A Critical Study of Pre-Raphaelitism and Rossetti's Divergence From Its Original Doctrine

Abstract

Pre-Raphaelitism has a deeper significance and a fuller connotation in the field of art and literature than anyone thesis can hope to reveal and evaluate. Explanations concerning the word alone have been many and varied, indeed. Reputable critics have quibbled about its etymological definition as well as its fuller, inclusive and exclusive significance since its origin. The term has, perhaps, suffered much from the tendency of human beings "to define a thing in order to save the trouble of understanding it," as someone has very cleverly stated. Because of all these innumerable and contradictory definitions and explanations which have been formulated, it has been held responsible for all kinds of artistic sins, and also credited with a high degree of virtue that it cannot rightfully claim. Hence, it is evident, that a mere cursory study of the movement, or a meager introduction to some of its principles, as is generally achieved by the majority of art and literary students, is not only inadequate, but very often leads to an inaccurate and incorrect understanding of its real significance. There are many important questionable and unsettled phases of Pre-Raphaelitism, which, as a general rule, most teachers of literature and aesthetic criticism, as well as text-books with hasty summaries, disregard entirely. For example, Holman Hunt, who is a decidedly significant figure, is either neglected altogether, or unfairly represented; while Rossetti is designated as the one and only really great Pre-Raphaelite--the only excuse for such a conclusion being that the entire falsity rests on a misunderstanding concerning the two men and the meaning of Pre-Raphaelitism. The fact that Hunt, in reality, originated much of the essential and fundamental doctrine which Rossetti incorporated into his early work is not even referred to. Also, and at utmost importance, as we shall discover later, Hunt is in reality much more representative of the true Pre-Raphaelite principles and spirit than is Rossetti. Rossetti led 'the fundamental and original Pre-Raphaelite doctrine into foreign channels. He incorporated strictly "Rosettian" ideals into his creations, which caused them to change decidedly as he matured in his artistic thinking and practice from Pre-Raphaelite products to something entirely outside of this realm. In truth, then, Hunt and Millais were the only really great true Pre-Raphaelites. However, since Rossetti was the chief literery exponent of this group, we shall attempt to discuss his importance in the light of Pre-Raphaelitism. Then too, in the course of this paper, an endeavor shall be made to properly establish a sound, unbiased position concerning Hunt and Rossetti-to interpret them both in their correct settings. Besides the point of misunderstanding just referred to, there exist a number of other conflicting notions concerning the doctrine under consideration. There are quite a number of extremists who would allege tor the Pre-Raphaelite movement all sorts of exaggerated and unfounded claims. For example, this movement, when interpreted correctly, was not the undisputed beginning of the Aesthetic School in England, as one writer would have us believe. Neither was it the beginning of stark naturalism as other authors so readily insist. By no means was Pre-Raphaelitism the worthless literary spurt that Clive Bell so boldly announces in one of his articles. Each critic forgets the others’ point of view. Perhaps, all are correct to some extent; Pre-Raphaelitism contained the seeds of various later artistic and literary maturations. And so it is the good purpose of this paper to accomplish three definite ends: First, to explain the origin and meaning of Pre-Raphaelitism in its correct denotation; second, to single out of this particular movement its contribution to aesthetic practice and criticism; and third, to determine, in a minor degree, the ultimate outcome of Pre-Raphaelitism, including its influence on later aesthetic and literary development. The thesis will concern itself chiefly with point two, point one acting as a necessary corrective to any pre-conceived false notions concerning the movement, as well as a convenient introduction to point two. Part three, although by no means intended to be treated in a complete and exhaustive manner, will be of interest in deciding the ultimate importance and aesthetic value of such a movement in the light or later artistic and literary developments--whether the whole thing was merely a phosphoric aesthetic spurt, a fatal literary morning-glory, so to speak. It is evident that the last point might well be chosen as a complete topic for a thesis in itself; it is by no means a minor phase of Pre-Raphaelite importance; but, by far, too extensive to deal with in a paper which chooses for its major issue the singling out of a body of criticism, which includes such a very definite and important aesthetique. And, it might be added here, by the term criticism is meant its broadest interpretation; namely, the beliefs, ideals, and practice which the men who figured in the movement upheld in their creative work--their aesthetic dogma, so to speak. Before proceeding to the major issues of this thesis, it might be well to remark that at this particular moment in the history of aesthetic development, there existed a great bond between painting and literature. Same of the greatest participators were both great artists in the pictoral as well as the literary sense. One phase of artistry tended to inspire the other. Hence, throughout this discussion, our interests will necessarily, tend to oscillate from one to the other. Generally speaking, in any critical aesthetic consideration this condition exists.