artists.  10–53.
Nunn, Pamela Gerrish, and Jan Marsh.  Women Artists and the Pre-Raphaelite Movement.  London: Virago P, 1989.
“Opinions of the Press.”  Broadsheet advertisement for The Germ.  N. p.: n. p., 1850.
Pre-Raphaelite Art in Its European Context.  Eds. Susan P. Casteras and Alicia Craig Faxon.  Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1995.
The Pre-Raphaelites in Context.  San Marino, CA: Henry E. Huntingdon Library and Art Gallery, 1992.
“Pre-Raphaelitism” by John Ruskin.  Review.  Builder 449 (13 Sep. 1850): 571–572.
“The Prevailing Epidemic.”  Fraser’s Magazine 43 (May 1851): 492–509.
“Review.”  The Girlhood of Mary Virgin notice.  Morning Chronicle 1.24,782 (26 March 1849): 5.
Rossetti, William Michael.  “Fine Arts: Fine Arts Section of the Paris Exhibition—No. III.”  Spectator 28.1424 (13 Oct. 1855): 1062–1063.
[---].  “Fine Arts: The Royal Academy: Domestic Pictures.”  Spectator 28.1405 (2 June 1855): 575.
---.  Preface.  The Poetical Works of Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  New York, 1886: i-xxvii. 
---.  The P. R. B. Journal 1849–1853, Together with Other Pre-Raphaelite Documents.  Ed. and introd. William E.  Fredeman.  Oxford: Clarendon, 1975.
---.  Ruskin: Rossetti: Pre-Raphaelitism.  London, 1899.
Ruskin, John. The Complete Works of John Ruskin.  Eds. E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn.  36 vols.  London: George Allen, 1903. 
---. Modern Painters. 5 vols. London, 1843-1860.
---.  “The Pre-Raphaelite Artists.”  Letter to the editor, with editorial response.  London Times 20,815 (30 May 1851): 8–9.
---.  “The Pre-Raffaelites.”  Letter to the Editor.  London Times 20,800 (13 May 1851): 8–9.
---.  Pre-Raphaelitism.  London, 1851.
“Ruskin’s Pre-Raphaelitism.”  Leader 2.74 (23 Aug. 1851): 803–804.
Spielmann, M[arion] H. Millais And His Works.  London, 1898.
[Stillman, William.]  “Pre-Raphaelitism.”  Crayon 1 (4 Apr. 1855): 219–220.
[Touatt, Elizabeth.]  “My Sister’s Sleep.”  Review.  Belle Assemblée 29.2 (Aug. 1848): 140–142.
Tupper, John Lucas.  “The Subject in Art.  No. II.”  Art and Poetry 1.3 (Mar. 1850): 118–125.
Viel-Castel, Henri.  “Exposition Universelle des Beaux-arts: Peinture.—École Anglaise.” L’Athenaeum Français 4.24 (16 June 1855): 507–509.
“Wet Days at Bryn Cefn.”  Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 79.483 (Jan. 1856): 90.

ARRANGEMENT AND FORMAT OF ENTRIES

	The bibliography contains, in chronological order, entries for all known periodical articles that deal with the Pre-Raphaelite movement up to and including 1900.  Each entry is composed of an entry number and a citation.  The entry number consists of the four-digit year, followed after a period by a three-digit item number starting at .010 and increasing in decimal increments of five.  For instance, 1856 begins with 1856.010, and continues 1856.015, 1856.020, 1856.025, and so forth.  Entries discovered after this publication will be assigned intermediary numbers based on their chronological position in the bibliography; for instance, there is room in the above sequence for entry numbers 1856.016 through 1856.019.  Some entries contain added explanatory notes in brackets which identify the subject of the article.  The names of surmised authors of unsigned articles are also placed in brackets, as are expansions of authors’ initials or otherwise abbreviated names.
Citations in the bibliography follow the grammatical and punctuation conventions of the originals. The source texts were written during a period of flux in the spelling, grammatical, and typographical conventions in British, American, and French usage.  Thus the word “neighbor” appears in its American-English version, as the British-English “neighbour,” and in a French translation of an English translation of a French document as “neibour.”  In cases of typographical or translational error, I offer bracketed corrections and markers to indicate missing space, missing or incorrect punctuation, and spelling omissions or mistakes in the original; errors which cannot be remedied through an insertion of brackets are marked “[sic].”  I have limited my use of brackets to clarifying wrong information, supplying missing text, and correcting obvious printing errors—this last only where such errors interfere with understanding the meanings of words.  Obvious typesetting and printing errors, such as “consin” (for “cousin”), and “theP re-Raphaelites,” have been transcribed as found, and have been tagged with “[sic].”