The Pre-Raphaelite Critic, 1846–1860:

An Annotated Edition of Periodical 

Critical Opinion of the Pre-Raphaelites

A Dissertation

Presented to the McAnulty Graduate School of Liberal Arts

of Duquesne University

As partial fulfillment of

the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

by

Thomas J. Tobin

28 April 2000

“Are any hopes to be indulged of private letters, journals, what not, becoming accessible to us? or must I depend exclusively on looking up my subject at the British Museum?”
				—Christina Rossetti to John Ingram 24 April 1882

 “Pre-Raphaelitism . . . is reverent faith in Nature, whether seen with the poet’s eye or with the catalogue-compiler’s, whether rendered with the artist’s hand or with the transcriber’s.”
				—William Michael Rossetti, Crayon, 25 April 1855, 263

“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, 140

To the memory of Dr. William E. Fredeman (19 July 1928–15 July 1999), 
whose research first inspired me to work in bibliography.

Copyright © 2000 Thomas J. Tobin
Acknowledgments

	I should be remiss were I not to thank all of those who have helped me to complete this project, and those whose assistance has enabled me to gather material for the continuation of the project beyond this text.  The late Dr. William E. Fredeman, Professor Emeritus of the University of British Columbia, whose Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study is the basis for my work, was also 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 and incunabula 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, Sharon Coulter at the Westmoreland County Community College Learning Resources Center, 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.
In addition, I thank the members of my dissertation committee—co-chairs Dr. Frederick Newberry and Dr. Samuel Tindall, and Dr. Bernard Beranek—for their expertise, advice, and hawkeyed proofreading skills.  I must also thank my department chair, Dr. Ronald C. Arnett; and Dean Constance Ramirez of the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts for their support and encouragement.
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 Emeritus 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; Leah Eagan at Boston College; David Latham of the Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies; Dr. Harriet McNeal of Indiana State University; 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;  and her inquiries helped me to annotate entries with both the seasoned Pre-Raphaelite scholar and the neophyte researcher in mind.  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 50.290, written by C. D. himself in Household Words).

Preface

This dissertation addresses the need for an up-to-date method of finding periodical materials related to the Pre-Raphaelite movement, as well as the need to explain the often-obscure references in those sources to contemporaneous events, places, and figures that have fallen out of the collective memory.  My project has a long and convoluted history, its genesis lying not in bibliography, as one might expect, but in a visceral reaction to beautiful art.  Dr. Kenneth Sroka was teaching a seminar on Victorian literature and culture at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York, in the fall of 1993.  He enhanced his lectures and the class discussion on the Pre-Raphaelite circle of poets with slides of major paintings and drawings that served to illustrate the principle of ut pictura poesis, that painting and poetry are simply two expressions of the same artistic impulse.  The paintings depicted in those slides—such staples as Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s The Girlhood of Mary Virgin, William Holman Hunt’s The Lady of Shalott, and John Everett Millais’s Ophelia—were bolder, crisper, more colorful, more beautiful than anything I had ever seen on canvas.  I knew that I wanted to study the men and women who made these beautiful things, and I settled on a senior-year undergraduate thesis exploring the way in which the Pre-Raphaelite movement was received by the more straight-laced Victorian public.  This first attempt at a scholarly treatment of the subject was less an argumentative thesis than a summation of the available scholarship on the topic.  I relied heavily on Timothy Hilton’s Pre-Raphaelitism (1970), and my conclusions tended to echo those reached by Hilton—that the 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, according to Hilton, all seemed to cry out with one voice of denunciation and ridicule against the Pre-Raphaelites.  Such perspectives, I have come to recognize, are based mostly 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 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—the list goes on and on, all of it sorted by subject and cross-indexed by proper name in an appendix.  It was now obvious that Hilton’s grasp of the critical response to the Pre-Raphaelite movement was limited; Fredeman’s book listed over 240 periodical citations from 1848 to 1900 alone; Hilton’s study relied on evidence from only twenty sources, most of which came from only five periodicals.  I thereafter used Fredeman’s bibliography as a hunting guide of sorts, tracking down elusive copies of the Manchester Review and Clack! for their articles about the Pre-Raphaelites.  Dr. Thomas Derrick of Indiana State University taught me bibliographic methodology in 1995, just as I was beginning to become interested about the fact that, through serendipity, I often ran across articles not listed in Fredeman’s book.  I started a “NIF” file (“Not in Fredeman”) and continued with my research on the trends in the critical opinion concerning the Pre-Raphaelites during the latter half of the nineteenth century.  
The conclusions I reached in my master’s thesis warrant some discussion here, because they helped me to decide that the present project was worthwhile.  Nancy Armstrong of Brown University gave a lecture at Indiana State University in 1995 on her theories related to the advent of the photograph in Victorian England.  Her work included an examination of some of the paintings of the Pre-Raphaelites, and she cited a number of articles about which I had not yet heard.  Shortly thereafter, I found that in the thirty years since the publication of Fredeman’s volume, scholars had uncovered, in bits and pieces, many more periodical sources dealing with Pre-Raphaelitism, so many, in fact, that in addition to the 240 sources in Fredeman’s book, I was able to compile a list of 320 additional sources from the same period.  My NIF file was nearly bursting.
	As a corollary project in 1996, I created a web site, The Pre-Raphaelite Critic, from which this work derives its name and its practical beginning.  My initial aim in creating the site was to remedy a lacuna in the scholarship—there were, at the time, many web sites and books wherein to read the writings of the Pre-Raphaelites themselves, many avenues for seeing their paintings, but there was a dearth of scholarship on the critical reaction to the works of the movement.  Most serious Pre-Raphaelite scholars quoted from periodical sources in their works, but there was only one resource for finding periodical criticism of the Pre-Raphaelites, and it had become outdated.  Thus, my web site was, and remains, a resource where scholars can have access not only to the citations for periodical sources—as in Fredeman’s book—but also to the full “e-texts” of individual sources.  In January of 1998, there were only fourteen full-text sources on the site, but as of March 2000, the number had reached nearly two hundred.  The site is accessible at <http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/PR_Critic>.

Thomas J. Tobin

The Pre-Raphaelite Critic, 1846-1860:  An Annotated Edition 
of Periodical Critical Opinion of the Pre-Raphaelites

Doctor of Philosophy

28 April 2000

Approved:	____________________________________________________________
			Dr. Frederick Newberry 

Approved:	____________________________________________________________
			Dr. Samuel Tindall

Approved:	____________________________________________________________
			Dr. Bernard Beranek

Approved:	____________________________________________________________
			Dr. Ronald C. Arnett, Chair, English Department

Accepted:	____________________________________________________________
			Dr. Constance Ramirez, Dean, McAnulty College and Graduate 
			School of Liberal Arts

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................iv
Preface................................................................................................................................vi
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
1846–1848..........................................................................................................................71
1849....................................................................................................................................83
1850....................................................................................................................................92
1851..................................................................................................................................244
1852..................................................................................................................................403
1853..................................................................................................................................501
1854..................................................................................................................................514
1855..................................................................................................................................534
1856..................................................................................................................................640
1857..................................................................................................................................835
1858..................................................................................................................................994
1859................................................................................................................................1099
1860................................................................................................................................1136
Appendix A:  Entries Arranged Chronologically..........................................................1159
Appendix B:  Entries Arranged by Author....................................................................1173
Appendix C:  Entries Arranged by Periodical Title.......................................................1187
Index..............................................................................................................................1201

Introduction
	This dissertation centers on an annotated full-text bibliographical edition of the nineteenth-century periodical criticism of 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 are the foci 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, this bibliography revisits 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.
	As such, this dissertation 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 whose writings are included in this bibliography 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, to name but a few.  A few examples may serve to illustrate 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 staking an ever-wider claim on the country it had “lost” back when Henry VIII cut ties with Rome.  The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was seen by most critics as too popish.  Many reviewers accused early Pre-Raphaelite treatment, handling, and iconography of 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 saw in Romanism the general feeling that Roman Catholic doctrine and practice were valid 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 in any of the periodical press, but the article lacks any mention of the class inequality inherent in the painting.  For such a review, we must 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 generally held to be the province of noblemen (see especially Benjamin West’s painting of The Death of Wolfe).  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’s 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) 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 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 the established conventional 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 expanded our understanding of the complex social dynamics at play in the response to the Pre-Raphaelite movement, and this dissertation continues the trend of filling out the corpus of known periodical sources.

Contributions to Scholarship
	This bibliography adds to the established corpus of nineteenth-century works about Pre-Raphaelitism, both in number and kind.  Entries new to the field fall into four main categories: references from other nineteenth-century texts, entries in languages other than English, entries from small-circulation periodicals, and brief mentions in articles on other subjects.
	For example, this bibliography significantly expands the number of 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.  (508)
or
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 exposition, 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.
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 the reader will 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 dissertation adds a number of articles from periodicals hitherto overlooked because of obscurity (i.e., small press runs and small circulation numbers).  Although William Fredeman’s 1965 bibliography includes some entries for articles from periodicals quite rare, 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 Merthyn 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 Assemblèe 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 review is curious because it reviews a then-unpublished poem which 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 attacks on its Pre-Raphaelite qualities.
	The present bibliography also includes a substantial number of small-periodical entries new to the field.  In finding articles from limited-circulation periodicals, I used as my guide the writings (discussed above) of the primary members of the movement, 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 in and around New York City and Boston, have proved especially fruitful for references to Pre-Raphaelitism; for instance, the New York biweekly Crayon published month-old news from the English 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 “household word” “Pre-Raphaelitism” was, even in 1855, a relatively unknown artistic movement in the United States, and the inclusion of limited-run American periodicals in this bibliography fills a significant and 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 thereafter.  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 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 dissertation 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 serendipitous chance or arduous and careful reading.  But, now that many nineteenth-century periodicals are either online or have been published on CD-ROM, it has become relatively simple to search for key words in the text of the periodical.  For instance, key-word searching has uncovered a number of items from periodicals included in 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 dissertation found by such methods tantalizing promises of future discoveries, rather than a definitive record of the entire corpus of brief mentions of Pre-Raphaelitism.
	In order best to prepare the reader for an encounter with the entries in the bibliography, it may be helpful to recount a short history of the Pre-Raphaelite movement.  Afterward, I will touch briefly on the place of this dissertation in Pre-Raphaelite bibliography, leading in turn to a discussion of the scope of the bibliographic project at hand and an introduction to the bibliography proper.  Finally, for the aid of the reader, I include an explanatory chapter on the provenance and format of the entries. 

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.  Brown studied in his youth in Bruges and Ghent under Albert Gregorius, who himself had been a pupil of Jacques-Louis David, thus affording Brown’s early works to fit in 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 arose out of this trend, not sui generis, 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 introductions to 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 first “long decade” of the movement covered by this dissertation 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.  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: to “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’s 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 the primary and secondary documents of the movement contained excellent bibliographical resources.  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, recognizing the effect that Modernism produced on the study of 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 academe 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 confessed to 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, while in England on a Canada Council grant for a year and a half, he was greatly aided 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 that contained 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 well-annotated edition of The Pre-Raphaelites and Their Circle in 1975, and the Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies was established in 1977 as a scholarly forum for the field.  Much of this “early” modern-day 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 mores, customs, and society.  Since most of the scholarship in the 1970s was theoretical, very little concerned finding forgotten resources: Fredeman’s bibliography, with its wealth of material previously lost to scholarship, provided ample opportunity for original research.  The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies likewise 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 more exploratory kinds of articles than those in JPRS.  The 1980s saw many articles in both periodicals whose authors relied on source material not to be found in Fredeman’s text, but no bibliographical work was published to bring together these disparate “new” resources.
The field now seems to have run itself nearly dry, despite having once more established the Pre-Raphaelites as a legitimate subject for academic study, and scholars are therefore beginning to examine minor players in the movement as potentially fruitful avenues of inquiry (see 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 to return afresh to the original texts in the field.  
However, no major bibliography has appeared since Fredeman’s ground-breaking work.  Since 1965, scholars have discovered and republished small excerpts from the large corpus of nineteenth-century Pre-Raphaelite criticism, but few have attempted to add into the established canon all of the new discoveries since then.  Two have recently appeared, however, and each is useful to the scholar of Pre-Raphaelitism in a different way.
	Carolyn Hares-Stryker published a full-text bibliography, An Anthology of Pre-Raphaelite Writing (1997), in which she has 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 choice of texts seems to have been based upon how importantly such texts have already figured in scholarship.  Also a handicap, Hares-Stryker provides no explanatory notes, choosing instead simply to transcribe the source texts.
The massive four-volume The Pre-Raphaelites: Writings and Sources, edited by Inga Bryden, was published in late 1998.  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.  Bryden provides copious notes about the texts she has transcribed and a thorough cross-listed index.  Most importantly, there is great depth of coverage in each of Bryden’s sections; many texts not considered part of the canon of Pre-Raphaelite scholarship are included alongside their more-frequently-included cousins.
Because of the broad scope of both of these full-text resources, each is able to address only a portion of the known primary sources.  Even Fredeman’s 1965 study, at the time the most complete listing of Pre-Raphaelite sources, is limited to providing citations only, and it runs to more than four hundred pages.  Since then, as I have indicated above, a wealth of new nineteenth-century sources has been discovered.  In order, therefore, to be as inclusive as possible, I find that the present bibliography  becomes manageable only by severely narrowing my scope.  In focusing my attention only on periodical material, I lose the broad perspective of the movement provided by Hares-Stryker’s and Bryden’s works; but the depth of my coverage justifies the limitation.
Many of the sources not listed in Fredeman, but which appear in this dissertation, 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.  Apart from using the bibliographies of other scholars, I have found nearly two hundred periodical entries independently of any guideposts at all, sometimes stumbling across them while searching through microfilm records for other items.
This dissertation therefore attempts to satisfy a need for a rigorous and definitive examination of the 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 from a narrow span of years and a single genre.  In providing textual transcriptions and annotations to the texts, I offer a resource that allows scholars a vocabulary with which to question the established canon of what “Pre-Raphaelite criticism” was and how it developed over time.
This dissertation comprises only the beginning of a much larger project to which I have devoted myself.  While seeking out the materials and sources for this dissertation, I have also collected materials and sources up to 1900.  I intend to continue this bibliographic project up to the death of Queen Victoria with subsequent installments, each covering a decade of criticism.  The present work, constituting the first “long decade,” stands as the cornerstone on which I shall build future volumes.

The Scope of this Project
	The entries in this bibliography cover two different but intertwined Pre-Raphaelitisms: the art movement, which received the venom of the art-historical press of the day, and Pre-Raphaelite poetry, which was defined as such only retrospectively late in the 1850s.  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 the demise of 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)
	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 du 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.  (Viel-Castel 509)
or
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 exposition, we believe it right to begin our examination of British art with their works.
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)
	Many of the entries in my bibliography concern expositions of Pre-Raphaelite art, and they have been hitherto 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 entries in the bibliography provide a revealing glimpse not only of the Pre-Raphaelite movement but also of the society in which—and against which—it is set.
	The criticism applied to Pre-Raphaelite painting before 1860 falls into roughly three kinds: notices, reviews, and criticism of John Ruskin.  While there are, of course, exceptions to these categorizations, 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’s rejection of painting principles thought inviolable for centuries.
	The earliest criticism of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood took the form of notices, usually passing references to individual paintings within larger 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:
. . . and there is a striking picture by G. D. Rossetti [sic], “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 be likely to give over his “blind idolatry” (also read “Roman Catholic Mary-worship”).  This mildness is apparent in other early notices: “The Free Exhibition of Modern Art,” in the 31 March 1849 Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres, takes similar notice of the work:
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 [sic].  (239)
This especially uncritical notice is typical of the press given to emerging artists, if such artist merited notice at all.  There is a certain spirit of bonhomie on the part of the critic to wish new artists well in their endeavors.  
	Critics 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.  Yet these same critics 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—none of the original Pre-Raphaelite Brothers confessed to breaking the silence—and the critical floodgates, so to speak, 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, in which, as the critic for the Times asserts,
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.
	It is at this point, late in the 1850s, that 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 mid 1850.  However, now that poets such as William Morris, Algernon Swinburne, and Dante Rossetti began in earnest to attempt to write poetry 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 the young Edward Jones (not yet 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 discussion about the scope of this dissertation, a few words may be appropriate about one issue not covered here: 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, and are thus not included in this dissertation solely because there is no record of criticism of their works prior to 1861.  For an excellent overview of the role of women in the Pre-Raphaelite movement, see Pre-Raphaelite Women Artists by Jan Marsh and Pamela Gerrish Nunn.

An Introduction to the Bibliography
	It may help to explain the nature of this late-twentieth-century collection of nineteenth-century critical reviews by observing a late-twentieth-century critical review of some recent biographies of Oscar Wilde.  Adam Gopnik, a literary critic for the New Yorker, laments that the recent books about Wilde’s life and work have succumbed to academic post-modernism:
This [post-modern] reëvaluation of Oscar Wilde has a heavy price, for it makes him hostage not just to sexual politics but to academic politics—lifts him into the never-never land of post-structuralist discourse, where everything must be understood as a social construction but all the social constructions end up looking more or less the same, like corporate headquarters on Sixth Avenue.  (78)
Gopnik goes on to equate this rush away from the concrete to the theoretical as something of a mixed blessing, or a mildly amusing curse:
Meanwhile, what the professors used to be drearily good at—putting a text in context, giving a sense of what was original and what was just the way they did things then—is exactly what you will almost never find in the new academic literature on Wilde.  In Michael S. Foldy’s intelligent “The Trials of Oscar Wilde: Deviance, Morality and Late-Victorian Society,” for instance, the index is dense with references to Lyotard, Deleuze, Bakhtin, and Derrida.  But you won’t find a single reference there to Beerbohm or Chesterton or Henry James, all of whom had very clear ideas about what late-Victorian society was like, where Oscar Wilde was placed in it, and why what happened to him happened.  (78)
Gopnik rightly sees that present-day analyses of past events, figures, and works that are lacking in knowledge of the social circumstances relevant to those events, figures, and works are bound to arrive at conclusions very much predictable, given the set of postmodern theorists to whom one alludes.  Since no one living can now remember the conditions of the world in which Oscar Wilde lived, the best guides to those times, Gopnik reasons, are the critics, wits, and pundits who wrote their impressions “from the life,” as it were.  In order to get a better idea about the danger of losing the art of “what the professors used to be drearily good at”—namely, biography, criticism, and bibliography—Gopnik takes up the case for the canonization of Wilde as a post-modern homosexual crusader, a “pomo-homo” (78) in the current academic argot:
Once Wilde is removed from his circle, the most period thing about him—his journalist’s taste for reversible-raincoat paradoxes and his paint-by-numbers stabs at moral instruction—is made to seem the most original.  Meanwhile, the most original thing about him—his invention of a form of comedy as pure as Mozart—is regarded as a sweetener, to be apologized for, or proved not actually funny.  (78)
	This dissertation speaks to Gopnik’s call for a return to the “dreary” work of bibliography—what Gopnik sees as lacking in the field of Wilde studies.  Although this dissertation has been nearly eight years in the making, I find I have been working all along to remedy the very lacuna Gopnik identifies.  I have collected and annotated the periodical sources in the field of Pre-Raphaelite studies that offer “very clear ideas about what late-Victorian society was like, where [the Pre-Raphaelites were] placed in it, and why what happened to [them] happened” (78).
This bibliography is difficult to categorize, inasmuch as it brings together three  interconnected projects.  The parts and format of the bibliography are explained below, but it may be useful here to give a short précis of the entire project: what it is, and why it is especially needed in the field of Pre-Raphaelite studies.  The bibliography consists of three parts.  First is an annotated full-text edition of every extant periodical resource dealing with the Pre-Raphaelites and their circle between 1846 and 1860.  Each entry in this section includes the entire text of the original source; I have attempted to preserve as much of the original orthography as possible.  This compilation affords scholars the opportunity to examine and use texts from many sources, most of which would not be available or known to them outside of this collection.  The full-text bibliography is followed by three appendices.  Each appendix contains bibliographic citations for all of the entries in the first part; the appendices are arranged, in order, chronologically, by periodical title and according to an author’s last name.  This allows scholars more easily to search for and discover connections among the items in the bibliography entries.  Finally, I have included a cross-referenced index to the main text, listing terms, historical persons and places, works, and other matters of interest to the searcher after specific subjects. 

Provenance and Format of Entries and Appendices
	A large number of the source texts herein reprinted I found using William Fredeman’s Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study (1965), still a valuable resource for the Pre-Raphaelite scholar.  Although Fredeman’s section on William Morris is sketchy, Peter Faulkner’s William Morris: The Critical Heritage (1988) has helped to establish a core body of the Morrisiana in this work.  Many articles in The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies and The Review of the Pre-Raphaelite Society provide end-note citations to hitherto uncatalogued sources; Jan Marsh’s Christina Rossetti (1995) relies heavily on the periodical literature related to the poetess.  The writings of figures contemporary to the Pre-Raphaelites also shed occasional 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).  There is also a good deal of serendipity inherent in this work; I found a few of the sources listed while searching through a reel of microfilm for other sources or while browsing the shelves. 

The Parts of the Text
	This project consists of three interdependent sections: an annotated full-text bibliography, three cross-listed citation appendices, and an index of names and terms.  Each of these last sections allows the reader to locate quickly items in the bibliography by author, date, periodical, or subject.  The annotated full-text bibliography contains, in chronological order, entries for all source texts—those periodical articles that deal with the Pre-Raphaelite movement up to and including 1860.  These entries vary greatly in subject and tone; some deal with the entire movement, while others discuss only certain individuals within it; some are lengthy discourses on the theories behind Pre-Raphaelitism, while others are excerpted snippets from larger notices of painting exhibitions.  Each entry is composed of five parts: an entry number, a citation, a notation about the state of the text, the text itself, and explanatory footnotes—see “The Format of the Source Texts” below for more information and a sample entry.  The entry number takes the format of the two-digit year, followed after a period by a three-digit item number starting at 010 and increasing in increments of ten.  For instance, 56.030 is the third item, and 56.040 the fourth, listed under 1856.  Entries inserted after the primary typesetting are assigned intermediary numbers based on their chronological position in the bibliography, for instance, 56.035 appears between the examples above.  
Since the project of which this dissertation is the initial installment begins with the year 1846 and ends with the year 1900, only two digits are necessary to denote the year.  Entries follow the MLA guidelines for citation, listing author, article title, periodical title, and publication information.  A citation is followed by a notation of “excerpt” (passages not relevant to Pre-Raphaelitism omitted) or “full text” (word-for-word full transcription), where full-text entries are the rule.  Excerpts appear only when significant sections of a source are not relevant to the Pre-Raphaelite movement.  In judging what to excerpt, I have attempted to err on the side of providing too much information rather than too little.  
Following citations are the texts of individual sources; my methodology in reproducing source texts is explained in greater detail below.  Appearing beneath the source text, under a footnote-line, are my own annotations to the source texts.  These annotations serve various purposes: to define and/or translate unfamiliar or foreign terms and passages; to give short biographical identifications of historical figures; to provide explanatory notes on literary/artistic works referred to in the text; and to provide cross-references to mentions of related topics elsewhere in the main text.  Because some source texts themselves use footnotes, my own footnote apparatus follows a format somewhat modified from that prescribed by the MLA (see below).	

The Format of Source-text Entries
Where possible, I have adhered to the conventions of the MLA Style Manual, 2nd Edition (1999) for the orthography of bibliography entries.  For example, lengthy quotations are denoted in sources by many methods, among them centering, left indentation, and running quotation (wherein a beginning quotation mark is placed at the head of every quoted line, and only at the end of the quotation is the closing mark inserted).  This variety of methods has been silently standardized to conform to the one-inch left indentation for quotations of more than four lines, although I have kept original punctuation.  The treatment of shorter quotations is less standardized.  Short quotations are usually treated in sources as parts of body paragraphs, and, in accordance with the MLA guidelines, I have not changed their format.  Short quotations indented from the text in the source have been kept as indented quotations despite their brevity; returning the quoted material to the flow of the body text would necessitate changing or adding to the punctuation as it appears in the source.  Further, the MLA’s suggestions for the treatment of italicized and underlined text have been followed in all source texts; instances of emphasis (bold face, italics, and underlining) have been silently standardized to italics.
	The nature of this undertaking has necessitated some modifications of MLA format.  In the annotated full-text bibliography, numbered explanatory and critical footnotes are used to highlight words, phrases, and names appearing in the entries.  The word or phrase to which an explanatory footnote refers appears at the beginning of the footnote in bold text; the footnote follows this marker after a colon.
To avoid confusion, especially in dealing with sources which themselves contain footnotes, the source text’s footnote orthography has been followed, except in sources which utilize numerical footnotes: numerical footnotes in the source texts have been changed silently to asterisks (*) and double asterisks (**).  Thus, numerical footnotes denote words and phrases for which explanatory footnotes have been written, and are numbered consecutively, each year, starting at number one.  The text of original footnotes in source texts appears at the end of each article above the footnote-line that separates the source text from the critical apparatus.  In certain instances, explanatory footnotes refer to text in the original footnotes, making the footnote-line an invaluable aid for keeping critical annotations separate from the source texts as much as possible. 
Multiple columns of source text have been silently shifted to a single column, as the formatting of magazine and newspaper articles is, in most cases, not injuriously affected by changes to the physical layout of the page; often the same text appeared in one format in a morning edition and laid out differently in the evening edition. 
The source texts were written during a period of flux in the spelling, grammatical, and typographical conventions in British, American, and French usage; the grammatical and punctuation conventions used by original authors have been followed in reprinting source texts, with the few exceptions noted above.  Thus the spelling of the word “neighbor” appears in its American-English version, as the British-English “neighbour,” and in a French re-re-translation of an English document as “neibour.”  
In instances 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 texts; errors which cannot be remedied through an insertion of brackets are marked with “[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 meaning of a passage.  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].”  Some few of the source texts use brackets for their own editorial comment; such items are marked with the closing tag, “[author’s brackets].”
In addition, punctuation conventions in the source texts are as close as possible to the format used in the text on the original page; thus some sources place an ending period inside (.”) and some outside (”.) an ending quotation mark; single (‘), double (“), and French («) quotation marks will be found in different entries.  The use of ellipses has been kept to a minimum; ellipses are used in the source texts in one of only three ways: to denote editorial removal of text not relevant to the Pre-Raphaelite movement, to mark a portion of the text either lost or illegible, or to mark the original author’s use of ellipses as a typographical pause marker.  These three uses of the ellipsis are not differentiated in the source texts.
All of these methods have been used with an eye to preserving, as far as is possible, the original orthography found in the source texts.  Although the temptation exists to regularize the format of entries, especially with regard to spelling and punctuation, such a temptation is outweighed by the need of the scholar to be able to quote as precisely as possible.  Since this project has as one of its goals the publication of an acceptable simulacrum of the original texts under its scrutiny, I have attempted to interfere as little as possible, even when doing so creates differences of treatment from article to article, sometimes from issues to issue of the same periodical over time.  
Such cues can help the observant researcher to form a good idea about the styles and possible identities of anonymous authors—indeed, a small number of my attributions of authorship are based on individual quirks of language, punctuation, and spelling.  Editorial preferences about the format of text also offer important links to the interpretation of texts, especially when editors parse a source text with varying punctuation and spelling.  For example, periodicals in London, Manchester, and New York all make passing reference to a particular portion of the text of John Ruskin’s Modern Painters:  Each transcription is punctuated slightly differently—and in each review the punctuation leads the reviewer to read Ruskin’s message differently.
Figure 1 on the next page is a sample source text entry that demonstrates both the layout of the source texts and the placement and use of the many sorts of apparatus described above, including explanatory footnotes and literal transcription of printer’s errors/authorial mistakes.

Figure 1: Sample Source Text Entry

49.020  “The Free Exhibition of Modern Art.”  The Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres 1860 (31 March 1849): 239.  Excerpt.
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;1 it is called the “Girlhood of Mary Virgin,” and by G. D. [sic] Rossetti.
_____________

1 touched with gilding:  ironically, this is the characteristic touch of Raphael, of all artists the one most execrated by the Pre-Raphaelites.

The Format of the Appendices
Each of the appendices is arranged according to a different rubric: Appendix A is arranged chronologically, Appendix B by author’s last name, and Appendix C alphabetically by periodical title.  Entries in all of the appendices appear in the same format; only the order in which entries are sorted changes from one appendix to the next.  Because the purpose of the appendices is to enable the researcher to easily identify trends in the source texts, in the appendices I have significantly modified the standard MLA format for bibliographic entries. 
Each citation contains the year, month, date, volume, issue, pagination, periodical title, article title, author name (if known), and item number in this text.  All of the appendices utilize the item format shown in Figure 2 on the next page.

Figure 2: Sample Appendix Entries
Year	Month	Day	Vol.	Issue	 Pages	Periodical	 Article	 Author	 Item No.	
1854	 05	 06	 00	1384	 559–562	 Athenaeum	 Fine Arts: Royal Academy 
 [Light of the World, 
 Awakening Conscience]	 —	 54.070	
1856	 09	 00	 3	 00	 276–278	 Crayon	 Art News from England.
 Letter XVII.	 Rossetti, W[illia]m                                                                
 M[ichael]	 56.290
 Fred. 38.01	
1858	 04	 03	 00	1588	 427–428	 Athenaeum	Defence of Guenevere review	[Chorley, Henry Fothergill]	 58.030
 Fred. 43.11	

Year:  The full year is given first in the citation.
Month:  The month is listed by its two-digit number (00–12).  Items published yearly are noted with a double zero month (00); items for which a month of publication has not yet been determined are noted with a double question mark (??).
Day:  The day is listed by its two-digit number (00–31).  Items published yearly or monthly are noted with a double zero day (00); items for which a day of publication has not yet been determined are noted with a double question mark (??).
Volume:  The volume is transcribed where possible from the source text.  Also included in this column is information concerning the existence of new series (e.g., “1, 2 ser” represents volume 1, series 2).  When original, first-series numbering is used in conjunction with second-series and higher numbering, preference has been given to continuous numbering from the first series.  Publications that do not signify volume numbers (such as the Athenaeum and many newspapers) are noted with a double zero volume (00); items for which a volume of publication has not yet been determined are noted with a double question mark (??).
Issue:  The issue number is transcribed where possible from the source text.  Issues are sometimes denoted in terms other than numerical (e.g., “Spring” and “special” issues), and are noted in the citation accordingly.  Publications that do not utilize issue numbers are noted with a double zero issue number (00); items for which an issue number of publication has not yet been determined are noted with a double question mark (??).
Pages:  Pagination is recorded using the numbering conventions of the source text.  Inclusive pagination is noted using a short dash between starting and ending page numbers; “jumped” or continued pages are separated using commas.  Page numbers are inclusive for entire articles, even when only selections from articles are included in the entry.  Page numbers originally appearing in formats other than Arabic numerals (e.g., roman numerals) are transcribed as they appear in the source text.  Unnumbered pages (e.g., in introductory matter or pagination omitted by printer error) are noted in brackets.
Periodical:  The title of the periodical is transcribed as it appears in the source text, with the exception of added information where confusion of place or title results from two or more titles (e.g., the Times is noted as either New York Times or London Times).  Titles of periodicals are uniformly italicized in these citations, regardless of the typography used to refer to the periodical either in its own pages or elsewhere (although I have preserved such varying orthography in the article entries).  Beginning articles such as “a,” “an,” and “the” have been silently dropped (e.g., The Crayon is listed in the appendices as Crayon).  Periodical subtitles have been dropped uniformly unless a change in subtitle occurs during the period of this study (e.g. the Literary Gazette and Journal of Archaeology, Science, and Art becomes the Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres in 1856—changing the aims and tenor of the periodical—and is listed under its full title in the appendices; its short title, Literary Gazette, is used in article entries).  No distinction has been made for two or more periodicals sharing a title (e.g., Temple Bar is the title of two discrete periodicals, only one of which has published material related to the Pre-Raphaelites; thus, all citations read only Temple Bar).
Article Title:  The title of the article is transcribed as it appears in the source text.  Quotation marks have been dropped in the appendix citations, unless they appear inside an article title.  Beginning articles such as “a, an, the,” and personal titles such as “Mr., M., Miss, Dr.,” and “Sir” have been dropped silently in order to aid the researcher in finding key words and names.  
Article titles that denote continuing series are often unhelpful, because they do not vary from installment to installment.  In cases where a generic article title is used, subtitles are included (e.g., “Fine Arts: The Exhibition of the Hogarth Club”), and in cases where even subtitles are unenlightening, an explanation of the article’s relevance to particular Pre-Raphaelites works, persons, or events is included in brackets (e.g., “Fine Arts: The Exhibition of the Royal Academy [Light of the World]”).  In cases where an article is printed without a title, and in cases of reviews, a bracketed descriptive title is used, often incorporating a short quotation of relevant text (see the third of the sample appendix entries above).
Author:  Authors’s names are transcribed as they appear in the source texts.  In cases where further information is known about an author, such as a middle name not provided in the source, this information is provided in brackets (see the second sample entry above).  In cases where a known author is not listed in the source text, the author’s name is provided wholly in brackets (see the third sample entry above).  In the cases of authorial pseudonyms, the pseudonym is transcribed, followed by the author’s actual name in brackets.  In cases of anonymous source texts, the dash has been used as a placeholder.  All attempts have been made to expand the names of authors to their fullest extent; thus “W[illiam Michael] Rossetti,” “W[illiam] M[ichael] Rossetti,” “William M[ichael] Rossetti,” and “William Michael Rossetti” all appear in the author column.  Variant spellings of names, where they occur, are preserved in the appendices, with the exception of obvious misspellings, such as “Rosetti,” where I have made silent corrections.
Item Number:  As mentioned in the section above on the main-text entries, the format for numbering individual entries is to give first the year number—46 for 1846, 47 for 1847, and so on—followed after a period by the three-digit source number.  Source numbers start at ten and increase in increments of ten.
Also included in the Item Number column is the number assigned to the source if it appears in William Fredeman’s Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study; such notation takes the form of the abbreviation “Fred.” followed by the section/item number in Fredeman’s text.  English translations of sources written in languages other than English follow the literal transcriptions and are denoted by the original item number, plus the lower-case letter “t”—thus, 57.210 (Mérimée, Prosper.  “Les Beaux-Arts en Angleterre.”  Revue des Deux Mondes 11 (Oct. 1857), 866–880) is followed by 57.210t (Mérimée, Prosper.  “The Beaux-Arts in England.”  Revue des Deux Mondes 11 (Oct. 1857), 866–880).

The Format of the Index
	The index is arranged in alphabetical order, and it lists by key word all names of people, places, events, works of art, and literature—even named animals—in the entire body of the main text.  Entries in the index are keyed to standard American English spellings but take into account variant spellings, offering cross-listing pointers to an item listing (e.g., under “Rosetti”—a common misspelling—is a note to see the listing for “Rossetti” below it).

Conclusion
	This dissertation attempts to provide scholars of Pre-Raphaelitism a resource by which to examine and use the vast body of periodical literature that deals with the movement.  Since most of the material collected herein has hitherto been poorly accessible, scattered in library holdings throughout the world, the mere collection of these items surmounts a significant barrier that until now faced the Pre-Raphaelite scholar.  In providing explanatory footnotes, cross-sorted indices by which to search for individual entries, and a comprehensively cross-listed index, I have also attempted to offer the full flavor of the Victorian Era to the serious scholar and the earnest undergraduate student.  In collecting and annotating this compilation, I have learned much more about the world in which the Pre-Raphaelites lived than I had thought possible.  Where once I knew what the Pre-Raphaelites painted, wrote, and thought, I am now better able to judge what was thought of them, which precepts they offended in the 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.  Any errors that the reader may find are entirely my own, while the credit for beauty of phrase and depth of understanding must surely go to the various authors herein quoted.  I wish the reader pleasant hunting, inasmuch as the larger project of which this work is only the first installment was conceived as, and remains to me, a gigantic scavenger hunt.
Beginning with this dissertation, this project will trace the criticism of the Pre-Raphaelite movement until 1900.  With the death of Queen Victoria 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 Modern-school writing, and the critics have begun to write retrospectives on the Pre-Raphaelite movement, citing earlier criticism to support their encomiums.  It is at the point where the criticism begins to refer not to the Pre-Raphaelites themselves but to previous critics that 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.

Bibliography
Armstrong, Nancy.  “City Things:  Photography and the Urbanization Process.”  Unpublished manuscript, 1995. 
---.  Things Seen and Unseen.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard UP, 1995.
Banham, Joanna, and Jennifer Harris, eds.  William Morris and the Middle Ages.  Manchester:  Manchester UP, 1984.
Barnes, Rachel.  The Pre-Raphaelites and Their World.  London: Tate Gallery, 1998.
Bartram, Michael.  The Pre-Raphaelite Camera:  Aspects of Victorian Photography.  Boston:  Little, Brown, 1985.
Beegel, Susan.  “Rossetti’s Sonnets and Paintings on Mary’s Girlhood:  A Case Study in Reciprocal Illustration.”  The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies 2.2 (1982):  1–6. 
Bell, Quentin.  Victorian Artists.  London:  Routledge, 1967.
Bertall [Arnoux, Albert].  “Le Salon Dépeint et Dessiné par Bertall.”  Journal Pour Rire 25 August 1855: n. pag.
Bertram, Anthony.  A Century of British Painting:  1851–1951.  London:  Studio Publications, 1951.
Bloom, Harold, ed.  The Pre-Raphaelite Poets:  Modern Critical Views.  New York:  Chelsea House, 1986.
Bradley, Laurel.  “Millais’s Bubbles and the Problem of Artistic Advertising.” Pre-Raphaelite Art in Its European Context.  193–209.
Bronkhurst, Judith.  “Holman Hunt’s Picture Frames, Sculpture and Applied Art.” Re-Framing the Pre-Raphaelites: Historical and Theoretical Essays.  231–252.
[Burne-Jones, Edward].  “Essay on the Newcomes.”  Oxford and Cambridge Magazine 1 (Jan. 1856): 50–61.
Casteras, Susan P.  “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.
Chesney, Kellow.  The Victorian Underworld.  New York:  Shocken, 1972. 
Christian, John.  “‘The souls of earnest men laid open’: Pre-Raphaelitism in England, 1848–1898.” Visions of Love and Life: Pre-Raphaelite Art from the Birmingham Collection, England.  27–56.
Codell, Julie F.  “The Artist Colonized: Holman Hunt’s ‘Bio-History,’ Masculinity, Nationalism and the English School.” Re-Framing the Pre-Raphaelites: Historical and Theoretical Essays.  211–230.
Coe, Brian, and Mark Haworth-Booth.  A Guide to Early Photographic Processes.  London:  Hurtwood P; The Victoria and Albert Museum, 1983. 
Cox, Don Richard, ed.  Sexuality and Victorian Literature.  Knoxville:  U of Tennessee P, 1984.
Crary, Jonathan.  Techniques of the Observer:  On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.  Cambridge:  MIT P, 1990.
Cunliffe, John W.  Leaders of the Victorian Revolution.  New York:  Appleton Century, 1934. 
Daly, Gay.  Pre-Raphaelites in Love.  New York:  Ticknor and Fields, 1989.
Denney, Colleen.  “The Role of Sir Coutts Lidsay and the Grosvenor Gallery in the Reception of Pre-Raphaeltism on the Continent.” Pre-Raphaelite Art in Its European Context.  66–80.
Dijkstra, Bram.  Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-Siècle Culture.  Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986.
Doughty, Oswald, and John Robert Wahl, eds.  Letters of Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  4 vols.  Oxford: Clarendon P, 1965–7.
Drinkwater, John, ed. The Eighteen-Sixties:  Essays by Fellows of the Royal Society of Literature. New York:  MacMillan, 1932.  
Eitner, Lorenz.  Neoclassicism and Romanticism, 1750–1850:  Sources and Documents.  2 vols.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice Hall, 1970.
Eliot, T. S.  The Sacred Wood.  London, 1920. 
Faulkner, Peter.  William Morris:  The Critical Heritage.  London:  Routledge, 1973. 
“Fine Arts: The Royal Academy.”  Athenaeum 1.1384 (6 May 1854): 559–562.
Fleming, Gordon H.  Rossetti and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.  London:  Rupert Hart-Davis, 1967. 
Fletcher, William I., and Franklin O. Poole.  Poole’s Index To Periodical Literature.  Gloucester, MA.:  Peter Smith, 1963. 
Fowles, John.  The French Lieutenant’s Woman.  New York:  NAL, 1969.
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.
Garlick, Barbara.  “The Frozen Fountain:  Christina Rossetti, The Virgin Model, and Youthful Pre-Raphaelitism.”  Virginal Sexuality and Textuality in Victorian Literature.  Ed. Lloyd Davis.  Albany:  SUNY P, 1993. 
Gaunt, William.  The Pre-Raphaelite Tragedy.  New York:  Harcourt, Brace, 1942.
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. 
Gopnik, Adam.  “The Invention of Oscar Wilde.”  New Yorker 74.12 (18 May 1998), 78–88.
Harding, James.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  New York:  Rizzoli, 1977. 
Hares-Stryker, Carolyn, ed.  An Anthology of Pre-Raphaelite Writings.  New York: New York UP, 1997.
Harrison, Martin.  Pre-Raphaelite Painting and Graphics.  New York:  St. Martin’s, 1971. 
Hartt, Frederick.  The History of Italian Renaissance Art.  4th ed.  New York:  Prentice Hall, 1994. 
Hearn, Lafcadio.  Pre-Raphaelite and Other Poets.  New York:  Dodd, Mead, 1930. 
Henderson, Marina.  Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  New York:  St. Martin’s, 1973. 
Henderson, Philip, ed.  The Letters of William Morris to His Family and Friends.  London:  Longman, 1950. 
Hilton, Timothy.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  London: Thames and Hudson, 1970.
Hosmon, Robert Stahr.  “The Germ and The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine.”  The Victorian Periodicals Newsletter (April 1969):  36–47. 
Hough, Graham.  “Books in General.”  The New Statesman and Nation 36 (7 Aug. 1948):  117.  
---.  The Last Romantics.  London:  Duckworth, 1949. 
Houghton, Walter E., ed.  The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824–1900: Tables of Contents and Identification of Contributors, with Bibliographies of their Articles and Stories.  Toronto:  U of Toronto P, 1966.
Hueffer, Ford Madox.  Ford Madox Brown: A Record of His Life and Work.  London, 1896.
---. Memories and Impressions:  A Study in Atmospheres. London:  Harper, 1911.
Hunt, Diana Holman.  My Grandfather, His Wives and Loves.  New York:  Norton, 1969. 
Hunt, John Dixon.  The Pre-Raphaelite Imagination, 1848–1900.  London:  Routledge, 1968.
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.
Jackson, Holbrook.  The Eighteen-Nineties:  A Review of Art and Ideas at the Close of the Nineteenth Century.  London:  Grant Richards, 1913.  
James, Geoffrey.  Morbid Symptoms.  Princeton:  Princeton Architectural P, 1986. 
James, Henry.  Views and Reviews.  Ed. Le Roy Phillips.  Boston:  Ball, 1908. 
Janson, Horst Woldemar, and Robert Rosenblum.  Nineteenth-Century Art.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice Hall, 1984.
Jervis, Henry.  “Carlyle and ‘The Germ.’”  The [London] Times Literary Supplement 20 Aug. 1938:  544. 
Kalikoff, Beth.  Murder and Moral Decay in Victorian Popular Literature.  Ann Arbor:  UMI Research P, 1986.  
Keane, Robert N.  “Ut Pictura Poesis:  Rossetti and Morris:  Paintings into Poetry.”  The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies 7.2 (1987):  75–9. 
Landow, George P.  Ruskin.  Oxford:  Oxford UP, 1985. 
---.  “William Holman Hunt on Poetry.”  The Review of the Pre-Raphaelite Society 2.2 (1979):  38–48. 
Lane, Allen.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  London: Tate Gallery, 1984. 
Lang, Cecil Y.  The Pre-Raphaelites and Their Circle.  Boston:  Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
Larkin, David.  The English Dreamers:  A Collection of Pre-Raphaelite Paintings.  New York:  Bantam, 1975. 
La Sizeranne, Robert de.  English Contemporary Art.  Trans. H. M. Poynter.  Westminster, 1898.
L’Enfant, Julie.  William Michael Rossetti’s Art Criticism: The Search for Truth in Victorian Art.  Lanham, MD: UP of America, 1999.
Lister, Raymond.  Victorian Narrative Paintings.  London:  Museum P, 1966.  
“Literature: The Germ.”  Standard of Freedom 2 Mar. 1850: 11.
Maas, Jeremy.  The Victorian Art World in Photographs.  New York:  Universe, 1984. 
---.  Victorian Painters.  New York:  Putnam, 1969.  
Mackail, J. W.  The Life of William Morris.  2 vols.  London, 1899.
Manson, James Bolivar, ed.  Frederic George Stephens and the Pre-Raphaelite Brothers.  London:  W. Heinemann, 1920.
Marcus, Steven.  The Other Victorians:  A Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nineteenth-Century England.  New York:  Basic Books, 1966. 
Marsh, Jan.  “Life, Literature, Art: The Social and Cultural Context of the Pre-Raphaelite Circle.”  Visions of Love and Life: Pre-Raphaelite Art from the Birmingham Collection, England.  15–26.
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.
McEvansoneya, Philip.  “The Cosmopolitan Club Exhibition of 1863: The British salon des refusés.”  Re-Framing the Pre-Raphaelites: Historical and Theoretical Essays.  27–42.
Millais, John Guille.  The Life and Letters of Sir John Everett Millais.  2 vols. London, 1899.
Miller, J. Hillis.  Victorian Subjects.  Durham:  Duke UP, 1991. 
Monkhouse, Cosmo.  British Contemporary Artists.  New York, 1899.
Morris, William.  The Collected Works of William Morris, with Introductions by His Daughter May Morris.  24 vols.  New York:  Russell, 1966.
Nicoll, John.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  London:  Studio Vista, 1970.  
Noble, James Ashcroft, ed.  “A Pre-Raphaelite Magazine.”  The Germ:  Thoughts Toward Nature in Poetry, Literature, and Art, MDCCCL.  Facsimile edition.  Portland, ME, 1898. 
Nunn, Pamela Gerrish.  “A Centre on the Margins.” Re-Framing the Pre-Raphaelites: Historical and Theoretical Essays.  43–60.
---.  “A Pre-Raphaelite Sisterhood?” Pre-Raphaelite Women Artists.  54–101.
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.
Orr, Peter, Flora Robson, and Gary Watson, narr.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  LP.  Argo, 1967. 
Ovenden, Graham.  Pre-Raphaelite Photography.  New York:  St.  Martin’s, 1972.
Pater, Walter.  Studies in the History of the Renaissance.  London, 1873.
Pelles, Geraldine.  Art, Artists, and Society; Origins of a Modern Dilemma:  Painting in England and France, 1750-1850.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Peters, Robert, ed.  Victorians on Literature and Art.  London:  Peter Owen, 1961. 
Pool, Daniel.  What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew:  From Fox Hunting to Whist—The Facts of Daily Life in Nineteenth-Century England.  New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1993. 
Poulson, Christine.  “Death and the Maiden: The Lady of Shalott and the Pre-Raphaelites.” Re-Framing the Pre-Raphaelites: Historical and Theoretical Essays.  173–194.
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.
Re-Framing the Pre-Raphaelites: Historical and Theoretical Essays.   Ed. Ellen Harding.  Brookfield, VT: Ashgate P, 1996.
“Review.”  The Girlhood of Mary Virgin notice.  Morning Chronicle 1.24,782 (26 March 1849): 5.
Reynolds, Leonie, and Arthur Gill.  “The Mayall Story.”  History of Photography 9.2 (Apr.–June 1985): 89–107.
Richardson, James.  Vanishing Lines:  Style and Self in Tennyson, D. G. Rossetti, Swinburne, and Yeats.  Charlottesville:  UP of Virginia, 1988. 
Riede, David G.  Dante Gabriel Rossetti and the Limits of Victorian Vision.  London:  Cornell UP, 1983. 
Roberts, Helene.  “Cardinal Wiseman, the Vatican, and the Pre-Raphaelites.” Pre-Raphaelite Art in Its European Context.  143–159.
Rodgers, Lise.  “The Book and the Flower:  Rationality and Sensuality in ‘Jenny.’”  Pre-Raphaelite Poets.  Ed. Harold Bloom.  New York:  Chelsea, 1986.
Rose, Andrea.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  Oxford:  Phaidon Press, 1977. 
Rossetti, Christina.  The Complete Poems of Christina Rossetti.  2 vols.  Ed. R. W. Crump.  Baton Rouge:  Louisiana State UP, 1979.
---.  Poems.  London:  Blackie and Son, 1910.
Rossetti, Dante Gabriel.  Dante Gabriel Rossetti:  His Family Letters, With a Memoir.  2 vols.  Ed. William Michael Rossetti.  London, 1895. 
---.  The Letters of Dante Gabriel. 4 vols. Ed. O[swald] Doughty and John Robert Wahl. Oxford:  Clarendon, 1965. Vols. 1 and 2.
---.  The Letters of Dante Gabriel Rossetti to William Allingham, 1854–1870.  Ed. George Birkbeck Hill.  New York, 1898.  Rpt. as The Letters of Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  New York:  Frederick Stokes, 1950. 
---.  The Poetical Works of Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  New York, 1886. 
Rossetti, William Michael.  The Diary of William Michael Rossetti, 1870–1873.  Ed. Odette Bornad.  Oxford:  Clarendon, 1977. 
[---].  “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.
Ruoff, Gene W.  The Romantics and Us:  Essays on Literature and Culture.  London:  Rutgers UP, 1990. 
Ruskin, John. The Complete Works of John Ruskin.  Eds. E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn.  36 vols.  London:  George Allen, 1903. 
---.  “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.
Sambrook, James, ed.  Pre-Raphaelitism: A Collection of Critical Essays.  Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1974.
Scott, William Bell.  Autobiographical Notes of the Life of William Bell Scott.  2 vols.  Ed. W. Minto.  London, 1892. 
Showalter, Elaine.  Sexual Anarchy:  Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siècle.  New York:  Penguin, 1990.  
Sirens.  Film.  Dir. John Duigan.  Miramax Films, 1990. 
Sizeranne, Robert de la.  La Peinture Anglaise Contemporaine.  Paris, 1895.
Smith, Sarah Phelps.  “From Allegory to Symbol: Rossetti’s Renaissance Roots and His Influence on Continental Symbolism.” Pre-Raphaelite Art in Its European Context.  50–65.
Stanford, Derek.  Pre-Raphaelite Writing.  London:  J. M. Dent, 1973. 
Stein, Richard L.  Victoria’s Year:  English Literature and Culture, 1837–1838.  New York:  Oxford UP, 1987. 
Stephens, F[rederic] G[eorge].  Dante Gabriel Rossetti.  London, 1894.
Stevenson, Lionel.  The Pre-Raphaelite Poets.  New York:  Norton, 1973. 
[Stillman, William.]  “Pre-Raphaelitism.”  Crayon 1 (4 Apr. 1855): 219–220.
Strong, Roy.  Recreating the Past:  British History and the Victorian Painters.  Hampshire:  Thames and Hudson, 1978.  
Swinburne, Algernon Charles.  The Poems of Algernon Charles Swinburne.  6 vols.   London:  Chatto and Windus, 1904.
---.  The Poetical Works of A. C. Swinburne.  Ed. R. H. Stoddard.  New York, 1884. 
[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.
Turner, Paul.  English Literature, 1832–1890, Excluding the Novel.  Oxford:  Clarendon, 1989. 
Viel-Castel, Henri.  “Exposition Universelle des Beaux-arts: Peinture.—École Anglaise.” L’Athenaeum Français 4.24 (16 June 1855): 507–509.
Vinson, James, ed.  The Victorian Period, Excluding the Novel.  London:  MacMillan, 1983.  
Visions of Love and Life: Pre-Raphaelite Art from the Birmingham Collection, England.  Ed.  and introd.  Stephen Wildman.  Alexandria, VA: Art Services, 1995.
Warner, Malcolm.  “The Pre-Raphaelites and the National Gallery.” The Pre-Raphaelites in Context.  1–12.
Watkinson, Raymond.  Pre-Raphaelite Art and Design.  London:  Studio Vista, 1970. 
Waugh, Evelyn.  P.R.B.: An Essay on the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, 1847–1854.  Stratford-on-Avon, 1926.
Waugh, Evelyn.  Rossetti, His Life and Works.  New York:  Dodd, Mead, 1928.  
Weintraub, Stanley.  Four Rossettis.  New York:  Weybright and Talley, 1977. 
---.  Victoria:  An Intimate Biography.  New York:  Dutton, 1987.  
Welland, D. S. R.  The Pre-Raphaelites in Literature and Art.  London:  Harrap, 1953. 
Welton, Jude.  Eyewitness Art:  Impressionism.  London:  Dorling Kindersley, 1993. 
“Wet Days at Bryn Cefn.”  Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 79.483 (Jan. 1856): 90.
Whitsitt, Julia.  “‘To See Clearly’:  Perspective in Pre-Raphaelite Poetry and Painting.”  The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies 3.2 (1983):  69–79.
Wood, Christopher.  Olympian Dreamers.  London:  Constable, 1983. 
---.  The Pre-Raphaelites.  New York:  Viking, 1981.
Wood, Esther.  Dante Gabriel Rossetti and the Pre-Raphaelite Movement.  London, 1894.
Woodberry, George Edward.  Swinburne.  New York:  McClure, 1905.