Of late years it has been my fate or my whim to write a good deal
about the early days of the Praeraphaelite movement, the members of
the Praeraphaelite Brotherhood, and especially my brother Dante
Gabriel Rossetti, and my sister Christina Georgina Rossetti. I am now
invited to write something further on the subject, with immediate
reference to the Praeraphaelite magazine "The Germ," republished in
this volume. I know of no particular reason why I should not do this,
for certain it is that few people living know, or ever knew, so much
as I do about "The Germ,"; and if some press-critics who regarded
previous writings of mine as superfluous or ill-judged should
entertain a like opinion now, in equal or increased measure, I
willingly leave them to say so, while I pursue my own course none the
less.
"The Germ" is here my direct theme, not the Praeraphaelite
Brotherhood; but it seems requisite to say in the first instance
something about the Brotherhood--its members, allies, and ideas--so
as to exhibit a raison d'être for the magazine. In doing this I must
necessarily repeat some things which I have set forth before, and
which, from the writings of others as well as myself, are well enough
known to many. I can vary my form of expression, but cannot introduce
much novelty into my statements of fact.
In 1848 the British School of Painting was in anything but a vital or
a lively condition. One very great and incomparable genius, Turner,
belonged to it. He was old and past his executive prime. There were
some other highly able men--Etty and David Scott, then both very near
their death; Maclise, Dyce, Cope, Mulready, Linnell, Poole, William
Henry Hunt, Landseer, Leslie, Watts, Cox, J.F. Lewis, and some
others. There were also some distinctly clever men, such as Ward,
Frith, and Egg. Paton, Gilbert, Ford Madox Brown, Mark Anthony, had
given sufficient indication of their powers, but were all in an early
stage. On the whole the school had sunk very far below what it had
been in the days of Hogarth, Reynolds, Gainsborough, and Blake, and
its ordinary average had come to be something for which commonplace
is a laudatory term, and imbecility a not excessive one.
There were in the late summer of 1848, in the Schools of the Royal
Academy or barely emergent from them, four young men to whom this
condition of the art seemed offensive, contemptible, and even
scandalous. Their names were William Holman-Hunt, John Everett
Millais, and Dante Gabriel Rossetti, painters, and Thomas Woolner,
sculptor. Their ages varied from twenty-two to nineteen--Woolner
being the eldest, and Millais the youngest. Being little more than
lads, these young men were naturally not very deep in either the
theory or the practice of art: but they had open eyes and minds, and
could discern that some things were good and other bad--that some
things they liked, and others they hated. They hated the lack of
ideas in art, and the lack of character; the silliness and vacuity
which belong to the one, the flimsiness and make-believe which result
from the other. They hated those forms of execution which are merely
smooth and prettyish, and those which, pretending to mastery, are
nothing better than slovenly and slapdash, or what the P.R.B.'s
called "sloshy." Still more did they hate the notion that each artist
should not obey his own individual impulse, act upon his own
perception and study of Nature, and scrutinize and work at his
objective material with assiduity before he could attempt to display
and interpret it; but that, instead of all this, he should try to be
"like somebody else," imitating some extant style and manner, and
applying the cut-and-dry rules enunciated by A from the practice of B
or C. They determined to do the exact contrary. The temper of these
striplings, after some years of the current academic training, was
the temper of rebels: they meant revolt, and produced revolution. It
would be a mistake to suppose, because the called themselves
Praeraphaelites, that they seriously disliked the works produced by
Raphael; but they disliked the works produced by Raphael's uninspired
satellites, and were resolved to find out, by personal study and
practice, what their own several faculties and adaptabilities might
be, without being bound by rules and big-wiggeries founded upon the
performance of Raphael or of any one. They were to have no master
except their own powers of mind and hand, and their own first-hand
study of Nature. Their minds were to furnish them with subjects for
works of art, and with the general scheme of treatment; Nature was to
be their one or their paramount storehouse of materials for objects
to be represented; the study of her was to be deep, and the
representation (at any rate in the earlier stages of self-discipline
and work) in the highest degree exact; executive methods were to be
learned partly from precept and example, but most essentially from
practice and experiment. As their minds were very different in range
and direction, their products also, from the first, differed greatly;
and these soon ceased to have any link of resemblance.
The Praeraphaelite Brothers entertained a deep respect and a sincere
affection for the works of some of the artists who had preceded
Raphael; and they thought that they should more or less be following
the lead of those artists if they themselves were to develop their
own individuality, disregarding school-rules. This was really the sum
and substance of their "Praeraphaelitism." It may freely be allowed
that, as they were very young, and fired by certain ideas impressive
to their own spirits, they unduly ignored some other ideas and
theories which have none the less a deal to say for themselves. They
contemned some things and some practitioners of art not at all
contemptible, and, in speech still more than in thought, they at
times wilfully heaped up the scorn. You cannot have a youthful rebel
with a faculty who is also a model head-boy in a school.
The P.R.B. was completed by the accession of three members to the
four already mentioned. These were James Collinson, a domestic
painter; Frederic George Stephens, an Academy-student of painting;
and myself, a Government-clerk. These again, when the P.R.B. was
formed towards September 1848, were all young, aged respectively
about twenty-three, twenty-one, and nineteen.
This Praeraphaelite Brotherhood was the independent creation of
Holman-Hunt, Millais, Rossetti, and (in perhaps a somewhat minor
degree) Woolner: it cannot be said that they were prompted or abetted
by any one. Ruskin, whose name has been sometimes inaccurately mixed
up in the matter, and who had as yet published only the first two
volumes of "Modern Painters," was wholly unknown to them personally,
and in his writings was probably known only to Holman-Hunt. Ford
Madox Brown had been an intimate of Rossetti since March 1848, and he
sympathized, fully as much as any of these younger men, with some
old-world developments of art preceding its ripeness or
over-ripeness: but he had no inclination to join any organization for
protest and reform, and he followed his own course--more influenced,
for four or five years ensuing, by what the P.R.B.'s were doing than
influencing them. Among the persons who were most intimate with the
members of the Brotherhood towards the date of its formation, and
onwards till the inception of "The Germ," I may mention the
following. For Holman-Hunt, the sculptor John Lucas Tupper, who had
been a fellow Academy-student, and was now an anatomical designer at
Guy's Hospital: he and his family were equally well acquainted with
Mr. Stephens. For Millais, the painter Charles Allston Collins, son
of the well-known painter of domestic life and coast-scenes
William Collins; the painter Arthur Hughes; also his own brother,
William Henry Millais, who had musical aptitudes and became a
landscape-painter. For Rossetti, William Bell Scott (brother of David
Scott), painter, poet, and Master of the Government School of Design
in Newcastle-on-Tyne; Major Calder Campbell, a retired Officer of the
Indian army, and a somewhat popular writer of tales, verses, etc.;
Alexander Munro the sculptor; Walter Howell Deverell, a young
painter, son of the Secretary to the Government Schools of Design;
James Hannay, the novelist, satirical writer, and journalist; and
(known through Madox Brown) William Cave Thomas, a painter who had
studied in the severe classical school of Germany, and had earned a
name in the Westminster Hall competitions for frescoes in Parliament.
For Woolner, John Hancock and Bernhard Smith, sculptors; Coventry
Patmore the poet, with his connections the Orme family and Professor
Masson; also William North, an eccentric young literary man, of much
effervescence and some talent, author of "Anti-Coningsby" and other
novels. For Collinson, the prominent painter of romantic and biblical
subjects John Rogers Herbert, who was, like Collinson himself, a
Roman Catholic convert.
The Praeraphaelite Brotherhood having been founded in September 1848,
the members exhibited in 1849 works conceived in the new spirit.
These were received by critics and by the public with more than
moderate though certainly not unmixed favour: it had not as yet
transpired that there was a league of unquiet and ambitious young
spirits, bent upon making a fresh start of their own, and a clean
sweep of some effete respectabilities. It was not until after the
exhibitions were near closing in 1849 that any idea of bringing out a
magazine came to be discussed. The author of the project was Dante
Gabriel Rossetti. He alone among the P.R.B.'s had already cultivated
the art of writing in verse and in prose to some noticeable extent
("The Blessed Damozel" had been produced before May 1847), and he was
better acquainted than any other member with British and foreign
literature. There need be no self-conceit in saying that in these
respects I came next to him. Holman-Hunt, Woolner, and Stephens, were
all reading men (in British literature only) within straiter bounds
than Rossetti: not any one of them, I think, had as yet done in
writing anything worth mentioning. Millais and Collinson, more
especially the former, were men of the brush, not the pen, yet both
of them capable of writing with point, and even in verse. By July 13
and 14, 1849, some steps were taken towards discussing the project of
a magazine. The price, as at first proposed, was to be sixpence; the
title, "Monthly Thoughts in Literature, Poetry, and Art"; each number
was to have an etching. Soon afterwards a price of one shilling was
decided upon, and two etchings per number: but this latter intention
was not carried out.{1} All the P.R.B.'s were to be proprietors of
the magazine: I question however whether Collinson was ever persuaded
to assume this responsibility, entailing payment of an eventual
deficit. We were quite ready also to have some other proprietors. Mr.
Herbert was addressed by Collinson, and at one time was regarded as
pretty safe. Mr. Hancock the sculptor did not resist the pressure put
upon him; but after all he contributed nothing to "The Germ," either
in work or in money. Walter Deverell assented, and paid when the time
came. Thus there seem to have been eight, or else seven,
proprietors--not one of them having any spare cash, and not all of
them much steadiness of interest in the scheme set going by Dante
Rossetti.
{1} Many of the particulars here given regarding "The Germ" appear in
the so-called "P.R.B. Journal," which was published towards December
1899, in the volume named "Preraphaelite Diaries and Letters, edited
by W.M. Rossetti." At the date when I wrote the present introduction,
that volume had not been offered for publication.
With so many persons having a kind of co-equal right to decide what
should be done with the magazine, it soon became apparent that
somebody ought to be appointed Editor, and assume the control. I,
during an absence from London, was fixed upon for this purpose by
Woolner and my brother--with the express or tacit assent, so far as I
know, of all the others, I received notice of my new dignity on
September 23, 1849, being just under twenty years of age, and I
forthwith applied myself to the task. It had at first been proposed
to print upon the prospectus and wrappers of the magazine the words
"Conducted by Artists," and also (just about this time) to entitle it
"The P.R.B. Journal." I called attention to the first of these points
as running counter to my assuming the editorship, and to the second
as in itself inappropriate: both had in fact been already set aside.
My brother had ere this been introduced to Messrs. Aylott and Jones,
publishers in Paternoster Row (principally concerned, I believe, with
books of evangelical religion), and had entered into terms with them,
and got them to print a prospectus. "P.R.B." was at first printed on
the latter, but to this Mr. Holman-Hunt objected in November, and it
was omitted. The printers were to be Messrs. Tupper and Sons, a firm
of lithographic and general printers in the City, the same family to
which John Lucas Tupper belonged. The then title, invented by my
brother, was "Thoughts towards Nature," a phrase which, though
somewhat extra-peculiar, indicated accurately enough the predominant
conception of the Praeraphaelite Brotherhood, that an artist, whether
painter or writer, ought to be bent upon defining and expressing his
own personal thoughts, and that these ought to be based upon a direct
study of Nature, and harmonized with her manifestations. It was not
until December 19, when the issue of our No. 1 was closely impending,
that a different title, "The Germ," was proposed. On that evening
there was a rather large gathering at Dante Rossetti's studio, 72
Newman Street; the seven P.R.B.'s, Madox Brown, Cave Thomas,
Deverell, Hancock, and John and George Tupper. Mr. Thomas had drawn
up a list of no less than sixty-five possible titles (a facsimile of
his MS. of some of them appears in the "Letters of Dante Gabriel
Rossetti to William Allingham," edited by George Birkbeck
Hill--Unwin, 1897). Only a few of them met with favour; and one of
them, "The Germ," going to the vote along with "The Seed" and "The
Scroll," was approved by a vote of six to four. The next best were, I
think, "The Harbinger," "First Thoughts," "The Sower," "The
Truth-Seeker," and "The Acorn." Appended to the new title we
retained, as a sub-title, something of what had been previously
proposed; and the serial appeared as "The Germ. Thoughts towards
Nature in Poetry, Literature, and Art." At this same meeting Mr.
Woolner suggested that authors' names should not be published in the
magazine. I alone opposed him, and his motion was carried. I cannot
at this distance of time remember with any precision what his reasons
were; but I think that he, and all the other artists concerned,
entertained a general feeling that to appear publicly as writers, and
especially as writers opposing the ordinary current of opinions on
fine art, would damage their professional position, which already
involved uphill work more than enough.
"The Germ," No. 1, came out on or about January 1, 1850. The number
of copies printed was 700. Something like 200 were sold, in about
equal proportions by the publishers, and by ourselves among
acquaintances and well-wishers. This was not encouraging, so we
reduced the issue of No. 2 to 500 copies. It sold less well than No.
1. With this number was introduced the change of printing on the
wrapper the names of most of the contributors: not of all, for some
still preferred to remain unnamed, or to figure under a fancy
designation. Had we been left to our own resources, we must now have
dropped the magazine. But the printing-firm--or Mr. George I.F.
Tupper as representing it--came forward, and undertook to try the
chance of two numbers more. The title was altered (at Mr. Alexander
Tupper's suggestion) to "Art and Poetry, being Thoughts towards
Nature, conducted principally by Artists"; and Messrs. Dickinson and
Co., of New Bond Street, the printsellers, consented to join their
name as publishers to that of Messrs. Aylott and Jones. Mr. Robert
Dickinson, the head of this firm, and more especially his brother,
the able portrait-painter Mr. Lowes Dickinson, were well known to
Madox Brown, and through him to members of the P.R.B. I continued to
be editor; but, as the money stake of myself and my colleagues in the
publication had now ceased, I naturally accommodated myself more than
before to any wish evinced by the Tupper family. No. 3, which ought
to have appeared March 1, was delayed by these uncertainties and
changes till March 31. No. 4 came out on April 30. Some small amount
of advertising was done, more particularly by posters carried about
in front of the Royal Academy (then in Trafalgar Square), which
opened at the beginning of May. All efforts proved useless. People
would not buy "The Germ," and would scarcely consent to know of its
existence. So the magazine breathed its last, and its obsequies were
conducted in the strictest privacy. Its debts exceeded its assets,
and a sum of £33 odd, due on Nos. 1 and 2, had to be cleared off by
the seven (or eight) proprietors, conscientious against the grain.
What may have been the loss of Messrs. Tupper on Nos. 3 and 4 I am
unable to say. It is hardly worth specifying that neither the editor,
nor any of the contributors whether literary or artistic, received
any sort of payment. This was foreseen from the first as being "in
the bond," and was no grievance to anybody.
"The Germ," as we have seen, was a most decided failure, yet it would
be a mistake to suppose that it excited no amount of literary
attention whatsoever. There were laudatory notices in "The Dispatch,"
"The Guardian," "Howitt's Standard of Freedom," "John Bull," "The
Critic," "Bell's Weekly Messenger," "The Morning Chronicle," and I
dare say some other papers. A pat on the back, with a very lukewarm
hand, was bestowed by "The Art Journal." There were notices also--not
eulogistic--in "The Spectator" and elsewhere. The editor of "The
Critic," Mr. (afterwards Serjeant) Cox, on the faith of doings in
"The Germ," invited me, or some other of the art-writers there, to
undertake the fine-art department--picture-exhibitions, etc.--of his
weekly review. This I did for a short time, and, on getting
transferred to "The Spectator," I was succeeded on "The Critic" by
Mr. F.G. Stephens. I also received some letters consequent upon "The
Germ," and made some acquaintances among authors; Horne, Clough,
Heraud, Westland Marston, also Miss Glyn the actress. I as editor
came in for this; but of course the attractiveness of "The Germ"
depended upon the writings of others, chiefly Messrs. Woolner,
Patmore, and Orchard, my sister, and above all my brother, and, among
the artist-etchers, Mr. Holman-Hunt.
I happen to be still in possession of the notices which appeared in
"The Critic," "Bell's Weekly Messenger," and "The Guardian," and of
extracts (as given in our present facsimile) from those in "John
Bull," "The Morning Chronicle," and "The Standard of Freedom": I here
reproduce the first three for the curious reader's perusal. First
comes the review which appeared in "The Critic" on February 15, 1850,
followed by a second review on June 1. The former was (as shown by
the initials) written by Mr. Cox, and I presume the latter also.
Major Calder Campbell must have called the particular attention of
Mr. Cox to "The Germ." My own first personal acquaintance with this
gentleman may have been intermediate between 15 February and 1 June.
_The Germ. Thoughts towards Nature in Poetry, Literature, and Art._
Nos. I. and II. London: Aylott and Jones.
We depart from our usual plan of noticing the periodicals under one
heading, for the purpose of introducing to our readers a new aspirant
for public favour, which has peculiar and uncommon claims to
attention, for in design and execution it differs from all other
periodicals. _The Germ_ is the somewhat affected and unpromising
title give to a small monthly journal, which is devoted almost
entirely to poetry and art, and is the production of a party of young
persons. This statement is of itself, as we are well aware, enough to
cause it to be looked upon with shyness. A periodical largely
occupied with poetry wears an unpromising aspect to readers who have
learned from experience what nonsensical stuff most fugitive
magazine-poetry is; nor is this natural prejudice diminished by the
knowledge that it is the production of young gentlemen and ladies.
But, when they have read a few extracts which we propose to make, we
think they will own that for once appearances are deceitful, and that
an affected title and an unpromising theme really hides a great deal
of genius; mingled however, we must also admit, with many conceits
which youth is prone to, but which time and experience will assuredly
tame.
That the contents of _The Germ_ are the production of no common minds
the following extracts will sufficiently prove, and we may add that
these are but a small portion of the contents which might prefer
equal claims to applause.
"My Beautiful Lady," and "Of my Lady in Death," are two poems
in a quaint metre, full of true poetry, marred by not a few
affectations--the genuine metal, but wanting to be purified from its
dross. Nevertheless, it is pleasant to find the precious ore anywhere
in these unpoetical times.
To our taste the following is replete with poetry. What a _picture_
it is! A poet's tongue has told what an artist's eye has seen. It is
the first of a series to be entitled "Songs of One Household." [Here
comes Dante Rossetti's poem, "My Sister's Sleep," followed by
Patmore's "Seasons," and Christina Rossetti's "Testimony."] We have
not space to take any specimens of the prose, but the essays on art
are conceived with an equal appreciation of its _meaning_ and
requirements. Being such, _The Germ_ has our heartiest wishes for its
success; but we scarcely dare to _hope_ that it may win the
popularity it deserves. The truth is that it is too good for the
time. It is not _material_ enough for the age.
_Art and Poetry: being Thoughts towards Nature._ Conducted
principally by Artists. Nos. 3 and 4. London: Dickinson and Co.
Some time since we had occasion to direct the attention of our
readers to a periodical then just issued under the modest title of
_The Germ_. The surprise and pleasure with which we read it was, as
we are informed, very generally shared by our readers upon perusing
the poems we extracted from it; and it was manifest to every person
of the slightest taste that the contributors were possessed of genius
of a very high order, and that _The Germ_ was not wantonly so
entitled, for it abounded with the promise of a rich harvest to be
anticipated from the maturity of those whose youth could accomplish
so much.
But we expressed also our fear lest the very excellence of this
magazine should be fatal to its success. It was too good--that is to
say, too refined and of too lofty a class, both in its art and in its
poetry--to be sufficiently popular to pay even the printer's bill.
The name, too, was against it, being somewhat unintelligible to the
thoughtless, and conveying to the considerate a notion of something
very juvenile. Those fears were not unfounded, for it was suspended
for a short time; but other journals after a while discovered and
proclaimed the merit that was scattered profusely over the pages of
_The Germ_, and, thus encouraged, the enterprise has been resumed,
with a change of name which we must regard as an improvement. _Art
and Poetry_ precisely describes its character. It is wholly devoted
to them, and it aims at originality in both. It is seeking out for
itself new paths, in a spirit of earnestness, and with an undoubted
ability which must lead to a new era. The writers may err somewhat at
first, show themselves too defiant of prescriptive rules, and mistake
extravagance for originality; but this fault (inherent in youth when,
conscious of its powers, it first sets up for itself) will after a
while work its own cure, and with experience will come soberer
action. But we cannot contemplate this young and rising school in art
and literature without the most ardent anticipations of something
great to grow from it, something new and worthy of our age, and we
bid them God speed upon the path they have adventured.
But our more immediate purpose here is with the poetry, of which
about one-half of each number is composed. It is all beautiful, must
of it of extraordinary merit, and equal to anything that any of our
known poets could write, save Tennyson, of whom the strains sometimes
remind us, although they are not imitations in any sense of the word.
[The Reviewer next proceeds to quote, with a few words of comment,
Christina Rossetti's "Sweet Death," John Tupper's "Viola and Olivia,"
Orchard's "Whit-Sunday Morn," and (later on) Dante Rossetti's "Pax
Vobis."]
Almost one half of the April number is occupied with a "Dialogue on
Art," the composition of an Artist whose works are well known to the
public. It was written during a period of ill health, which forbad
the use of the brush, and, taking his pen, he has given to the world
his thoughts upon art in a paper which the _Edinburgh Review_ in its
best days might have been proud to possess.
Sure we are that not one of our readers will regret the length at
which we have noticed this work.
* * * * * * *
The short and unpretending critique which I add from "Bell's Weekly
Messenger" was written, I believe, either by or at the instance of
Mr. Bellamy, a gentleman who acted as secretary to the National Club.
His son addressed me as editor of "The Germ," in terms of great
ardour, and through the son I on one occasion saw the father as well.
_Art and Poetry._ Nos. I., II., and III. London, Dickinson and Co.
The present numbers are the commencement of a very useful
publication, conducted principally by artists, the design of which is
to "express thoughts towards Nature." We see much to commend in its
pages, which are also nicely illustrated in the mediaeval style of
art and in outline. The paper upon Shakespeare's tragedy of
"Macbeth," in the third number, abounds with striking passages, and
will be found to be well worthy of consideration.
* * * * * * *
I now proceed to "The Guardian." The notice came out on August 20,
1850, some months after "The Germ" had expired. I do not now know who
wrote it, and (so far as memory serves me) I never did know. The
writer truly said that Millais "contributes nothing" to the magazine.
This however was not Millais's fault, for he made an etching for a
prose story by my brother (named "An Autopsychology," or now "St.
Agnes of Intercession"); and this etching, along with the story, had
been expected to appear in a No. 5 of "The Germ" which never came
out. The "very curious but very striking picture" by Rossetti was the
"Annunciation," now in the National British Gallery.
_Art and Poetry._ Being Thoughts towards Nature. Conducted
principally by Artists. Dickinson and Co., and Aylott and Jones.
We are very sorry to find that, after a short life of four monthly
numbers, this magazine is not likely to be continued. Independently
of the great ability displayed by some of its contributors, we have
been anxious to see the rising school of young and clever artists
find a voice, and tell us what they are aiming at, and how they
propose to reach their aim. This magazine was to a great extent
connected with the Pre-Raffaelle Brethren, whose paintings have
attracted this year a more than ordinary quantity of attention, and
an amount of praise and blame perhaps equally extravagant. As might
have been expected, the school has been identified with its cleverest
manipulator, Mr. Millais, and his merits or defects have been made
the measure of the admiration or contempt bestowed by the public upon
those whom it chooses to class with him. This is not matter of
complaint, but it is a mistake. As far as these papers enable us to
judge, Mr. Millais is by no means the leading _mind_ among his
fraternity; and judged by the principles of some clever and beautiful
papers upon art in the magazine before us, his pictures would be
described by them as wanting in some of the very highest artistic
qualities, although possessing many which entitle them to attention
and respect. The chief contributors to this magazine (to which Mr.
Millais contributes nothing) are other artists, as yet not greatly
known, but with feeling and purpose about them such as must make them
remarkable in time. Some of the best papers are by two brothers named
Rossetti, one of whom, Mr. D. G. Rossetti, has a very curious but
very striking picture now exhibiting in the Portland Gallery. Mr.
Deverell, who has also a very clever picture in the same gallery,
contributes some beautiful poetry. It is perhaps chiefly in the
poetry that the abilities of these writers are displayed; for, with
somewhat absurd and much that is affected, there is yet in the
poetical pieces of these four numbers a beauty and grace of language
and sentiment, and not seldom a vigour of conception, altogether
above the common run. Want of purpose may be easily charged against
them as a fault, and with some justice, but it is a very common
defect of youthful poetry, which is sure to disappear with time if
there be anything real and manly in the poet. The best pieces are too
long to extracted in entire, and are not to be judged of fairly
except as wholes. There is a very fine poem called "Repining" of
which this is particularly true. [Next comes a quotation of Christina
Rossetti's "Dream Land," and of a portion of Dante Rossetti's
"Blessed Damozel."] The last number contains a remarkable dialogue on
Art, written by a young man, John Orchard, who has since died. It is
well worth study. Kalon, Kosmon, Sophon, and Christian, whose names,
of course, represent the opinions they defend, discuss a number of
subjects connected with the arts. Each character is well supported,
and the wisdom and candour of the whole piece is very striking,
especially when we consider the youth and inexperience of the writer.
Art lost a true and high-minded votary in Mr. Orchard. [A rather long
extract from the "Dialogue" follows here.]
It is a pity that the publication is to stop. English artists have
hitherto worked each one by himself, with too little of common
purpose, too little of mutual support, too little of distinct and
steadily pursued intellectual object. We do not believe that they are
one whit more jealous than the followers of other professions. But
they are less forced to be together, and the little jealousies which
deform the natures of us all have in their case, for this reason,
freer scope, and tend more to isolation. Here, at last, we have a
_school_, ignorant it may be, conceited possibly, as yet with but
vague and unrealised objects, but working together with a common
purpose, according to certain admitted principles, and looking to one
another for help and sympathy. This is new in England, and we are
very anxious it should have a fair trial. Its aim, moreover, however
imperfectly attained as yet, is high and pure. No one can walk along
our streets and not see how debased and sensual our tastes have
become. The saying of Burke (so unworthy of a great man), that vice
loses half its evil by losing all its grossness, is practically acted
upon, and voluptuous and seductive figures, recommended only by a
soft effeminacy, swarm our shop-windows and defile our drawing-rooms.
It is impossible to over-state the extent to which they minister to,
and increase the foul sins of, a corrupt and luxurious age. A school
of artists who attempt to bring back the popular taste to the severe
draperies and pure forms of early art are at least deserving of
encouragement. Success in their attempt would be a national blessing.
* * * * * * *
Shrivelling in the Spring of 1850, "The Germ" showed no further sign
of sprouting for many years, though I suppose it may have been known
to the promoters of "The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine," produced in
1856, and may have furnished some incitement towards that
enterprise--again an unsuccessful one commercially. Gradually some
people began to take a little interest in the knowledge that such a
publication had existed, and to inquire after stray copies here and
there. This may perhaps have commenced before 1870, or at any rate
shortly afterwards, as in that year the "Poems" of Dante Rossetti
were brought out, exciting a great amount of attention and
admiration, and curiosity attached to anything that he might have
published before. One heard of such prices as ten shillings for a set
of the "The Germ," then £2, £10, £30, etc., and in 1899 a copy
handsomely bound by Cobden-Saunderson was sold in America for about
£104. Will that high-water mark ever be exceeded? For the sake of
common-sense, let us hope not.
I will now go through the articles in "The Germ" one by one. Wherever
any of them may seem to invite a few words of explanation I offer
such to the reader; and I give the names of the authors, when not
named in the magazine itself. Those articles which do not call for
any particular comment receive none here.
On the wrapper of each number is to be found a sonnet, printed in a
rather aggressively Gothic type, beginning, "When whoso merely hath a
little thought." This sonnet is my performance; it had been suggested
that one or other of the proprietors of the magazine should write a
sonnet to express the spirit in which the publication was undertaken.
I wrote the one here in question, which met with general acceptance;
and I do not remember that any one else competed. This sonnet may not
be a good one, but I do not see why it should be considered
unintelligible. Mr. Bell Scott, in his "Autobiographical Notes,"
expressed the opinion that to master the production would almost need
a Browning Society's united intellects. And he then gave his
interpretation, differing not essentially from my own. What I meant
is this: A writer ought to think out his subject honestly and
personally, not imitatively, and ought to express it with directness
and precision; if he does this, we should respect his performance as
truthful, even though it may not be important. This indicated, for
writers, much the same principle which the P.R.B. professed for
painters,--individual genuineness in the thought, reproductive
genuineness in the presentment.
By Thomas Woolner: "My Beautiful Lady," and "Of My Lady in Death."
These compositions were, I think, nearly the first attempts which Mr.
Woolner made in verse; any earlier endeavours must have been few and
slight. The author's long poem "My Beautiful Lady," published in
1863, started from these beginnings. Coventry Patmore, on hearing the
poems in September 1849, was considerably impressed by them: "the
only defect he found" (as notified in a letter from Dante Rossetti)
"being that they were a trifle too much in earnest in the passionate
parts, and too sculpturesque generally. He means by this that each
stanza stands too much alone, and has its own ideas too much to
itself."