- art's-‘5
“a!” * l
355%
583%
"r 4- "
r5 <‘"

. —.‘:-—vo .n-
5 J ‘_

‘N:

 

{.5

E

v v, '0
, 45°77 ‘
”fix-(:9? (ii

- An" "
gift a?) 2:

i "'
“45;: ‘2‘,
l

um.

: ,w‘a‘

9- ’{rwa .A. -<
.' ,»ne 4;» ~
ref .‘ '

"a

. i‘
u; un‘un‘ ' F I n “’54
"'r+"-~rg' , . 1-. . ”- ' M?
w I" \- x If ‘n‘xv
.,,._t’ ' . M W?

a

a:
3 .~ ‘
WK”-
‘1.

' D
‘ ‘77.

‘ 32".“ "-35 "
wéfiW“ 7“ Ti

‘.
. .hl

i. ,. .‘A'fi .2
‘ ".kuudasdfl'y
“$545 :2
. ‘r I“ “I
‘. €;.1;§?‘C£§-U
.y ‘ ‘xiu -
' ”“51""
11 ‘95; V;

.11!” ‘

13’
:31
Ax"

‘ '4 Wt!
~ 3...th

t.

. ' L

. ~ g
2

“-53:31 é

“-fv‘".

15,, .4,
a‘ "

”7:1,?

a...“
'vvv—v "-
- Int-v

Gray“
1

~ . . x. d
v, In , v. 1%.” “‘1’;
$Jl‘ 4:. ‘ “.5 ‘ 5 ”575-"

yr m {92 ngéznflg.‘

w

fi' v - .
ia’f‘kx, 53:

~=€fflt§ ‘
41"?"

‘ ‘ , .
,9 .
"\Itfig‘.‘nxf' ‘ . fit?‘

‘ ”Egan“: gm?!

l 4“ 131 -

~ m

y Vat-Er
“3‘6“
‘- ~.

2.3L

 

. “5 ,"wlafi
J} I“ I ‘ :9 a. u" .
fig ‘. M—gwfi 3...

u
.u

_. ‘3}3’" .

€193

"gig“ ,e 4
“a $3,.H‘Tfi
fiég’gfi‘g‘

;. “at
v- ,

I
h

t
3:9»
\.

- > V LES
'..~‘ ? ‘2...“
m. a...» ‘
-, ~ In .. . '
”’1 1,, . E
“.3. my
33' ‘

, .
v

v r“ u (33%

. *e‘cfiwfiw ‘ ~
mm . awn-w
” r 5.33.9

i

\1‘
J1”: ‘Havnh
’. 3f:

‘7 w

m

ms...

3. M «5:1,:-
“" x§ J", _ 7 o.’ n

as?" %%§O7HQ5

STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

nanny 1111111111113111113111 1
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Li

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Canvas vs. Reality: The Depiction
of Women by the Pre-Raphaelites.

presented by

Martha Lynne Lattie

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ma‘s'ter-‘df'Artsdegreein History of Art

  

 

 

Date Ely/5? / M0 Wl‘fifik

0.7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE m RETURN sex to remove this checkout from your record.

To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afllrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

__ , a-

THE CANVAS vs.REALITY: THE WOMEN
IN PRE-RAPHAELITE ART

Bv

6

Martha Lynne Lattie

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Art

1989

LtrfrOir

ABSTRACT
THE CANVAS vs. REALITY: THE WOMEN IN PRE—RAPHAELITE ART
BY
Martha Lattie

In 1848. a group of British artists banded together to
form the Pre—Raphaelite Brotherhood in order to resist the
academic restrictions they felt were stifling their art. It
was a period in England when rebellion was not considered
healthy. This thesis primarily focuses on the women who were
a part of this movement and their lives. The Pre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood (PRB) believed in painting from life, and.
therefore. they needed models. preferably beautiful ones.
Although their idea of beauty was different from society’s
standards of femininity, their "stunners" became society's
ideal: pale. languid. melancholic.

The treatment of women as subject in the art of the Pre-
Raphaelites fits into three categories: Woman as Strength and
Reason, Woman as Temptress. and Woman in Distress.

Many of the women who married or were personally
involved with the PRB men were first professionally involved
with them. The women provided the men with strength as well
as inspiration. Their physical and spiritual presence helped
the artists to create the art of the Pre-Raphaelite movement.
one of the most beautiful and technically demanding periods in

the history of art.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................... ii
List of Plates ..................................... iii
Introduction ....................................... vi
Chapter 1 The Social Britian of Victoria's Reign.. 1
Chapter 2 Women.Art. and The Pre~Raphaelite
Brotherhood ............................. 7
Chapter 3 The Oxford Murals and the Second
Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood ............ 17
Chapter 4 Breakdowns within the Group ............. 27
Chapter 5 What These Women Meant to the
Pre—Raphaelite Brotherhood ............. 34
Conclusion ......................................... 45
Plates ............................................. 49
Bibliography ....................................... 86
Appendix ........................................... 93

ii

LIST OF PLATES

1. Twelfth Night — Walter Deverall Tate Gallery, London.

 

2. Ophelia — John Everett Millais Tate Gallery. London.

3. Sketch of Elizabeth Siddal by Dante Gabriel Rossetti ~
Carlisle Museum and Art Gallery.

4. Self—Portrait of Elizabeth Siddal — Private Collection.

5. The Ladies' Lament — Elizabeth Siddal Tate Gallery.
London.

6. The Annunciation - Dante Gabriel Rossetti Tate Gallery,
London.

 

7. The Oxford Debating Hall.

8. La Belle Iseult - William Morris Tate Gallery, London.

 

9. Bocca Baciata - Dante Gabriel Rossetti Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston.

 

10. Found - Dante Gabriel Rossetti Birmingham Museum and Art
Gallery.

11. The Awakening Conscience - William Holman Hunt Tate
Gallery, London.

 

12. Fazio's Mistress — Dante Gabriel Rossetti Tate Gallery,
London.

 

13. Perserpine - Dante Gabriel Rossetti Tate Gallery, London.

14. Astarte Syriaca - Dante Gabriel Rossetti City of
Manchester Art Gallery.

 

15. The Order of Release — John Everett Millais Tate Gallery,
London.

 

16. The Huguenot - John Everett Millais Detroit Institute of
Arts.

 

17. The Last of England — Ford Madox Brown Birmingham Museums
and Art Gallery.

 

18. Take Your Son. Sir! — Ford Madox Brown Tate Gallery,
London.

 

19. Arnolfini Wedding Portrait — Jan VanEyck The National
Gallery. London.

 

iii

20. The Blue Bower - Dante Gabriel Rossetti Barber Institute
of Fine Arts, The University of Birmingham.

 

21. The Hireling Shepard - William Holman Hunt City of
Manchester Art Gallery.

 

22. Apple Blossoms - John Everett Millais National Museums
and Galleries on Merseyside.

23. Waiting - John Everett Millais Birmingham Museums and Art
Gallery.

24. Beata Beatrix - Dante Gabriel Rossetti Tate Gallery,
London.

 

25. Self—Portrait Dante Gabriel Rossetti - Birmingham Museums
and Art Gallery.

26. Drawing of John Everett Millais — William Holman Hunt
National Portrait Gallery, London.

27. Portrait of William Holman Hunt — Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Birmingham City Museums and Art Gallery.

28. Photograph of Edward Burne—Jones and William Morris —
Fred Hollyer for William Morris Today.

29. Portrait of John Ruskin - John Everett Millais Private
Collection.

 

30. Study of E. Siddal for Ophelia — John Everett Millais
Birmingham City Museums and Art Gallery.

 

31. Drawing of Jane Morris — Dante Gabriel Rossetti National
Gallery of Ireland,Dublin.

32. Drawing of Emma Brown - Dante Gabriel Rossetti Witt
Library. Courtland Institute of Art, London.

33. Portrait of Georgina BurneuJones and Children — Edward
Burne-Jones Mr. L. Thirkell, London.

34. Portrait of Fannie Cornforth - Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Birmingham City Museums and Art Gallery.

35. Drawing of Annie Miller — Dante Gabriel Rossetti Estate
of the late Mr. L.S. Lowery.

36. Drawing of Effie Ruskin Millais — John Everett Millais
Private Collection.

37. Photograph of the Morris and Burne-Jones Families —
National Portrait Gallery.

38. Red House — Photograph by Ian Tod for William_Mgrris
19.491;

39. Kelmscott Manor — Photograph by Ian Tod for William
Morris Today;

 

40. ”The Husband's Friend." Wood Engraving, "Echos fron the
Clubs." February 5. 1868.

41. "Of course Mr. Trottles was too busy in the city to take
Mrs. Trottles to the Derby. How poor neglected Mrs. Trottles
spent the weary hours during her husband's absence." Wood
Engraving, "The Days Doings," May 27, 1871.

42. "An old, old story with its usual end - As told so often
in the Divorce Court." Wood Engraving, "The Days Doings."
July 29. 1871.

43. A Contrast; Abraham Soloman, 1855. Private Collection.

INTRODUCTION

I first took specific notice of a Pre-Raphaelite work
while in London. Some of the works owned by the Tate Gallery
were on loan to the National Gallery, and it was there that I
first saw John Everett Millais' painting of Ophelia. Some years
before, I had done my senior thesis on the relationship between
Ophelia and her father and brother as presented in
Shakespeare's Hamlet. As a result. I became quite familiar with
her character. The painting struck me in both its
interpretation of the theme, and in the exactitude with which
it was painted; the dense plant life on the banks, as well as
the flowers around Ophelia, were some of the most life—like I
had ever seen represented. While searching for a thesis topic,

I decided I wanted to ‘research this painting of Ophelia and

 

the artist who created it. As I had never had any exposure to
Pre—Raphaelite works in any of my art history classes up to
this point, I initiated my research with the intention of
gaining an understanding of the movement and the artists known
as The Pre—Raphaelite Brotherhood.

As I began to study this group of painters, with Millais
and his Ophelia always in mind, I found myself becoming
increasingly interested in the woman who posed for the
painting, rather than the artist who painted it. Elizabeth

Siddal (later Rossetti) who was the model, then became the main

vi

focus of my research. This inspired me to study works of the
other women who posed for these artists. I found that I was
beginning to wonder Just how much these women on the canvas had
in common with the women who married and loved the

men of the Pre-Raphaelite group. This seemed to be an
interesting and original way to look at this movement and I
decided to change my thesis topic. It is my belief that what
seems to be secondary to the work of the Pre—Raphaelites is far
more important than it has been considered in earlier works
about them. It is my contention that one must study and
understand the women associated with the Pre-Raphaelite
movement as well as the men in order to have a complete
understanding of the movement known as Pre~Raphaelitism. There
did not seem to be much written about the women who were models
for the paintings. only about the men who painted them. I had
to read many books and articles about the PRB to find some
clues about the women. The books which gave me the most
information were: The Pre~Raphaelite Sisterhood and Egg;

Raphaelite Women both by Jan Marsh. I also found out quite a

 

bit about what life must have been like for these women in
Images of Victorian Womenhood in English Art by Susan Casteras,
Myths of Sexuality; Representations of Women in Victorian
Britain by Lynda Nead. and Idols of PerversityigFantasies of
Feminine Evil in Fin—de—Siecle Culture by Bram Dijkstra. These
books fueled my interest in exploring the relationship between

paintings from the Victorian Era and perceptions of women in

vii

this period. Therefore, I changed the emphasis of my thesis
from one particular member of the Pre—Raphaelites to the women
who, though not official members of the group, were close to
the heart of it.

The primary purpose of my work is to discover what can be
learned about the women who were an essential part of the Pre—
Raphaelite artist's lives, and how the images they inspired
correspond to what we know about them. I also found what I
considered to be three main categories in the works of the PRB.
They are: Woman as Strength and Reason, Woman as Temptress, and
Woman in Distress. These categories seem to fit the subject
matter of much of Pre-Raphaelite art and to provide a means to

understanding these works more fully.

viii

CHAPTER 1

THE SOCIAL BRITAIN OF VICTORIA'S REIGN

The Industrial Revolution in England brought about
many changes in its society. Most of the changes occurred
during the reign of one of their most famous queens, Queen
Victoria, who ruled from 1837—1901. During that time, the
middle class emerged. There had never been a middle class
before because there was never really an opportunity for
one. People were either wealthy or the servants of the
wealthy. There were no established regulations for this
new class to live by, so they created their own. That is
not to say that these rules were distributed, handbook
style among the new class, but they were well-known and
well understood, nonetheless.

These rules were implemented in an effort to try and
control sexuality for fear it would run rampant.

As Lynda Nead points out in her book, Myths of Sexuality,
more was written about sex, therefore, bringing about a
"...proliferation of discourses on sexuality,"1 in an
effort to define what was acceptable behavior.

1 Read, Lynda. Myths of Sexuality: Representations of

Women in Victorian Britian. Oxford and New York: Basil
Blackwell. 1988, p. 3.

For the most part, people aspired to adhere to these
rules, even proposed to adhere to these rules; but they
were for a perfect world with perfect people, not a real
world populated by humans. It was a very strict moral code
meant to protect the family, the church, and polite
society. As an outgrowth of this society, and life in
general, these restrictions became very rigid. There was
little deviation which would. or could, be tolerated, for
fear the entire structure would collapse. People became
comfortable with this structured society because they
understood where they fit within it. They knew what was
expected of them and what not conforming to these
expectations could mean. There were deviations from these
rules, but they were not acknowledged for the sake of
maintaining a polite front.

This period in time is known as the Victorian era. The
very use of the word "Victorian" connotes rigidity, rules,
and little tolerance for deviance. Therefore, to understand
the people of Victorian Britain, we must understand its
society and its rules.

This paper concentrates on a group of artists called
the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. who were active in Britain
during the Victorian period. It will seek to explain how
the Brotherhood was able to develop an ideal in art and
introduce it to a world not interested in new definitions.
The ideal was depicted, for the most part. in female form.
The PremRaphaelite Brotherhood (PRB) concentrated on

2

conforming to rules, too. However, these were their rules.
which they had adopted for themselves through like ideas
and a frustration with existing artistic styles.

These guidelines, although clearly drawn and understood
by the middle class. become quite murky when it came to the
upper and lower classes. The lower class did not have the
time to adhere to these rules, they were too busy just
trying to survive. The upper class, although it had the
time, did not care to adhere to middle-class ideals - at
least in practice. The upper class made its own rules. Its
members did not have the same desire to get ahead, because
they were already at the top of the social ladder.
Therefore. the upper class and the lower class had more in
common with each other than the middle class.

The men of the PRB were middle-class artists. They did
not all work within the same medium, however, some were
painters,one was a sculptor,and one was a writer. They
shared a common belief that there was a need for change.
They basically came to this agreement because they had
trouble conforming to the established educational systems
of the art world. At this time in Britain the only way to
become an artist was to learn drawing through a series of
classes taught at the Royal Academy. One could study with
an artist or be taught somewhere else, but, in order to
make a living from art in London, an artist had to be shown

in the Royal Academy exhibitions.

The Royal Academy taught art through a very regimented
system. Students were required to complete, or show. a
competency in many levels of drawing before they were
allowed to work in paint. Sometimes students could not
advance past certain levels of drawing and were frustrated
because they were not allowed to paint. This happened to
one of the original members of the PRB, perhaps its most
famous member, Dante Gabriel Rossetti (Plate 25). Rossetti
thought the restrictions of the Academy were holding him
back and not allowing him to create the work of which he
was capable. Therefore, he took an apprenticeship outside
of the Academy in order to learn painting.

Rossetti became the apprentice of a man named Ford
Madox Brown. Brown was a moderately successful artist,
having shown in the Academy exhibitions, but his works were
not very well received by the critics or the public.
Rossetti was very impressed by Brown's style because it was
different from the others. His paintings were very
detailed, with subjects that were often taken from
literature. Rossetti worked with Brown in his studio. but
he also maintained friendships with fellow artists from the
academy.

In the fall of 1848, some men gathered to look at
engravings by an Italian artist. Carlo Lasinio,
illustrating the frescoes of Campo Santo in Pisa by Benozzo
Gozzoli. The men were struck by the works because of their
straightforward style. The men spoke of the purity of the

4

art of the early Renaissance and how far removed modern art
was from that clarity of subject and style. They considered
all art produced after the time of the artist Raphael to be
softer and less clearly defined. Therefore, the name of the
group, the Pre-Raphaelites, was born because they admired
the style of art common before the time and work of
Raphael.
The men formed a group and defined their aim as

follows:

To paint serious and significant subjects, to paint

them directly from nature or life as truthfully as

possible and, very importantly, to paint wgth full

color and luminosity of the light of day.
The group consisted of seven men: Dante Gabriel Rossetti,
William Holman Hunt (Plate 27), John Everett Millais (Plate
26), James Collinson, Thomas Woolner, George Stevens, and
William Michael Rossetti. The painters were Rossetti, Hunt,
Millais, Collinson, and Stevens. Wollner was a sculptor,
and William Rossetti,a writer, was designated the secretary
for the organization. Dante Rossetti invited Ford Madox
Brown to become a member of the group, but he declined.
probably because he was older than the other members and
considered it a passing fancy. He did, however subscribe to

their beliefs and is considered to have painted in the Pre—

Raphaelite style.

2Wilson, Simon. The Pre—Raphaelites. London: Tate
Gallery.1984.

The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood often chose subjects
from literature to paint. They painted ancient Greek and
Roman myths, subjects from epic poetry. and even poetry
they composed themselves. Almost all of these tales dealt
with female subjects, either directly or indirectly. The
PRB believed in painting from live models because they felt
this would give them the truest representation. This need
for live models brought them in contact with many young

women from diverse backgrounds.

CHAPTER 2

WOMEN, ART, AND THE PRE-RAPHAELITE BROTHERHOOD

These women played a very important role in the lives
and works of the PRB and are often overlooked in studies.
in favor of the more famous male members of the group. The
most outstanding among the women who posed for the PRB were
the women who ended up having the most personal contact
with the PRB members, thereby, allowing a better record to
be kept of them. These women were Elizabeth Siddal, Fannie
Cornforth.and Jane Morris. The other women, about whom less
is known, were Annie Miller (Plate 35), Emma Brown (Plate
32), Maria Zambaco, Georgiana Burne—Jones, and Effie Ruskin
(Plate 36). This work will include all of these women. but
concentrate particularly on Elizabeth Siddal. There were
numerous other women who sat for the PRB during the
artist's careers, but the women mentioned above have become
synonymous with the Pre-Raphaelites, because they appear so
often in the works.

The most famous of the Pre—Raphaelite women was
Elizabeth Siddal Rossetti. As William Michael Rossetti
tells it, she was discovered working in the back room of a
dressmaker's shop. It is said that the artist, Walter
Deverall, a friend and contemporary of the PRB, discovered

her there while shopping with his mother. Jan Marsh, author

of The Pre-Raphaelite Sisterhood, thinks that it was
unlikely that Walter was shopping with his mother. Marsh
instead suggests that he probably spotted Elizabeth
earlier and brought his mother back to ask Elizabeth to sit
for him, since that would have been a more proper
procedure. Marsh also suggests that since Deverall had a
sister, it would seem more likely that his sister would

3Regardless of how he met her,

shop with his mother.
Deverall was successful in convincing Elizabeth to pose
and, thus, she began her relationship with the PRB.
Elizabeth, or Lizzie as she was called, sat first for
Walter Deverall for a painting based on Shakespeare's Viola
from Twelfth Night. In the work. she sits in a very odd
position. hunched over herself. Marsh proposes that Siddal
probably found the costume, which exposed her legs, quite
embarrassing as women were not accustomed to showing their
legs in public at this time(Plate 1).4 Her likeness in this
work was not very well received by the public, but this was
only her first sitting. The artists were responsible for
arranging the sitting, so if Deverall had not wanted her to

pose that way, he most certainly could have posed her

differently.

Marsh,Jan. The Pre—Raphaelite Sisterhood London,

Melbourne,and New York: Quartet Books,1985 p 16.

4 Marsh, 25.

Another reason for the cool reception may have been
that Siddal could never have been called a great beauty,
and, except for her long. strawberry blonde hair, she was
rather plain-looking. However, other members of the PRB
were obviously impressed with her looks because she
received quite a few invitations to sit following her
discovery by Deverall. The members of the PRB appreciated
Siddal's height and stature, and they considered her long
neck "stately" looking. Siddal sat for William Holman Hunt
for a painting called Valentine Rescuing Sylvia. When the
painting was finished, Siddal was called a poor choice by
art critic John Ruskin (Plate 29), who commented on her
"commonness of feature and called her [an] 'unfortunate
type chosen for the face of Sylvia." SRuskin was later to
change his opinion, however, and eventually develop quite a
close relationship with Siddal.

Her next work with the PRB is probably her most
famous one, the sitting for John Everett Millais' Ophelia
(Plate 2). This painting is one of the most famous works of
the Pre-Raphaelite movement, it is a painting rich in
detail. The plant life, trees, and flowers, are
meticulously represented. The painting shows us Ophelia in
the midst of her madness after Hamlet spurns her, singing
as she floats to her death. Bram Dijkstra talks about why
the Victorians were so drawn to the image of Ophelia in his

5Marsh,28.

book Idols of Perversity:

...Ophelia,[was] the later nineteenth—
century's all time favorite example of the love
crazed self—sacrificial woman who most perfectly
demonstrated her devotion to her man by
descending into the her madness, who surrounded
herself with flowers to show her equivalence to
them, and who in the end committed herself to a
watery grave, thereby fulfilling the nineteenth—
century maleés fondest fantasies of feminine
dependency.

Ophelia has obviously been destroyed by Hamlet's
rejection of her, and Millais paints her madness, and loss
of interest in life, with great skill and feeling.

There is a famous story surrounding the painting of
this work, concerning the manner in which Millais painted
it. Millais began painting the river bank and background
for his work before he had located a model. Hunt suggested
Siddal, and Millais agreed. Siddal agreed to sit for the
painting, However, one of her brothers had recently died,
and she would be in mourning for quite awhile. When she was
ready to sit, Millais dressed her in an antique gown and
floated her in a tin bathtub, warmed by lighted candles
underneath it. When the work was almost completed, the
candles burned out, and Millais was too engrossed in his
work to notice.

As a result of this accident, Siddal became quite ill.
Her father sued Millais for fifty pounds in medical costs.
The case was eventually settled, and Millais 'Ophelia is
considered by most to be the greatest work to come out of

6 Dijkstra,Bram. Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Femine
Evil in Fin—de-Siecle Culture. New York and Oxford:

University Press, 1986, p. 42.

10

the PRB.

About this time, Siddal began sitting for Dante Gabriel
Rossetti. whom she would eventually marry. They had a very
long, drawn-out courtship, partially because of the
conventions of the time and partially because of Rossetti's
procrastination. Siddal posed the first time for Rossetti

who was working on a painting entitled Beatrice Denying

 

Dante Her Salutation. Thus. they began to spend a great

 

deal of time alone together. Rossetti was living and
working in a small cottage and was no longer working in
Ford Madox Brown's studio. During this period, Rossetti

did many studies of Siddal, and probably because of his
affection for her. he encouraged Siddal to draw. too. He
was delighted by what he discovered: Siddal drew quite well
and seemed to have a natural talent for it. His regard for
her talent can be verified in his letters. especially those

to his sister Christina. in which talks of Siddal's "great

promise." 7

Christina wrote a poem about her brother and his model
called. "In An Artist's Studio." which describes the
relationship between the artist and his model:

One face looks out from all his canvases.

One selfsame figure sits or walks or leans:

We found her hidden just behind those screens,
That mirror gave back all her loveliness,
A queen in opal or ruby dress,

A nameless girl in freshest summer—greens.

A saint, an angel - every canvas means
the same one meaning. neither more nor less
He feeds upon her face by day and night.

And she with true kind eyes looks back on him,

7Marsh. 35.
11

Fair as the moon and joyful as the light:
Not wan with waiting,, not with sorrow dim;

Not as she is . but was when hope shone bright;

Not as she is, but as she fills his dream.

Working closely with Rossetti allowed Siddal to expand
her artistic ability, until she became quite good. By now,
Siddal was sitting only for him. Her likeness can be seen
in all of his works or studies completed at this time,
circa 1853. There is a sketch done by Rossetti that shows
Siddal's dedication to her work; it depicts her hunched
over her drawing board, trying intently to capture
Rossetti's likeness (Plate 3). She wanted very much to
become an artist; it seems she was not satisfied by only
being an artist's model.

Eventually. art became Siddal's sole pursuit. She did
a self—portrait (Plate 4) around this time. It is not an
overly flattering work, but it is probably a truthful
rendition of the way Siddal saw herself (those who knew her
said that her likeness by Millais for Ophelia looked the
most like her(Plate 30). Her first large art project, at
Rossetti's suggestion, was illustrations to accompany poems
by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. Rossetti had been working on
illustrations along a similar vein for quite some time. He
truly did believe in her talent. and he very genuinely
wanted to see her become an artist. However. their love for
each other was still not publicly known. so they were not

working together all of the time. Jan Marsh speculates that

Siddal was living with an aunt who lived very near to

Rossetti during this period. instead of with her family on
the other side of town. Therefore. they saw a great deal of
each other. but not openly. Rossetti still had to make the
required introductions (to his mother, primarily) before
they could be seen in public together. This follows the
Victorian rules which surrounded courtship. For the couples
of the middle class. especially, parental consent was
required. in order for a relationship to become serious.
Siddal's family was considered to be of a lower class
than Rossetti's. Siddal's father was an ironmonger who made
knives, while Rossetti's father. was a teacher, and hence.
considered to be a professional. This. rather than the
amount of money either man earned. was the most important
factor in making the match inappropriate. Siddal had one
characteristic typical of the upper class: she was what was
known as consumptive. or. as it is known today. sickly. She
was often tired and run—down. but for no discernible
reason. This type of malady was considered quite attractive
in women during the Victorian period. To be healthy was
considered base. while fragile health was a sign of a truly
feminine woman. This is evident in a painting done around
this time by an artist named Abraham Soloman called A
Qpptpps; (Plate 43). As Lynda Nead points out in her book.

Mythsupf Segpality, "the main narrative and pictorial

 

interest of the picture is the contrast between the frailty
and delicacy of the middle—class woman in the invalid
chair. and the robust health of the two working

13

women."8 This picture points out the differences between
the two classes, by emphasizing physical differences and
associating these differences with class standing. This
trait in Siddal is part of what attracted Rossetti to her.
He almost worshipped her fragile health. In fact,many of
the people who met her considered it to be one of her most
outstanding features.

111 health is one reason that Siddal became involved
with her benefactor, John Ruskin. He was genuinely
impressed with her artistic ability, but it seems that he
also could not resist someone in need. Siddal, now that she
had given up modeling, and because Rossetti was not yet
ready to marry her, needed some type of support. Rossetti
sought out Ruskin, who bought one of Siddal's paintings for
a generous sum. Ruskin then proposed to support Siddal with
the stipulations that she work only for him, and that he be
allowed to say where she should work, for the sake of her
health. Siddal agreed because she needed to be supported
and because she would be able to devote all of her time to
her art.

The place Ruskin chose for her to work was in Wales. He
was going to be there. and he considered the warmer sea air
to be good for her health. This did not seem to cause as
many problems for Rossetti as one might think. One would
think that the separation would have upset him, but he
seems to have taken it in stride. Marsh believes that

8Nead,30.

14

Rossetti's feelings for Siddal were waning around this time
anyway. That cannot be proved, of course, but she is not
mentioned a great deal in his letters to others from around
this time. It seems that Ruskin wanted to widen Siddal's
horizons, as well as to aid in her recuperation because he
offered to send her on an all—expense paid trip to Italy or
France. His trips, however, were not all pleasure trips,
since he expected her to live conservatively and to work on
her art. Siddal was upset by these offers, insisting that
she wanted to be paid only for completed artworks, but
Ruskin was finally able to convince her to take one hundred
and fifty pounds a year, which was "...a large sum of
money, and compared favorably with what Rossetti was
earning."

For the next few years, Siddal was occupied with
painting and with voyages Ruskin arranged for her. She did
quite a bit of painting during this time and created works,
such as The Ladies’ Lament (Plate 5), a watercolor, which
has been reproduced quite often. In this work we see a
group of women by the seashore, awaiting the return of
their men. The work is done in very bright colors, and with
very loose brush strokes. It seems that Siddal was trying
to convey emotion through her work, and less of a finely
painted romantic tale. She shows us the torment the women

are feeling, and how the constant waiting and wondering has

Marsh, 76.

15

taken its toll. The painting shows obvious references to
Rossetti's style, most specifically in the figure type. The
women have large eyes, long necks and long hair, which is
the way Rossetti's women often looked. They look especially

like the Madonna in Rossetti's Annunciation which is one of

 

his earliest works (Plate 6). He obviously had a strong
influence on her art. However, the women have a look of
sadness that Rossetti's figures generally do not have. All
of her works contain figure types similar to this. The
background in the painting is not like Rossetti's however,
since Rossetti rarely included a natural background.
Perhaps she did this painting while she was in Wales at the
seashore with Ruskin. That might explain the use of the
rocky seashore. Ruskin did numerous studies and paintings
of rocks; he seems to have been fascinated with their
natural formations. Perhaps Ruskin was beginning to have
some influence on her art, as well as Rossetti. Siddal and
Rossetti continued their engagement with no date of

marriage in sight. Rossetti was busy with his own work.

CHAPTER 3

THE OXFORD MURALS AND THE SECOND PRB

In 1857, Rossetti began a project, which because of
circumstances surrounding it, would greatly affect him
later. He began to work on a set of murals of the Arthurian
tales for the new Debating Hall at Oxford University (Plate
7).10 The original arrangement was that Rossetti would get
room and board for the six weeks of summer break. during
which he and others would complete the murals. Rossetti
tried to get some of his circle of friends from London to
accompany him, but was unsuccessful, and therefore,
recruited new friends. Among the group were Edward "Ned"
Burne-Jones, William "Topsy" Morris (Plate 28), Arthur
Hughes, Val Prinsep, Spencer Stanhope, and John Hungerford
Pollen. There is little doubt that Gabriel was the leader
and that the others treated him with much respect,
considering everything he said to be gospel. It seems that
a great deal of the gentlemen painter's time was occupied
with discussions concerning the beautiful female models who
were to sit for their paintings and where to find them. The
men, following Rossetti's lead, referred to these women as

"stunners.' One of the most noticeable "stunners" of the

Pre—Raphaelite circle was discovered at this time: her name

1Harsh. 118.

17

was Jane Burden (Plate 31).

As legend has it, Rossetti and Ned Jones were
attending a play when Rossetti spotted Burden and her
sister. He ran after her and asked her to sit for him. She
agreed. but then never showed up. Considering that she was
only eighteen, and probably thought Rossetti to be mad,
this was not unusual. However, Ned Jones saw her again in
the street, and he was successful in persuading her to come
and pose for the murals. 11She came this time and was
destined never to leave this group of artists.

She began sitting only for Rossetti. It seems that she
became quite enamored of him, and would, therefore. have
enjoyed the private sittings while modeling. She was aware
of his relationship with Siddal, but it seems she could not
control her feelings. This whole world of art and artists
probably seemed quite glamorous to her, as she was from a
poor background. Burden's father was a servant employed as
a stablehand. He had many mouths to feed, which means his
small salary would not have gone far. Burden was trained as
a servant; she was being reared to cook, sew, and clean so
that she could become a domestic servant one day. I am sure
she considered the life—style she was witnessing among the
artists, to be superior to her own and probably longed to
become a part of it.

In the fall, the murals were still not finished, and

1Harsh, 118.

18

the artists had to move out of the student residences, as
the students were returning for the academic year. The
group decided to continue working and took up residence in
Oxford. At about this same time, Rossetti was summoned by
Siddal to Matlock Spa, where she had been taken ill.12
Burden began to sit for some of the other artists in the
group. It seems that they, William Morris (Plate 37) in
particular, agreed with Rossetti's evaluation of Burden as
a stunner, because she remained employed. Burden's looks
were not what was conventionally thought of as beautiful at
that time. She had long, dark, wavy hair. a large nose, and
large lips. She also had very long, slender feet and hands,
at a time when small dainty feet and hands were considered
beautiful.

William Morris seems to have become quite fond of
Burden. He must have been aware of Burden's feelings for
Rossetti. but he pursued her, nonetheless. He painted a
picture of her at this time, one of the few he ever painted
since it seems his talents lay elsewhere. The painting is
called La Belle Iseult (Plate 8). Although the murals were
depicting the Arthurian legends, he chose to paint Burden
as the heroine of the legend of Tristan and Isolde. Perhaps
Morris saw himself and Burden as star-crossed lovers,
destined to be apart because of circumstances beyond their
control, as Tristan and Isolde were. It did not remain that
way very long after Rossetti left for by the end of the
12

Marsh, 121.

19

year, Burden and Morris were engaged, although it was not
officially announced until April 1858.13 A rumor circulated
at that time that Rossetti had encouraged Morris to marry
Burden. Perhaps he did this because he knew he was
committed to Siddal. Rossetti's commitment seems logical,
if not for the fact that in April 1858, Siddal and Rossetti
began a separation which lasted for two years.

1858 is also the year that another important woman
entered the Pre—Raphaelite circle, Fanny Cornforth (Plate
34). Cornforth was introduced, again by Rossetti, whom she
met at a fireworks display. She was different from the
other women in that she was engaged in a profession when
she met Rossetti— she was a prostitute. At this time, this
fact would have been considered quite shocking and would
have prevented the Pre-Raphaelites ever from associating
with her publicly (I am not so sure it would go over
especially well now, 130 years later). Hunt, who was very
religious and a notorious prude, would never have
considered having her sit for him. Rossetti saw nothing
wrong with it and created some of his best work with
Cornforth as the model. Regarding Roantti's work entitled
Bocca Baciata (Plate 9), Hunt "...complained of its 'gross
sensuality of a revolting kind." 14 But, Rossetti obviously
considered Cornforth a beautiful woman and wanted to use
her as a model, regardless of what people thought.
3Marsh, 130.
4Marsh, 158.

20

He actually became quite fond of her. The first thing
for which he used her as a model was a study for a picture
of a woman confronted by her lost love on the street. The
woman, by her dress and the shame she expresses, has
obviously become a prostitute. That work was never
finished, but some wonderful studies of it were created by

Rossetti. It was called Found (Plate 10).Rossetti also

 

painted women in distress in other works such as. Beata
Beatrix (Plate 24), and Perserpine (Plate 13). In Found
(Plate 10), which was never completed. we see a man coming

upon a fallen woman whom he had known before. The man is
shown coming to town to bring a calf to market and
discovering this woman. The woman is dressed in
prostitute's clothes and is obviously humiliated by her
situation and the man's discovery of it. In the studies.
the woman has a very pained look on her face. and the
viewer can see her shame. Fannie Cornforth posed for one of
the studies the first time she sat for Rossetti.

This subject of lost innocence and rehabilitation of
fallen or near—fallen women seems to have become very close
to the Pre-Raphaelite heart. Almost all of the artists
married a woman who was considered "beneath" them. They
seemed to have had an inordinate fascination with saving
these women and raising them socially. Perhaps this was

because of their love of noble tales and their heroes.

These women would not only be married to their husbands,
but they would also be indebted to them, thereby causing
the Victorian husband's dominant role to become even more
secure.

Hunt made an attempt to educate a lower—class woman in
the ways of the middle—class society, and thereby make her
marriageable. Her name was Annie Miller. Hunt became
acquainted with Miller when she sat for his painting, 1p;

Awakening Conscience (Plate 11).In Hunt's The Awakening

 

Conscience, the woman saves herself just before she finds

 

herself in a compromising situation just like Brown's woman
in Take Your Son, Sir! She is able to see that what she is
doing is wrong both to her conscience and society. Hunt
intended this work as a warning to young women. According
to the critic, John Ruskin, the newness and brightness of
the room are further indications of the woman's
questionable virtue. It seems that she has been given these
surroundings as a reward for her giving herself to the man.
We see that she has a look of sudden realization on her
face. as though she suddenly knows that what she and the
man are doing is wrong. But he does not realize it yet, if
ever. Hunt wanted to depict the woman as the strong one who
puts an end to the affair, because she is the one with the
most to lose. Coincidentally, Annie Miller, who posed for

this painting, was said to be on the verge of prostitution

22

when Hunt decided he wanted to marry her.

He decided that he had fallen in love with her and
wanted her for his wife. This was agreeable to Annie since
she came from a very poor background and was being given a
chance for a better life.

There is even some indication, from the direction Annie
was heading when she met the Pre-Raphaelites, that she may
have become a prostitute herself if she had not begun
sitting for paintings. In the end, the transformation of
Annie Miller did not work out in Hunt's favor. He
considered her not yet marriageable. and she became bored
with her preparation for polite society, so Hunt quit
paying for her board, and she was on her own. Later, she
married a nobleman and Hunt eventually married a woman
named Fanny Waugh, and later her sister Edith.

Jane Burden married William Morris on April 26, 1859.
Burden also received some training in how to act in polite
society before she married. This kind of training was often
undertaken by an aunt or friend of the groom's family, at
which time, the bride—to—be resided with the woman doing
the instructing. Burden and Morris appear to have had a
relatively happy marriage at least in the beginning. They
were to have their complications later. '

Rossetti and Siddal were eventually reunited. The
reunion was not a happy one, however, because Rossetti was

called to Siddal's "death bed." It was a common notion at

23

this time that a jilted woman would often become gravely
ill following a broken engagement, and the woman was
considered to have died of nothing more than a broken
heart. So, Siddal's becoming even more ill than usual
because of her estrangement from Rossetti would not have
surprised anyone. Rossetti and Siddal were married on April
23. 1860.They appear to have had a relatively happy
marriage in the beginning. Their marriage was always
marred, though, because Siddal had become addicted to
laudanum, an opium derivative. Siddal did some socializing
within the group of artists. but was plagued by her
addiction most of the time.

According to Marsh, Rossetti and Fanny Cornforth must
have become quite close because she says Cornforth was

lsCornforth married a

"shattered" by Rossetti's marriage.
man named Timothy Hughes on August 11, 1860 which was less
than three months after Rossetti's marriage. She and her
husband were probably never very close because they did not
live together for very long after their marriage. Cornforth
also continued to model for Rossetti after both of their
marriages. There is evidence that Rossetti and Cornforth
remained friends. They not only continued their
correspondence until Rossetti's death, she also remained
financially dependent upon Rossetti up until his death.
Clearly, he felt a duty to her long after he stopped

15

Marsh, 185.

24

using her as a model. Rossetti did his best work of
Cornforth around the mid 1860's, when he created such works
as Bocca Baciata and Fazio's Mistress (Plate 9). Both of
these paintings use deep rich colors and very lush
surroundings. They also have the figure of Fannie right in
the middle of the painting facing very boldly outward,
almost daring the viewer to take a good long look. These
works portray Cornforth in all her earthly sensuality.
Rossetti was obviously attracted to Cornforth, but it seems
that the attraction eventually subsided and gave way to a
deep and lasting friendship.

The group which formed to create the Debating Hall
Murals continued their association even though the first
project was never completed. They collaborated on the
decoration of the "Red House" (Plate 38) which was William
Morris' residence. The relationship took on a familial
character of collective home industries, which led finally
to creating the "firm," and the arts and crafts movement,
which stressed cottage industries and rustic design. The
house was decorated with murals. tapestries, and stained
glass by the artists. Rossetti, Morris, and Burne-Jones,
created most of the designs for these decorations. Siddal
also worked on the designs, while Burden and Georgiana
Burne-Jones did a great deal of the needlework on the

tapestries. Eventually, a company developed out of this

25

endeavor. It was run primarily by Morris, but Rossetti and
Burne—Jones were on the board and served as designers for
the business as well. The company's primary product was
tapestries and wall coverings, which Burden, her daughters,
and her sister helped to produce at one time or another. It
was called Morris and Company and stayed in business for
quite awhile and became quite successful.

The Morris's had three children (a son and two
daughters) the first of these was Jenny, who was born in
1861. This same year, Siddal gave birth to a stillborn baby
girl. Siddal was quite distraught over the loss of her
baby, but she did recover, somewhat. In 1861, Georgiana
Burne-Jones also had a baby, and Siddal and Burden made a
visit to see the child together. It appears that the women

developed as close a relationship as the men had.

26

CHAPTER 4

BREAKDOWNS WITHIN THE GROUP

As mentioned in the introduction to this paper. my
interest in to the Pre-Raphaelites began with the painting
of Ophelia by John Everett Millais. The event which changed
the focus of my paper from the artist and his work,
occurred when I learned about the model who sat for the
painting. This was, of course, Elizabeth Siddal, and I read

in a book by Leslie Parris called the Pre-Raphaelite Papers

 

that Siddal had died of an overdose of laudanum. an opium
16
derivative. Other references inferred that her death was a

suicide, which made the Ophelia even more prophetic. Since

 

then, however, I have learned of Siddal's addiction from
authors such as Marsh, and realized that her overdose of
laudanum did not have to be intentional. She died on

17Marsh mentions

February 11, 1862, when she was thirty—two.
that there was talk among the relatives of the PRB, that
Siddal had left a suicide note for Rossetti.

16Pre-Raphaelite Papers. Leslie Parris, Ed. London: Tate
Gallery, 1984 p. 180.

17Marsh, 219.

27

They say that Rossetti gave it to Ford Madox Brown to
read, and that he destroyed it, since suicide, at that
time, carried an unfathomable stigma. It was claimed by
Brown's granddaughter that the note asked Rossetti to take
care of Siddal's invalid brother, Harry. There is. of
course, no way of knowing whether there is any truth to
this family legend.

I agree with Marsh's opinion on Siddal's death, which
is that drugs were not administered with the care back then
as they are today, and it is not unlikely that Siddal
simply forgot how much of the drug she had taken. and took
another dose at night to help her fall asleep. I also
believe that it is obvious that Rossetti was quite
distraught by Siddal's death, even though they did not have
the happiest of marriages. Beata Beatrix was done after
his wife's death as a tribute to her (Plate 24). The title
tells us that the figure is supposed to be Beatrice from
Dante's Inferno, but it is also unmistakably the figure of
his wife. It is obvious that the woman is in some pain, but
her face also has a look of death about it. The symbols
around her, the bird with the halo and the poppy,
which is a symbol of Siddal's addiction, are explained by
Andrea Rose in her book The Pre-Raphaelites. In it she

quotes from Rossetti's own explanation of the painting:

28

The picture illustrates the 'Vita Nuova,‘

embodying symbolically the death of Beatrice

as treated in that work. The picture is not

intended at all to represent death, but to render

it under the semblance of a trance. in which

Beatrice, seated at a balcony overlooking the

city. is suddenly rapt from Earth to Heaven.

.. the figures of Dante and Love passing

through the street and gazing ominously on

one another, conscious of the event; while

the bird. a messenger of death, drops the

poppy between the hands of Beatrice.

Therefore. the poppy and the bird both symbolize death, and
Beatrice herself symbolizes a passing into death from life.
Probably the most famous PRB legend is the one of Rossetti
being so overtaken with grief at Siddal's funeral that he
placed a manuscript of poetry into her casket as she was
being buried. In 1868 realizing the seriousness of his act,
Rossetti was persuaded to exhume the casket and remove the
manuscript. By this time, Rossetti had fallen in love, once
again, and was dedicating a book of poetry to his new love.
Jane Burden Morris.

In 1866, Burden and William Morris sold "Red House"
which was in Kent. and moved to a house on Queen's Square
in London, so that Morris could be closer to his work. This
is about the time that Rossetti began to draw Burden again.
It seems that old feelings between them were rekindled. The
oddest thing about this affair is Morris' part in it. As I
mentioned earlier, Morris idolized Rossetti and enjoyed
being around him, so perhaps he wanted them all to spend

18Rose,Andrea. The Pre-Raphaelites. OxfordzPhaidon Press,
1981 p 39.

 

29

time together or, perhaps, he was not a jealous man. For
whatever reason, Rossetti and Morris rented a country home
together called Kelmscott Manor (Plate 39), which Morris
eventually bought. Morris probably bought it for his wife,
who still had periodic health problems and liked to go to
the country for rest. As a result, Rossetti, Burden, and
her children began to spend a great deal of time together
there, without Morris. He was spending his time in London
on business and with the Burne-Jones'.

Edward Burne—Jones was himself having an affair at the

19His

time with a young Greek woman named Maria Zambaco.
wife, Georgie, knew of the affair and decided to wait it
out, convinced it would end. Eventually. it did. Morris was
there while the affair was going on to comfort Georgie
Burne-Jones, whom he greatly admired, and told her that he
disapproved of Ned's affair with Maria. It seems that
Georgie Burne—Jones and William Morris had a very strong
and loyal friendship, but there is no evidence that it was
anything more than a good friendship. So.
because of Georgie Burne-Jones' tolerance, the Burne—Jones
marriage lasted, and appears to have been a happy and
productive one. This probably owes a great deal to the fact
that divorce was almost unheard of in those days. That is
the most likely reason, as well. for the survival of the
Morris' marriage.

19 Marsh, 293.

30

Burden and Morris were separated a great deal of the
time and Burden was spending this time with Rossetti. but
she did eventually go back to living with Morris.

I think Burden and Rossetti enjoyed the notion that
they were tragic lovers in the historic sense, like Tristan
and Isolde or Romeo and Juliet. They were destined to stay
apart for reasons beyond their control. Burden probably
enjoyed the attention Rossetti was paying to her as well.
He used her as a model for all of his paintings and as an
inspiration for all of his poetry, at this time. He took a
woman who had grown—up being considered homely and turned
her into an ideal of beauty. It is easy to understand what
attracted Burden to Rossetti. who created such works as

Perserpipg (Plate 13) and Astarte Syriaca (Plate 14) as

 

well as numerous studies and photographs of her. Rossetti
also did another work which had meaning in his personal
life. as well as a literary meaning. In the painting
Eergeppipfl. he uses Burden as a model for Persephone, who
is forced because she is married to Pluto the god of the
underworld. to spend only half of the year above ground. At
the time this painting was done, Burden was spending the
summers with Rossetti and the winters with William Morris.
her husband. Therefore, Rossetti equated Burden's life with
that of Persephone. In the painting, it is somewhat

difficult to tell that the woman is in distress. unless one

is familiar with the tale of Persephone.

31

These particular paintings referred to Rossetti and
Burden's situation, and Rossetti's feeling that Burden was
trapped with Morris. Rossetti felt that outside forces were
conspiring against the lovers and keeping them apart, much
like the fated lovers in his paintings.

Rossetti and Burden continued to see each other on a
part time basis until 1875. when their relationship ended,
for the most part, because Burden seems to have tired of
Rossetti and his addiction to chloral hydrate. Burden never
posed for Rossetti after this time, although her likeness
continued to appear in many of his works. He used studies
he had done during their time together at Kelmscott Manor.
Rossetti was plagued by fits of paranoia during his later
life that were sometimes so bad he had to seek professional
help. It seems that his separation from Burden triggered
one of these episodes, and he had to be sent away to
recover; he thought he might not be able to write or paint
again. A lack of understanding about mental illness
prevailed at this time, and more often than not, people
were confined and forgotten. So, with less understanding
of mental illness than there is today, Rossetti's exact
ailment is not available to us. He was also addicted to
chloral hydrate which he used to help him fall asleep and

he became increasingly dependent on the drug which

probably contributed a great deal to his death. Rossetti
died in 1882, and after his death, the letters he had
received from

Burden during the height of their romance were burned,
according to his orders and at the request of Burden who

died in 1914 leaving few letters herself.

33

CHAPTER 5

WHAT THESE WOMEN MEANT TO THE PRB

Other women were models for the PRB. or were involved
with them, such as Effie Millais and Emma Brown, but they
are not included in detail in this paper because they
modeled very rarely, or because little is known about them.
Effie Millais was however, married to John Ruskin. When
Ruskin commissioned Millais to paint his portrait, Millais
traveled with the Ruskins and Millais and Effie Ruskin fell
in love (Plate 29). Divorce was almost unheard of at this
time, but Effie received one because her marriage to Ruskin
had never been consummated.

Although these women did not create the art, their
presence allowed the art to happen. They supplied the raw
material and inspiration that created the masterpieces.

As I discussed at the beginning of this paper, the
Victorian period consisted of many social rules. especially
for the middle-class, and most especially for middle-class
women. The women were expected to be hard-working,
virtuous, and loyal to their husbands and family. The
ideals of society helped women understand what they were

expected to be. Typically, the ideal woman was small,

34

with tiny hands and feet, and a very sweet-looking face
with small features and roses in her cheeks; she was pretty
but not so pretty as to be a threat to either men or women.
This woman can be found everywhere in Victorian literature
and art. As Andrea Rose points out in her book The Pre-

Raphaelites, this type of woman was known in one form as

 

the "Keepsake Woman" whose image "during the early
Victorian period, was circulated in folio volumes known as
'The Keepsakes' or 'Books of Beauty,‘ roughly equivalent to
today's women's magazines. They dwelt obsessively on
feminine beauty, promoting a Barbara Cartland [ a modern
day romance novelist] ideal." This type of woman was was
depicted everywhere, to exemplify what the middle-class
woman was supposed to look like. She shows up in
periodicals such as "The Days Doings." and "Echos from the
Clubs" (Plates 40-42). In these drawings the women are
small and frail looking. Their hair is very carefully and
ornately done, and their clothes are prettily decorated
with lace and ruffles. They are very different from the
statuesque, long haired. and very simply dressed women of
the Pre-Raphaelite's paintings.

The Victorian woman, once married, was expected
to devote herself to her husband and her family, in that
order. She was there to serve everyone else, and was

expected to never consider her own needs until everyone

35

else's needs had been met. The author, Bram Dijkstra.
classifies this type of woman as the "household nun." He
means that she is cloistered in the household and expected
to devote her life to her husband, her children, and her
home. Dijkstra also comments on how middle-class women were
ousted from normal society and restricted to the confines

of their homes. As he says in his book The Idols of

 

Perversity, "the expulsion of the middle— class woman from

 

participation in practical life had become fact; woman had
never been placed on a more lofty pedestal. An apparently
insuperable plateau had been reached in her canonization as
a priestess of virtuous inanity." 20

This was the type of woman whom the members of the PRB
expected and were expected to marry. For this reason, women
of a lower social class, such as Siddal, Burden. or Annie
Miller had to be schooled in the ways of middle-class
marriage. They were from the servant class and had been
prepared by their families, to stay in that cast. However,
their marriages to men of a higher class put them in a
position they were not at all prepared to face. They were
less sure of the rules and had to be taught them, but these
rules were not ingrained in them. Georgina Burns-Jones
(Plate 33) was an exception. She had grown up in a middle-

class home and knew how a good and devoted wife should act.

This phenomenon of taking a lower-class woman and marrying

Dijkstra, 4.

36

her was not common practice, and as Andrea Callen points

out in her book, Women in the Arts and Crafts Movement:

The educating and 'raising' of working-

class women, by such men as Morris and Rossetti,

had strongly paternalistic overtones. and

although potentially these women were more free

from the moral restrictions of the period than

their middle-class sisters, they were in fact

being encouraged to abandqflltheir own culture for

a bohemian no—man's—land.

The PRB were also allowed more freedom to associate
with women of questionable virtue. Everyone knew that
Fannie Cornforth was a prostitute, and some people did not
approve of Rossetti's relationship with her, but he was not
ostracized from society as she was. Although she was not a
prostitute for very many years. the stigma of her former
profession stayed with her whole life. In fact, Andrea Rose
says in her book, The Pre-Raphaelites, that the PRB brought
the prostitute to the level in society of "the anti-

22
heroine" through their (particularly Rossetti's) use of
this image as a model.

All of these women represented something to the PRB
that inspired their art and allowed them to create their
works. All of the models they used were attractive women,

or "stunners.' as they were known to the men, and they

allowed the men to faithfully represent nature, and still

21Callen,Anthea. Women Artists of the Arts and Crafts

 

Movement. New YorkzPantheon Books, 1979 p 105.
22Rose. 10.

37

create a beautiful piece of art. These artists were
responsible for presenting such women as an ideal to the
public. The typical definition of beauty at

this time, as I mentioned earlier, was a small, sweet—
looking girl, while the PRB painted striking, often
different—looking women. They caused the non—conventional
looks of women such as Siddal and Burden to become a sought—
after style.

The PRB used these women as many different
representations in their paintings: women as depictions of
strength and reason, women as temptresses, and women in
distress. There were, of course, many different paintings
done on many different themes by these artists, but it
seems that quite a few of their works fit into these
categories.

In the category of women as strength and reason are
the following: John Everett Millais' The Order of Release

and The Huguenot, Ford Madox Brown's Take Your Son, Sir!

 

 

and The Last of England, Holman Hunt's The Awakening

 

 

Conscience, and Elizabeth Siddal's The Ladies Lament. In

 

 

both of the works by Millais. the women are very strong

figures. Millais' Order of Release,(Plate 15) shows a

 

husband being returned to his wife after she has secured
his release from prison. which he was in because he took

part in the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. It is a very stark

38

painting in which the figures are the primary emphasis.
They are painted against a very dark background, which
allows the people and the bright clothing they wear to be
even more startling. The wife embodie strength and comfort
for both the man and the child: even the dog looks to her
for guidance. She is the one who is given the order of
release by the officer and who was. and still is.

entrusted with the care of the family while her husband
fights, and eventually recovers from war. This is also one
of the few paintings in which the model is quite obviously
Millais'

wife, Effie Millais, who sat for very few of his paintings.
Another of Millais' paintings which contains a strong

female figure is The Huguenot (Plate 16). It is a brightly

 

colored painting, which has a male and a female figure

embracing against a lush background of green. The couple is
standing next to a stone wall, while she tries to convince
him to wear the armband that would prevent him from having

to go to war. In The Huguenot (which is, incidentally.

 

owned by the Detroit Institute of Arts) the woman is trying
to convince her love not to go to war. but to stay with
her. It seems that she is having little success, and that
he will go anyway. Both of these women are trying to hold
their world together against the ravages of war which
forces them to be strong and to show that they know that

the family is the most important element of life, even if

39

the men do not. They are doing what they were reared to do
be strong and devoted for the sake of their families. This
is also true of the wife in Brown's The Last of England
(Plate 17). In this painting, a man and woman are shown
aboard a ship that is heading to Australia. The sky is grey
and cold, and the viewer can see by the looks on the faces
of the couple, that they are not happy about having to
leave England to find work. This painting was done at a
time when many people in Britain were being forced, because
of lack of employment opportunities, to leave England for
Australia or the United States. In fact, Thomas Woolner, an
original member of the PRB, was forced to go to Australia
for just that reason. It is obvious by the looks on their
faces that they are doing what they feel they must do. He
must find work and she must stick by his side. They are
going to face life in a new land, and the wife is the bond
that holds the family together. This is shown by the woman
holding the man's hand and the child's hand at the same
time. Brown's wife, Emma, sat for this work.

Emma Brown is also the model for a controversial work
by Brown called Take Your Son, Sir! (Plate 18). This work
was never completed, but it still has a strong clear
message. nonetheless. The painting was only finished on the
top, but this is where one can see the hidden message of

the work. In the painting, a woman is holding a child out

40

to a man who can only be seen in a mirror behind her head.
The mirror, a round one similar to the one seen in Jan Van
Eyck's Arnolfini Wedding Portrait (Plate 19), frames the
woman's head like a halo. The mirror is also where the
viewer can see the man to whom the woman is speaking. This
is not easily noticed, and at first glance, the painting
looks like a Madonna and child. From the title, it is
obvious that the man has gotten the woman pregnant and then
left her and his responsibilities. The woman has had to
live with the stigma of having an illegitimate child and is
just trying to get the man to accept his responsibility,
too.

The women who succumb to the temptation Hunt and others
warned against fit into the category of "woman as

temptress. These are the women with whom the artists have
a love/hate relationship. The artists were able to act out
their fantasies by painting women they might be attracted
to sexually in provocative settings or situations, and by
remaining distant enough to avoid temptation. It seems that

women in Victorian art were often categorized. As Susan

Casteras points out in her book, Images of Victorian

 

Womanhood in English Art: "...the Victorian female was

 

41

often lost or embedded in a superstructure of categories
and prejudices, telescoped and often trivialized into
restrictive sentimental stereotypes,"23thereby forcing the
woman to be one extreme or the other.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti seems to have concentrated a
lot of his artistic effort in painting the temptress. All
of his female subjects have similar features and hair. They
have long, wavy hair, large pouty lips, long prominent
necks. and enormous staring eyes which seem to lock onto
the viewer's. Two of his most famous "temptress" paintings

are Fazio's Mistress (Plate 12) and The Blue Bower (Plate

 

 

20). Both of these paintings were considered quite bold for
many reasons. The subjects were thought to be shocking as
well as the straightforward style in which they were done.
The model. Fannie Cornforth sat for both of these
paintings. Perhaps her former profession was some
inspiration for Rossetti. She is shown staring out at the
audience, and does not appear to be the least bit ashamed
of her situation. The Victorian viewer would have been
shocked by her lack of remorse for her situation. Casteras
proposes that:
...Rossetti's women ultimately seem to

qualify more as tantalizing cult objects and

as devotional icons than as courtship images

or anything else, fusing the enchantress

simultaneously into a very private metaphor for

the artist (who know [sic] and loved many of the

23Casteras,Susan. Images of Victorian Womanhood in

English Art. London and Toronto: Associated University
Press, 1987 p 177.

 

42

women he painted) am? a public, fantasy of

F . . . 4

.eminine sexuality.

This seems to be true of Rossetti more than of any of
the other Pre-Raphaelites because he seems to have adhered
to his own ideas about his art with consistency. Not that
the other Pre—Raphaelites did not create paintings of the
temptress as well. Holman Hunt uses the temptress in his

work The Hireling Shepherd (Plate 21), where the presence

 

of the woman causes the man to forget his work and his
duty. The painting is done in wonderful bright colors, and
Hunt has depicted a summer day in all its glory. But, the
beautiful surroundings cannot prevent the chaos that ensues
when work is neglected. Hunt's paintings usually carry a
message. and the message usually amounts to: ignore your
duties, and nothing but evil can come of it. The shepherd
is paying too much attention to the woman, and his flock
has started to run away without his realizing it. The woman
has tempted him away from his work, and without her
presence. and the shepherd's neglect, the sheep would not
have run into the field.

The next painting, Apple Blossoms (Plate 22),is

unusual in that one might not expect John Everett Millais

24
Castras, 167.

43

to create such a subtly erotic scene. As is typical of
Millais however, the setting and clothing of the girls are
in beautiful colors, and the trees are rendered in great
detail. The wall and orchard, are similar to a wall and
orchard that appear in another of his works called Waiting
(Plate 23). Apple Blossoms shows a group of very beautiful
adolescent girls having a picnic in an apple orchard. On
the surface, this may not seem so odd; however, the way the
girls are depicted and the way the girl lying on the
ground stares so intently at the viewer makes the painting
seem less innocent then it appears at first glance. It is a
disturbing image for this reason, but it is also very
powerful.

Millais is known more for his women of strength or for
his women who fit into the category of women in distress.
then for painting the temptress. His most famous woman in
distress has to be his painting of Ophelia (Plate 2), for
which Elizabeth Siddal Rossetti was the model. As I
mentioned earlier, Ophelia is driven mad by Hamlets's
rejection of her. and Millais portrays this so skillfully
in his painting, that Ophelia's mental state is easily
recognizable. It is ironic how this painting seems to echo

Elizabeth Siddal's life, and her possible suicide.

44

CONCLUSION

At first, the public was not willing to accept these
artists and their work; it took time and the approval of
critics, such as John Ruskin. for Pre~Raphaelitism to be
recognized as a legitimate art movement. The public was
weary, as well, of this new style of beauty the PRB
presented them with. These women were the very ones they
were used to considering unfortunate instead of beautiful.
As Jan Marsh points out in her book, Pre-Raphaelite Women:
"It is thus one of the remarkable achievements of the Free
Raphaelite painters that they were able to alter and
enlarge Victorian definitions of beauty, and create a 'look
' that has remained popular with painters and public for so
long." 25The PRB were able, through their art, to create a
new ideal woman.

The focus of this paper is the women behind the
paintings. They were not portraits of the women who sat for
them, but the women provided some inspiration as the
embodiment of the mens' ideas. But, how realistic were
these ideas, or ideals? It seems that the Pre—Raphaelite
painters were romantics, and sometimes their romanticism
was not separate from real life. Rossetti, Hunt, Morris,

and Millais all saw themselves as white knights ready to

25Rose, 26.

45

rescue the lady in distress. They all chose to marry women
who needed to be rescued in some fashion. This probably
added to the woman's attraction; had the women been readily
attainable, they may not have been pursued.

The women appeared in many different paintings of the
PRB. Some more often than others, but they were always an
integral part of the painting. Their presence was often the
focus of a painting and an inspiration to the artist.
Rossetti in particular, was greatly influenced by his
models, and often redid works depending upon who was
sitting for him. The women are an intriguing part of the
paintings; they are the portraits within the painting.

These women were not merely the models of the Pre-

Raphaelites, however; they were real people with real lives
and interests. Many of the women were very talented artists
in their own right: Elizabeth Siddal was a painter. Jane
Burden Morris did needlework, Maria Zambaco was a painter
and a medallist. and Georgiana Burne-Jones painted although
she gave it up early on when it interfered with the care of
her family. That would be what she was supposed to do;
Georgie Burne-Jones was supposed to put her family above
all else, and, most especially above her own pursuits.

The women were an inspiration to the men in their
work. For example, Rossetti's triangle with Burden and

Morris probably inspired him to paint Perserpine, and

46

Millais feelings for Effie Ruskin probably lead him to see
her as the perfect model for the strong. brave woman in Thp

pro

r of Releggp; The women were not instigators in the

 

paintings, but their support and presence was a source of
inspiration for the artists.

The men of the PRB were able to see beauty outside the
realm of traditional ideals. They were able to make these
traditionally plain women into an ideal of beauty. They
accomplished this through their talents and their beliefs
that the women they were depicting were beautiful, even
when society considered them unattractive. This
determination and courage is exemplified through their
earlier actions with the Royal Academy. The PRB was
obviously willing to take chances, to stand behind what
they believed in and to deviate.

It seems that the Pre—Raphaelites painted
representations of women who were larger than life to
accompany their subjects. The women they used as models
were simply models for the figures in the artwork: they did
not intend to have them represent real life. But. there is
no doubt that they felt quite strongly for some of these
women and that they inspired the artist in his work. I do
not think that most of the painters, with the exception of
Rossetti, wanted their wives to be the larger—than-life

figures in the paintings. The Pre-Raphaelites seem to have

47

been able to distinguish between the canvas and reality.

Although the women did not create the art, their
presence allowed the art to happen. The women were
essential to the men in the very basic sense that they kept
the men fed and clothed, and took care of their children.
The women allowed the men to concentrate on their art
without having to worry about the everyday chores of
living. They also encouraged the men to pursue their art.
Georgina Burne-Jones for example. even turned part of her
small home into a studio so her husband could work.

I believe the Christina Rossetti summed up the
relationship between the Pre—Raphaelite artists and their
models best when she said in her poem. "In An Artist's

Studio":

"Not as she is, but was when hope shone bright;

Not as she is, but as she fills his dream."

48

 

.__..

Sketch for Twelfth Night, 1850.

3

Plate 1 - Walter Deverell

 

lia, 1852.

 

e

Plate 2 - John Everett Millais, %

49

           

A /J’.’),

l
I
ll

          

   
   

has... 6......

.&r 1....-

Sketch of Elizabeth

Plate 3 - Dante Gabriel Rossetti,

1853

Siddal,

50

 

 

 

 

Plate 4 — Elizabeth Siddal, Self-Portrait, 1853-4.

51

 

Plate 5 - Elizabeth Siddal, The Ladies' 'Lament, 1856.

52

2%

3

... .W

 

ms

Plate 6 - Dante Gabriel Rossetti;

'The‘Annunciation,

1850

53

4*" 752-": "

,gv. i6
111111111111
“EWIMH: [j
:zfihkili‘flll
_-- infirm

. - E “1|, Infill} '. u "IE1 m 13:13"- u mg
.1 It If ‘ if I” F.” ‘1‘

_III- (I I '1 ; ... ‘ ”_’x..|1ll__ 1"- "3H
. HWLHwa’ I '
'.’ ;..lr"..l-

 

Plate 7 - The Oxford Debating Hall {now library).

54

\\i.

I. r... (Trillikr

 

 

 

 

La Belle Iseult, 1858.

Morris,

Plate 8 — William

55

 

Plate 9 - Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Bocca Baciata, 1859.

.r‘flifidfl “HWY/fl?

.% .///.I) ..rrflflrfliflfrtwcl} .
It" .

é. Iraqi; ofl/éP/Ii... .
i T

i
b.

 

Found,

- Dante Gabriel Rossetti,

Plate 10

1854-81.

57

 

Plate 11 - William HolmanHunt, The Awakening Conscience, 1853.

 

58

 

 

Plate 12 - Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Fazio's Mistress,
1863.

59

 

Plate 13- Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Perserpine,
1873-7.

60

ME-
.. Adj-Cg .

U<:;

yr
1.
,
>:

In"

.

 

,Plate 14- Dante Gabriel Rossetti,
1877.

61

Astarte Syriaca,

 

1852-3.

8

illais, The Order of Release

John Everett M

Plate 15 -

 

62

 

Plate 16‘ '- John Everett

63

 

Plate 17 - Ford Madox Brown, The Last of England, 1855.

64

 

Plate 18 - Ford Madox Brown, Take Your Son, Sirl, 1851-7.

65

if 11.‘ .
ling. l
4’ 1e

 

Plate 19 - Jan Van Eyck, Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, 1434.

 

66

 

The Blue Bower, 1865

Plate 20 - Dante Gabrial Rossetti,

67

1%,}?
I! ‘ ‘",=.
I’I'“

u

4"?

r

($(}\‘, ..

, ~41
'l

§P€§¥133 is?

I . ' .1

r . ti
.. at 1%. .. > .
' éwfiflémafitafiah

lg?

t
'i
”3::

 

4
1:2.

Plate 21 - William Holman Hunt, The Hireling Shepard, 1851.

 

68

 

 

. -' | ,~
,fimfik 13‘! ~.‘~ 5‘ .
Sssfisestrsvmtr¢~ “

 

 

 

Plate 22 - John Everett Millais, Apple Blossoms, 1856-8.

69

 

 

Plate 23 — John Everett Millais, Waiting, 1854.

70

        
   
 
 
 
   

I .. - '-'. ;' 1'; I ?""‘"W‘l"i1'l?f" ‘
. , v’r.')1’E\».‘;m.uv-v ,I!‘ 1' gfigfififfi,

' J. 4...; . ‘ “l

'1‘ ‘~ ' ’1" "I :5 P" :33 M?” ‘

2 ' _ .I’U‘ ‘43

  

   
 

 
     

1
'4 :M’m,’

( 1“ 1"! A,

 

‘fi

:4

          
 

  

$532" 3w

1:!

  
 

 

r
I

  

  
 
  
    
 

"r'; "3:1";
if Vi'f‘sgfilmff. £4
‘ ‘: i."

I:

I .1
1:, . '. .
”0‘! J
{um ' .”-'

      
    
     
  
  
 

    

  

.‘r |.
94-. y “hi
. , . - W23“.
.4. , : salsa
"stifled! ~ as
9%.! Tina-{3“ . ' -—. r
‘ii:fi“""“itx‘F-rr“ -' "
.4 n 2”,.“ ~ 1,1253; ...5'11
er" *1 ‘ne

         
     

it
a

:2; . z
'u‘u'vkEr

 

.‘Gv

 

Plate 24 — Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Beata Beatrix,
c.1864-70.

71

 

    

 
   
 
 
 

   
 
   

   

.l ' ‘ ‘ I

o. . '5 . I: Q “~ _
‘J-‘IJ.’ | l",fg. '93:, ’

.. * 3‘: ..-i..' .‘Vf‘gi'iikrlsgg -; -
.1" €3.35: ‘ 1a.”,1fhl‘ lga . .

.3 ~ _. . ‘\'o. LW‘ . fl
"E of” ! .’V'm ‘ a. '
.fi. ' ‘

 

 

 

Plate 25 -

 

' \i‘ f. :.
I
:-

ib/L'lt'lrhl éhnr ‘1 . -.. A\ . . “‘1‘."

.1 ..--_ ' .' " ' /’ 5".” ‘ I.
‘ 0 - . ’ ’ ‘. .
’Io {Afr/:7} :7! G- c/Il’i if"; as! ’,AM/2:(MJ .

 

 

 

Plate 26 - Willaim Holman Hunt, John Everett Millais, 1853.

72

 

iam Holman Hunt,

Will

1 Rossetti,

1a

Dante Gabr'
1855.

Plate 27

73

-l 4
I‘ 'A.)-\\.
:28";

 

Plate 28 - Edward Burne—Jones and William Morris, 1874.

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plate 29 - John Everett Millais, John Ruskin, 1854.

75

 

Plate 30 - John Everett Millais, Sketch‘of Elizabeth Siddal
for QRheligfi 1852

 

Rossetti, Sketch of
Jane Burden, 1858.

 

Plate 32 - Dante Gabriel Rossetti,
' Sketch of Emma Brown, 1853}

76

Plate 31 - Dante Gabrieluansst*"

 

Plate 33 - Edward Burne-Jones, Georgina Burne-Jonesrand
her children, c.1870.

 

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plate 34 - Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Fannie
Cornforth, 1874.

78

 

 
  

)~.

     

wk-
3 an

   
 

' A“.

u . V.- >

u" h“ ‘ ‘ .' ' ”I , \.‘ . ‘ ‘

i. w h ":3'3 " " . ' . . -\ ‘ ng- $3,.
I '1 v‘ ‘ r

33$

..
axuzg'u.‘

  
 

   
  

 
    

“2‘.“
$=~axnvg

25"": ,.

 

.. Jar?

   
    
  

  
 

 

‘ ‘53-! "if 1'}

3773§§3§fl§§§§f

'-‘“3"-&3§‘rmii=¢
i" ’ti-‘i'

  
  

    
    

 

 

 

Plate 35 - Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Annie
Miller, 1860.

79

 

 

fl 7
1:13... '-

 

 

0

Plate 36 - John Everett Millais,

80

Effie Ruskin, 1853.

'I-

7 r

Eng.“

 

rfifij 9’11“!“ 1}«.. 38" es.- . 1)“ .

Plate 37 - The Burne-Jones and Morris Families, 1874.

81

353;

1 11¢an .7 ‘ .

"any“: 2'
x95 5

~ ‘£§Efi
$3.4 " W

 

Plate 39 - Kelmscott Manor

82

 

Plate 40 - 'The Husband's Friend." Wood Engraving,
"echos from the Clubs," February 5, 1868.

 

  

{9%.«2» - - ‘ i' 4,-
I

fl

 

Plate 41 - "Of course Mr. Trottles was too busy in the
city to take Mrs. Trottles to the Derby. How poor
neglected Mrs. Trottles spent the weary hours during

her husband's absence." Wood Engraving, "The Days Doings,“

Ma 27 1871.
Y , 83

» ~ admin-mull

( J" T» 'rfiréfi

‘ We,
r J?*-: 'an

Wfiyfi ‘ .

, 11:... ,

P ‘~
7 ”"nn '
- " 7 'T- 515%.:
*7" . “ a". 411i

-\
v

v 07:

A

xx“ \\ V ,. ‘4‘ ,
. . 'yzfifikfli‘gw I g

 

old story with its usual end -

Plate 42 — "An old,
As told so often in the Divorce Court." Wood engraving,
1871.

"The Days Doings," July 29,

84

 

Plate 43 - A Contrast, Abraham Soloman, 1855.

85

Bibliography

Allen.Virginia M. The Femme Fatale: A study of the early
development of the concept in Mid—Nineteenth Century poetry
andgpainting. Diss. Boston U., 1981. Ann ArborzUMI.

 

 

 

 

Angeli, Helen (Rossetti). Pre:3aphaeTitg_Twilight; The story
of Charles Augustus Howell. London: Richards Press. 1954.

 

 

Bate. Percy H-__T_he_-E_ng1.i.§h..Erejgphaeliministers.£119.13
Associates and Successors. 1901. London: George Bell and
Sons, 1972.

 

Beers. Henry Augustin. A History of English Romanticism in
the Nineteenth Century; New York: H.Holt and Co., 1901.

 

 

Bickley, Francis. The_gge:flaphaelite Comedy. New York: H.Holt
and Co., n.d.

 

Birmingham England Museum and Art Gallery. The Pre—
Raphaelites and their CirchL N.p.:n.p.. 1965.

 

Callen, Anthea. figmen Artists of the Arts and Crafts Movement
1870-1914. New York:Pantheon Books. 1979.

 

 

Cary,Elisabeth Luther. The Rossettis: Dante Gabriel and
Christina. New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1900.

 

 

 

Casteras.Susan. Tmages of Victorian Womanhood in English Art.

 

London and TorontozAssociated University Press, 1987.

Christian.John. Bregfiaphaelite§_at Oxford. Oxford: Ashmolean
Museum, 1974.

 

 

Daly, Gay. Pre—Raphaelites in Love. New Yorszicknor &
Fields, 1989.

 

Delaware Art Center. The Samuel and Mary_RTBancroft English
Pre—Raphaelite Collection. N.p.:n.p.. 1938.

 

 

 

Dijkstra,Bram. Tgpls of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine
Evil in Fin—de-siecle Culture; New York and Oxford:
University Press. 1986.

 

86

Dunn.Henry Treffry. Resellestiqn§_9£"9en£em§abrie1 Rossetti
and his circle. London: E. Mathews. 1904; New York: AMS
Press. 1971.

 

Elzea. Rowland- The_Pre:Raphaelite-Eramifi4§:igiéi
Wilmington: Delaware Art Museum. 1976.

Fleming. 6 . H. Rossetti- ..and_ the_-_PI‘.e-_Raphasl i._t_s___B_t_Q_t_heI:h00.d-_
London: Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd.. 1967.

-------- - Thai_§efsr Shall Meet Again;_Rossettii_Miileis.
figptT London: Michael Joseph. 1971.

Fredeman. William Evan. PreraphaeliiismiiAiBibliqgritigel
Stpdy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1965.

Ford. Ford Madox. Memories and_TmpressionsL New York and
London: Harper & Brothers. 1911.

-------- . Ibe_Prs:Raphaelitewfirgthsrhpggi_a_§ritipal
MggggraphT London: Duckworth; New York: E.P. Dutton. 1907.
Gaunt, William. The_Pre—Raphaelite TragedyT New York:
Harcourt Brace and Co., 1942.

 

 

Grieve. Alaster Ian- The Ari.9iiDanie_§abrislmfigssstiii
Norwich: Real World Publishers. 1976.

Hadfield. John. Evggy}Eic§ugg_Tells a Story, New York and
LondonzFacts on File Publishing. 1985.

 

Hamilton. Martin. Prg:Raphaelite Paintings and Graphics.
London: Academy Editions. 1970.

 

Hilton,T1mothy. The Pre-Raphaelites. New York and Toronto:
Oxford University Press, 1970.

 

Holman—Hunt. Diana. My figapdjather, his wives and loves; New
York: Norton, 1969.

 

Holman-Hunt. William. Pge:§aphaelitism and the Pre—Raphaelite
Brggherhood. London: Macmillan and Co., 1905.

 

 

———————— . The Story of the painting of the pictures on thg
walls and the decorations on the ceTTingmggwgh§_glg_9ebggjng
Hall snowflthe Library) in the years 185139; Oxford:
University Press, 1906.

 

------- . Aifite:8apbaeiitsiirian§biniilheisgrrespgndensei9t
WiTTTgm Holmag:flunt and Lucas TuppggT Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Research Press. 1986.

 

Ironside. Robin. Prg:fiaphaeTTte_Paipt rs; London: Phaidon
Publishers, 1948.

Lavard.George SomeS- Isnny§9n_and his BreiRaphasliis
Illustrators. London: E.Stock. 1984.

 

Lowe Art Museum. InsiBevqiiigf_ibe_£:e:Baphaelitesi Coral
Gables.1972.

Manchester England Art Gallery. ng:RaphaeTTte PaigtTngs;
1974.

Marsh. Jan. “Ihe_Fre:Baphaslite-Sisterhood- London.

Melbourne, and New Yorszuartet Books. 1985.

------- . Rte-Raphaelite-meeni_imagesmgiiieminintxi New
Yorkzflarmony Books, 1987.

National Gallery of Victoria. The_Pre:Raphaglitegflandutheig
£12912; Melborne: n.p.. 1978.

Nead. Lynda. Myths_9£_sexua1ityL_Reprsssntati9n$i9:-W9meamin
Victorian Britian. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1988.

Nicoll,John. The _Pr_e_j_Raph_aeTfliteis,.w London: Studio Vista.
1970.

Nochlin. Linda- Realism andiTradition_in_Art;i1§4§:1990i
H.W. Janson Ed. Englewood Cliffs.N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1966.

Ovedon,Graham. PRCtBQPhQQliEQMEDQEQEEQRhYa London: Academy
Editions: New York: St.Martin's Press, 1972.

The 0wlmaadithewfigsseiiiisimleEter§_2imgbatlss A Howe11_and
Dante Gabriel, Christina and Willaim MichaeTT C.L.Cline. Ed.
University Park: Penn State University Press. 1978.

 

 

E§§;RaphgeTTte PapegsT Leslie Parris.Ed. London: Tate
Gallery, 1984.

Rose.Andrea. The Germi_The_T;terary Magazine of the Pre—
Raphaelites Brotherhood. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. 1979.

 

 

———————— . The Pre—RaphaelitesT Oxford: Phaidon Press. 1981.

 

-------- . Pre-Raphaelite Portraits. Oxford: Phaidon Press.

 

Rossetti, Christina. "In An Artist's Studio." The Norton
Anthology of Poetry. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1975.

Rossetti. Dante Gabriel. PrejRaphaelitewillustratiggg from
ngopismTennysony London: Academy Editions.1978.

88

Rossetti. William- IhsiE R Bi_Jqurnai;1Wiliiam Michael

qusetii's Dis:y_2f_ihe-Ete:Raphasii:e BPOLDerhOQQi Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1975.

 

-------- - Ruskiniflgssstii=Ens:Baphaelitismi_fiaper§.i§§4;
1862. London: G.Allen, 1899.

... -.—

Ruskin.John. Pre~Raphaelitism. New York: J.Wiley. 1880.

 

 

Sambrook. James. Pre-Raphaelitism: A Collection of Critical
Essays. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
1974.

Spalding, Frances. Magnificent DgeamsT Oxford: Phaidon
Press. 1978.

Staley, Allen. The Pre—Raphaelite Landscape. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1973.

 

Stevenson, Lionel. Thg_ggg:fiaphaeTTt§ Poets; Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press. 1972.

Sussman, Herbert L. Fact in Figure: Typology in Carlyley
Ruskin and the Pre—Raphaelite Brotherhood. Columbus: Ohio
State University Press, 1979.

 

 

Trevelyan, Raleigh. A Pre-Raphaelite Circle. London: Chatto
& Windus. 1978.

 

Treuherz. Julian- Ere-Raphasliis-£ain£iags“££9miihs
Manchester City Art Gallery. London: L. Humphries. 1980.

 

Victorian_gTympian§T Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales.
1975.

Watkinson, Raymond. Pre—Raphaelite Art andiggsign;
Greenwich, CN: New York Graphic Society. 1970.

 

 

Welby, Thomas Earle. The Victorian Romantics 1850—70.
London: G.Howe. 1929.

 

Welland, Dennis Sydney Reginald. Ih€_EEE:BQED§§li£§§.iQ
Literature and Art. Freeport: New York Books for Libraries
Press. 1969.

 

WiTTTgm Morris Today, London Institute of Contemporary Arts.
1984.

 

Williamson, Audrey. Artists and Writers in Revolt.
Phildelphia: Art Alliance. 1977.

 

89

Wilson.Simon. ”What is Pre-Raphaelitism?" London: Tate
Gallery, 1984.

WinwaryFranceS- R99:_§plsndeQ-WinESLiIhe_Bstetti's.ang
their circle; Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1933.

 

Wood.Christopher. The_§re:Rapha_Tg_gsT New York: Viking
Press. 1981.

Wood.Esther. Dante Rossetti and the Pre—Raphaelite Movement.
London: S Low. Marston and Co., 1894.

 

Periodicals

Ashwin.C. "Rosa Brett, Pre-Raphaelite." Burlington Magazine
126 (1984): 630-1.

 

Attwood.P. "Maria Zambaco: Femme Fatale of the Pre-
Raphaelites." ApQTTg 124 (1986): 31-7.

Baro,G. "Millais Revisited." A§t_anAme§Tca 55 (1967): 82-4.

Bayley,J.B. "Pre—Raphaelite Brotherhood 1848~55." Nigetggnth
Qghtury 5 (1979): 70—5.

Casteras,S P. "John Everett Millais. Yes or No?" XWTT
University Art Bulletin 36 (1976): 18—19.

 

Chape1,J. and J.Hardy. "Millais' Cabinet." Burlipgton
Mggazing 122 (1980): 424-5r.

Cherry,D. and G.Pollack. "Women as sign in Pre-Raphaelite
Literature: A Study of the Representation of Elizabeth
Siddal." Art ngtgpy (UK) (1984): 206-27.

Davey,P. "Painters and Brothers." Architectural Review 175
(1984): 60—4.

 

Davis.F. "Wayward Goddess of Fortune." QQQQ§£E_Ll§§ 164
(1978): N.pag.

Gere.J. "Pre—Raphaelites at the Tate." Burlington Magazine 90
(1948): 325.

 

Grigson.G. "Pre—Raphaelite Myth." AgghitectgraTnReyTew 92
(1942):27-30.

90

Hilton,T. "Millais: The Middle Line in Pre-Raphaelitism.“
Studio 173 (1967): 2—11.

-------- . "Pre-Raphaelite Problems." Studig 183 (1972): 219.
Hunt.V. "Stunners." Artwork 6 (1930): 77—87.

Lucie-Smith,E. "Millais hits the Mark." A§t_ang Artists 14
(1979): 28—31.

James.W.M. "Order of Release."
150—1.

-Burlingt9n_Magazine 90 (1948):
Lutyens.M. "Millais and the Ruskins." BugTington‘Magazing 109
(1967): 654.

Macdonald.K. "Alexander Munro The Pre—Raphaelite Brotherhood
and the 'unmentionable." AppTTg 115 (1982): 190-7.

Macleod.D S. "F.G.Stephens. Pre—Raphaelite Critic and Art
Historian." Burlington Magazine 128 (1986): 399.

 

Neve.C. "Great Pre-Raphaelite Muddle." qunt§y_TTTe 150
(1971): 280.

Nochlin, Linda. "Lost and Found: Once more the fallen woman."
Art BuTTetih 60 (1978): 139-53.

Edelstein.T J. reply with rejoinder 61 (1979): 509-10.
Nunn.P.G. "Rosa Brett. Pre—Raphaelite "
126 (1984): 630—1.

Burlington Magazine

 

Poulson. C. "Checklist of the Pre—Raphaelite illustrations of
Shakespeare's plays." ngTTngt9g_MagazTng 122 (1980): 244—50.

"Pre—Raphaelite Tragedians." Art News 45 (1946): 22-3.

Theifire:8apbaeiiie_1regedy (Reviews)
Apollo 35 (1942): 149
CQTTege Art Journal 2 (1943): 91—2
QQDHQi$§99£ 110 (1942): 81
Lghggg_§tuglg 24 (1942): 32
Magazine of Art 35 (1942): 271
Museum Journal 43 (1943): 95

 

 

 

"Pursuit of Beauty." ApoTTg 107 (1978): 446—51.

Reynolds.G. "Pre-Raphaelites and their circle." Apong 93
(1971): 494-501.

91

"A Rossetti Portrait: Variation on a theme." Arts Virginia 27
(1987): 2-15.

 

Rossetti. W.M. "Elizabeth Elenor Siddal." BugTTngton Magazlng
May (1903):273.

Shefer,E. "Deverell. Rossetti. Siddal and 'The Bird in the
Cage." Art Bulletin 67 (1985): 437—48.

 

Staly.A. "Pre—Raphaelites at the Tate." Burlington Magazine
126 (1984): 369—74.

 

.T,h_at___5eLei:_S_bal_l.__MeeL_A_gsi_ri (Review) gennieseir 180 (1972):
228.

Thomas.D. "Victorian Painting in England." Ahthues 94
(1968): 2—11.

Wood.J. "The Pre—Raphaelites." Panthegh 42 (1984): 287—8.

Young.P. "Millais Leisure Hours." Detroit Institgte of Arts
BglletTh 58 (1980): 118—26.

 

92

APPENDIX

List of Models and Paintings
for which they sat

Janenflorden

La Belle Iseult - Morris.1858
Prgsggplne - Rossetti. 1873-7

La Pia dejToTomeT - Rossetti.1886—8O
Astarte Syriaca - Rossetti.1877
Pandpga - Rossetti, 1869

IDE-RQS§1§§§ - Rossetti, 1870
Magiana.— Rossetti, 1868—70

The Water Willgg - Rossetti, 1871
Scalands/April 30. 1870— Portrait— Rossetti
Oxford 1858 - Portrait— Rossetti
Energiessegigamoaei - Rossetti. 1871—7

 

 

Elizabeth SiddaT

 

Study for Twelfth Night - Deverell c.1850

Ophelia - Millais, 1852

VangtTngTResguTngTSyTvia from Protegg - Rossetti. 1851
Denie;§_yi§ionnoimflaohel and Leah - Rossetti. 1855
Beatrice denying Dante her salutation - Rossetti, c.1855
Regineigordiom - Rossetti. 1854

Study for ThefiRetu§g_9§”TTbullus t9 Delia — Rossetti. c.1851
Epigreiiof-Lemuel - Rossetti. 1854

Seif:Eotttoi£ - 1853~4

Logxiseateqma£.aaieasel - Rossetti. c 1854

Artist sitting to E.SiddaT — Rossetti, September 1853
Portrait — Rossetti. 1854

STgMGaTahad_ahd the Ruined Chapel - Rossetti. 1859

The _B_less_ed Damozel - Burne-Jones.c.1857-61

Paolo and Francesca - Rossetti. 1862

Beata Beatr_ix - c.1864-—7O

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panpie Cornforth

 

Study for "Found" - Rossetti, 1854-81
BoggaTBagTata - Rossetti. 1859
Sidonia von Bork - Burne—Jones. 1860
Pazio's Mistress — Rossetti. 1863
ThefiBeToved —Rossetti. 1865—6

TT, illus. - Sandys,1866

 

 

94

Ih§_§lH§mBQE§£ - Rossetti. 1865
Monpa_yanna - Rossetti. 1866
Portrait — Rossetti. 1874

AnnieMiilei:

The Awakening Conscience - Hunt. 1853
Wthng - Millais. 1854

 

Portrait- Rossetti. 1860
ngan inyTgTng - Rossetti, 1863
Helen of Troy — Rossetti

 

Emme_Brown

Qure Lady of GoogmghTnggg - Brown. 1847-61
Take Your SonTSTgT - Brown, 1851-7

Pretty Baa-Lambs - Brown. 1851-9

Portrait — Rossetti, 1853
Theiiostiofiingiang - Brown- 1855

Portrait - Rossetti. 1860

 

 

 

Effie-Mili§i§

The.Qrderiof-8elesse_174§ - Millais. 1852-3
Portrait - Millais. 1853
The Blind Girl — Millais. 1856

 

Georgiapa BUFFETJQUQ§

 

QTara von Bork - Burne-Jones. 1860
Georgiana Burne—Jones with Children - Burne—Jones. 1883

 

 

"ITliiiiiiiliiiiiii“