Talk:Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood/Archive 1

Jane Morris
There's no "may have" about Rossetti's affair with Jane Morris; it is thoroughly documented. I gave her the dignity of mentioning her name and added a link to Jane Burden. PKM 21:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. I think they provbably did have sex, but there is no proof. It's not "thoroughly documented", IMO. Evidence? Paul B 23:59 23 july 2005 (UTC)

Related to Art nouveau?
Maybe it's just the first (Persephone) and last (Medea) painting in the article, but it seems like the style was similar/predecessor to art nouveau. Is it just coincidence? 66.229.160.94 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No coincidence. The Rossetti wing of PR style influenced the development of Art nouveau. Paul B 09:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Technical Question
I tried searching "Preraphaelite" with no results, but eventually found this site. Might we link "Preraphaelite" with this page in some way, for those who search without the hyphen (which is not entirely standard, in my experience, at least regarding Prepraphaelite literature). Antonio Giusti 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Antonio Giusti


 * The hyphen is standard in modern literature, though there are some old books that use the unhypenated version (and even preraffaelite or pre-raffaelite). However, I have created redirect links for Preraphaelite and Preraphaelites. Paul B 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Antonio Giusti 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Antonio Giusti

Not Pre-Raphaelite?
Re the deletion below, I don't know all these artists, but aren't F. Leighton and Waterhouse commonly considered among the Pre-Raphaelite school? Museums certainly present them as though they are when displaying their work. Should this deletion be restored, or is there some fine distinction being drawn here of which I'm unaware?

Loosely associated artists
 * Wyke Bayliss (painter)
 * John William Godward (painter)
 * Thomas Cooper Gotch (painter)
 * Edward Robert Hughes (painter)
 * Edmund Blair Leighton (painter)
 * Lord Frederic Leighton (painter)
 * John William Waterhouse (painter)

Antonio Giusti 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Antonio Giusti


 * Some anonymous IP deleted it. It might have been pure vandalism, but no professional art historian would call F. Leighton a "Pre-Raphaelite"; he wasn't thought to be one at the time, and he didn't think of himself as one. Waterhouse is often described as such, but his actual style is  very ifluenced by Bastien Lepage and the "square brush" school. The probem is that almost any artist of the period who painted dreamy medieval subjects or mythic themes is popularly labelled a Pre-Raphaelite. I'm in two minds about whther the list should stay or go. Paul B 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that -- eg the way people commonly use the term "impressionism" too broadly and inclusively. Why not add a small clarification about the term, including the info above? Many might find it of interest. Antonio Giusti 17:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Antonio Giusti

French article
The title on the French Wikipedia article is "The Pre-Raphaelism".

It is a pure neologism, isn't it ?

That term denies absolutely the idea of fraternity and collaboration, I think.

One cannot criticize the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood even if they knew some tightenings with each other.

The right translation should be "La Fraternité Pre-Raphaëlite" or something like that. ( "Confrérie" is word very much too conventionnal, and formal. )

What is your viewpoint ?

Maybe you don't speak french, do you ?

Glad for earring from you,

Ceeloo (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't speak French very well, even though I live some of the year there. However, the French should decide for themselves what they should call it. It's a matter of accepted convention. Paul B (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As Paul B stated before: I think that it's up to the French Wikipedia's authors to decide this, but my personal opinion is that the article's title should not be a “correct” translation of Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood but the established name for these painters in France.


 * I'm a German, so at least I know that the conventional german term is Präraffaeliten. To be more precise, “Präraffaeliten” denotes the painters making pictures in this very style, and “Präraffaelitische Bruderschaft” is used as translation for the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood itself—the latter is a subsection of the german article. I do not speak well enough french, but from the links Préraphaélisme and the article Préraphaélisme itself, I assume that its the same in French: «Préraphaélisme» is the name of the style in French, and «La fraternité pré-raphaélite» is the usual translation of the brotherhood itself. But I see, you're from France, so maybe you can proof this better than I do.


 * (By the way, here you find help how to sign your contributions, this will generate a link to your user page. I have modified your manual signature under your contribution in this way now, I hope that was ok.)


 * Hope, this clarifies somewhat the problem with the brotherhood. --Cyfal (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New Template
I've created a new template for The PRB - it looks like this:

In another month or so I might get around to setting up a task force under WP Visual Arts for the brotherhood. I.M.S. (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blacklock
These claims about William James Blacklock have now been reverted by 3 editors including myself. There are not referenced, seem to depend on a single (unpublished?) piece of research, and certainly have not been shown to reflect the vast amount of PRB scholarship. They clearly breach WP:UNDUE. I suggest any claims advanced about Blacklock are first clearly set out, explained and referenced at his article, and then raised at talk here first so any addition here has consensus. Incidently they are extremely carelessly written, which does not help. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fred Walters
Should not Fred Walters be mentioned as one of the members or at least hangabouts? -pernys32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.174.66 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fred Walters was an imaginary character created for the TV series Desperate Romantics. He was essentially a combination of Fred Stephens and William Rossetti. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Academic/Mannerist
Johnbod changed the following sentences with the following edit summary "Raphael is the antithesis of mannerism, which hardly needed reacting against in 1848!":


 * The group's intention was to reform art by rejecting what they considered to be the mechanistic approach adopted by the Mannerist artists who followed Raphael and Michelangelo. They believed that the Classical poses and elegant compositions of Raphael in particular had been a corrupting influence on academic teaching of art. Hence the name "Pre-Raphaelite". In particular they objected to the influence of Sir Joshua Reynolds, the founder of the English Royal Academy of Arts.

He replaced 'Mannerism' with 'Academicism'. I've partly reverted, but changed "followed" with "succeeded", since the former word was ambiguous and could mean either "came after" or "imitated". I'm not sure that Raphael can be considered the antithesis of Mannerism, since the Transfiguration is widely seen as proto-Mannerist. I can see good reason for the change, however, but still feel that "academic" is far too vague a concept here. The reason they chose to imagine themselves as "pre-Raphael" is that the Mannerist style inaugurated a form of art that fed on a kind of visual commentary on pre-existing styles. Mannerism was widely seen as the prototype of artistic "degeneration" by the rejection of naturalism in favour of self-conscious stylishness. That's the essential nature of the PR claim, and of Ruskin's criticisms of post-Raphael artists, many of which are not in any definable sense "academic". Paul B (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a bit clearer now, although it still is likely to give the careless or ignorant reader the impression that Mannerists were stalking the streets of 1840s London. On Raphael, proto-Baroque certainly, but I agree with this chap "not even in the last touches from Raphael's brush in the Transfiguration does he disclose the slightest departure in the direction of Mannerism ...". Moses and Elijah were just tall in my view. :) Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice Malcolm Warner says somewhere they should really have called themselves the "Anti-Raphaelites", as far as his mature work is concerned. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why?
Does anyone know WHY they wanted to do the art as they described? I have heard that they wanted to record nature accurately becuase at that time there was great interest in natural history and no cameras to record it. Did they ever say WHY?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were cameras. Photography was invented in 1839. The PRB was founded in 1848. To some extent they were influenced by the particular 'look' of early photographs. Holman Hunt wrote a very long book called Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood in which he explained why they did it - though it obviously promotes his own viewpoint. You can read it here: . Or you could read Ruskin's essay Pre-Raphaelitism, explaining the aims of the movement from his perspective . The other two stars of the group, Millais and Rossetti, weren't much interested in theories, but you can read the brotherhood's debates in the Pre-Raphaelite Journal, though that's not online. Paul B (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ice Dragon, Do you not find that the article as present written already explains this sufficiently well, particularly the Section entitled Early Doctrines? If you don't think so, and could explain what mystifies you, perhaps we could insert another sentence or two. I'd also like some responses to my comment above about Pre-Raphaelite Purism. I'd like to move the Proserpine painting down to lower in the article - N.B. certainly NOT delete it - and put in one of the early PRB pictures (one of those actually bearing the PRB monogram) in at the start. There are several of them already in Wiki Commons, so this would be quite a simple task. I invite anyone who is not sure whether this is proper to look at the painting date of Proserpine and perhaps the Wiki Article on D G Rossetti.

In the longer term, a short new section in this article on Botanical Realism might be a good idea. There is plenty of citable evidence and interesting facts. Dendrotek 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)


 * The article could certainly be longer - that's for sure. I've replied to your points above. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Raphaelite purism
This article includes the following extract whose actual veracity I do not deny: - "Dante Gabriel Rossetti became the link to the two different types of Pre-Raphaelite painting (nature vs. Romance) after the PRB became lost in the late 1800s. Rossetti, although the least committed to the brotherhood, continued the name and changed the Brotherhoods style drastically. He began painting versions of femme fatales using models like Jane Morris, in paintings such as: Proserpine, ..."

According to one's taste, the Proserpine picture may be beautiful, and its format fits well at the start of the article. However, I suggest the start of the article should be accompanied by one of the three pictures mentioned under the heading "Public debate." These show what pre-raphaelitism meant to the idealist young artists at the beginning of the movement, whereas "Proserpine" is a relatively late Rossetti, and would have been felt by some of the PRB themselves to have betrayed those ideals.

The current PR Exhibition at Tate takes my line, showing an actual pre-raphael painting by de Monacco alongside early PRB works. I believe that although obviously still of great merit, Rossetti's late works are degenerate and what we would now term a "sell out" of the early brotherhood's ideals. Go and see the show in London if you can and please consider my suggestion. It would only entail some rearranging. Dendrotek 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, Proserpina is relatively late Rossetti, though I certainly would not consider it "degenerate" - a rather unfortuately loaded term in art history (see degenerate art). One could as easily call it "mature". The lead image should be the epitome of the concept, not represent the earliest forms of it. I'm not wedded to Proserpina as a lead image, but it does epitomise the kind of art meant by the term "Pre-Raphaelite". Earlier images were closer to the Nazarenes, the German Romantic print tradition and to inherited conventions of "history painting". You could call then proto-Pre-Raphaelite (if you really linked hyphens), just as early sketchy works by Monet have elements of full-blown Impressionism, but also inherit the established modes of landscape sketching. We wouldn't use a painting by the 20 year old Monet as the lead image to epitomise Impressionism. I don't know who believed that Rossetti "betrayed" any ideals. Yes, Hunt disliked the sensuality of late Rossetti, but that was mainly because he was prig. It was for moral reasons, predominently: though of course Hunt always equated the moral and the aesthetic. Ruskin always admired Rossetti, though he had reservations, as he did with regard to both the other leading PRs. Even Millais, whose late work is furthest from the early style of the Brotherhood, was often praised by Ruskin in the 1880s. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the 2012 show takes "your line". Paul B (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paul - thanks for responding - glad somebody cares! Please bear in mind that this is all just "Talk Page" stuff. Re-read carefully what I wrote - the context of The current PR Exhibition at Tate takes my line, showing an actual pre-Raphael painting by de Monacco alongside early PRB works. Now - this is a fact, not a judgement on my part. By Early PRB works, I mean ones actually monogrammed PRB - I think there were only about a dozen such paintings - it can be looked up - and it was all over by 1852, when the sculptor Thomas Woolner, one of the PRB founders, emigrated to Australia. There is a poem all about the diaspora of the Brotherhood, which was published in Germ, by Christina Rossetti. Would be a useful addition to the article. Maybe I'm a prig like Holman Hunt - I did say it depends upon one's taste! But seriously, one shouldn't use such terms lightly for people who were three or four generations ago. For another what you call prig by the way, read about Ruskin's personal life - albeit a genius. In supporting your argument by the Impressionism comparison, you are hoist by your own petard! Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Impressionism (painting) and you will see that right at the top, it supported by Claude Monet's 1872 ″Impression, soleil levant″ (Impression sunrise). The very first work labelled ″Impressionist.″ Quite right - again in my opinion! Rossetti's Ecce Ancilla and Millais' Christ in the house of his parents would be my candidates for the top of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood article, and then we should move Proserpine down into a lower section with as good an explanation as can be agreed about Pre-Raphaelitism's Second Phase. Whether or not you think Rossetti was degenerate by then, he was certainly painting women making them appear sensuous, for money, being paid by wealthy Victorian patrons - again fact, not prejudice. However I would be careful how to phrase this in an actual article, because again one must respect Rossetti's genius. The two paintings I suggest using at the top are both already in Wiki Commons. Mentioning the Impressionism Article by the way - it is a much better planned and written article than this. The unfortunate thing here was a mistake at the start, when an article that has expanded widely into a treatise on Preraphaelitism, began with a title referring to the Brotherhood. The best solution would be to split the Brotherhood subject out into a new article, and to re-title this one. But I fear this would be a nightmare dealing with Wiki patrolling editors and Referees. Probably - life is too short! Which side of the pond do you live, by the way? Happy Easter, Dendrotek 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Pre-Raphaelites" is normally used to cover the work of the Brotherhood's members (and some others) for a long period after the PRB itself broke up; I don't see much point in an article only on PRB production as strictly defined. A name change might help if this is really an issue, but I don't think it is. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I live in Britain. Believe it or not, I did check what was the lead image in Impressionism before writing this, so there is no need to be so smug. I was referring to early works by Monet when he was (about) the same age as the PRB when they created their early monogrammed works. Impression: Sunrise was painted when he was 31. The term "Pre-Raphaelite" obviously has a different history from "Impressionist", as it was a label adopted by the Brotherhood. What they meant by it was, of course, devotion to "Pre-Raphael" works. It was not the name of a new "style". When "Pre-Raphaelite" becomes a term for a style of art it has evolved in a similar way to "Impressionism" (which doesn't mean any painting that tries to give an "impression" of something, but rather a specific movement in art). I don't think we can define Pre-Raphaelitism as works that try to imitate 15th century art (after all there is really very little real similarity between Lorenzo Monaco and early PRB works). But that's a subject for a dissertation in itself. I've no idea what being paid by wealthy patrons has to do with anything. Do you think Holman Hunt didn't make money from his paintings? He made very effective business deals. The one who was least financially secure was Madox Brown.


 * On your main point, I think that it would be possible to have a separate article on the Brotherhood, as well as a main one on Pre-Raphaelitism. The one on the brotherhood culd go into detail about the foundation of the group, the debates, the early works etc. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Since, as is probably apparent, I am passionate about them, to me a name change on the Article would be an excellent solution. Under the title "The Pre-Raphaelites" we can distinguish the Bretheren's output (i.e. what I originally called ″Purist PRB″) up to the divergences of 1852, and then sub-title and improve the ongoing phases. William Morris, for example, is certainly a Pre-Raphaelite, but no way is he a member of The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. This is not me being pedantic, but a matter of fact supported by numerous respected and published art historians e.g. OD Art, ODNB, Grove etc. Those in North America may like to see what Delaware says. Of course, The Pre-Raphaelites' influence on English art has been huge and extends well into the Edwardian and George V time e.g. see current exhibition entitled ″A Pre-Raphaelite Journey: Eleanor Fortescue-Brickdale″ on at the Watts Gallery in Surrey http://www.wattsgallery.org.uk/exhibition/gallery-exhibition/2012/10/24/pre-raphaelite-journey-eleanor-fortescue-brickdale. She was wording around 1910 - 20. The influence remains strong e.g. in Stanley Spencer (whose father believed Ruskin was the bees knees) and even in some living artists e.g. Hockney's current work in N.E. Yorkshire. How does one go about doing a Wikipedia Article Title change? It must obviously have ramifications. Dendrotek 13:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)
 * Dendrotek, you really don't need to tell me or Johnbod that Morris was not a member of the brotherhood as such. The fact is in the article, after all, and we do have some knowledge of the topic. And, yes, you are right about the continuing influence in the 20th century, an under-researched topic. Even British Pop art shows an influence, and of course there is the Brotherhood of Ruralists. Paul B (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Article name change to “The Pre-Raphaelites”
I would like to try to explain better my views about the alternative titles “The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood” or “The Pre-Raphaelites” and to convince other Users/Editors to agree to an Article Title Change, to simply “The Pre-Raphaelites” Or even just “Pre-Raphaelites” if Wikipedia guidelines prefer omitting “The …”


 * I don’t want to spar with others on side issues, particularly with Paul B who is fond of the subject, like myself. I’m sorry if through my enthusiasm I started any of it. If we had a chat in a pub about the “Pre-Raphaelites,” no doubt it would be friendly and we could debate matters without getting into inflamed language such as “prig,” “smug” or even “idiot”! - Let’s try and keep it that way here.


 * Only the first four sub-headings of the present article actually deal with the PRB days – roughly the first third of the article. Grove, for instance, dates the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (PRB) days as between 1848 and 1853, which is fair enough and more or less accords with the present version of the Wikipedia Article, although the latter date maybe wants adding at or near the end of the “Public controversy” section. Proposal: - “After the controversy , Collinson left the brotherhood and the remaining members met to discuss whether he should be replaced by Charles Allston Collins …”


 * Obviously, it is agreed that Morris was never an original member of the Brotherhood – defined as those who used the monogram. I believe Rossetti first met him in Oxford? Yet an article on “The Pre-Raphaelites” without including Morris would be seriously deficient.  Likewise, without Edward Burne-Jones, to give another example.  Hence, these two and others of the second and further phases certainly do not belong under a heading “The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood” but most definitely DO belong under “Pre-Raphaelites.”


 * About the art itself:- In Talk on 4 August 2006, Paul B wrote about what he termed “The Rossetti wing of PR style …” in a discussion on possible connection to Art Nouveau. So perhaps Paul could agree that there is little comparison between A) Late Rossetti paintings such as Proserpine, Beata Beatrice and Fiammetta on the one hand and B) Early PRB monogrammed paintings on the other e.g. Rossetti’s own Girlhood of Mary and Ecce Ancilla plus the early PRB works of Millais – Isabella, Christ in the house; early Holman Hunt – e.g. Hireling Shepherd.  A) and B) are like chalk and cheese.  Indeed, the various PRB works I have just mentioned under B) are more similar to one another in style, philosophy and technique than any of them are to A) – i.e. Rossetti’s “sensuous women” paintings.  That’s where I came in to Talk firstly, by suggesting that the Proserpine painting would belong better lower down in the Article.  I still firmly believe this.


 * Now, a few “Technical Question” issues: - In Wikipedia Searches, the term “Preraphaelites” at present redirects to “Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.” I see that Paul B did this on 21 Jan 2007, so that those users searching with “Preraphaelites” wouldn’t get lost. That was helpful.  Searching using the term “Pre-Raphaelite” at present auto-completes with “…Brotherhood,” so as Wikipedia is currently set up, we are stuck with this title.


 * Now, I have become convinced through these discussions that the only practical solution is the relatively simple one of Article Name Change. A subsidiary linked Article just on the Brotherhood is simply not going to happen and besides, we couldn’t just cut out all the “Early days” stuff from the preset Article.  So once again, I ask, what does a name change entail?  Do e.g. Paul B and/or Johnbod know? Would they like me to seek advice in general Help or Reference Desk areas?  It will clearly cause potential internal Wikipedia linkage problems but maybe some clever “Wiki-Techies” can fix this with a “bot” or something – whatever that is!?

Dendrotek 22:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

C-Class rating
I note that this Article has thus been rated. How does one find the criticism/suggestions? I would be interested gradually to work on improving it, but without a crit, it is unhelpful. Is there an alternative such as submitting it for a Review?Dendrotek 12:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Review by expert members of the Pre-Raphaelite Society
This article and those of all the personalities mentioned are going to be checked for errors and omissions by the expert members of the Pre-Raphaelites Society, hopefully without editorial interference. In the unlikely event of 'editorial interference', Jimmy Wales will be advised. This Article and several others look as though they need to be comprehensively checked.Jimmy Wales and Professor John Naughton have already been made aware of this.

2.30.208.46 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your diligence is appreciated. Consider signing up; it's easier to converse with someone who has a registered account, even though a name is just a name. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have to be quite so pompous? By the way, anyone can join the PRB soc. It doesn't mean you have any expertise. Even I am a member! Paul B (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It may help if they familiarise themselves with the conventions of Wikipedia, like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VERIFY and the WP:MOS. Also, threats of Jimmy Wales nothwithstanding, anybody that "reviews" an article is just an editor, like anyone else.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will edit any article I wish, and my edits are not "interference". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I doubt that Jimmy Wales would take the word of someone or discount the actions of other users as "interference" simply because they call themselves experts.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see what they come up with - it's not their fault they have chosen one of the areas in art history where our coverage has much less need for this sort of thing than is typical. In general I very much welcome such initiatives. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not against any initiatives though calling yourselves experts and asking for no interference is not the way to go.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See Sockpuppet investigations/Nitramrekcap (section: Follow-up — editor has moved activities to Pre-Raphaelite content area) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent news that there is to be a thorough review, even if it takes time. I hope it will take account of previous comments on distinguishing strongly between the PRB itself and the more general topic of The Pre-Raphaelites. Also the unfortunate placing of a High Victorian Rossetti glamour painting at the top of the Article - The recent Tate show has something to answer for in this respect, wanting to pack the punters in! Actually, there is a case for a separate PRB Article, with only PRB-signed works included. I disagree that the reviewers need to be familiar with Wikipedia conventions - in fact better if not. If I still had students (no longer the case) - I would warn them to treat Article in its present form very cautiously, and to prefer sources such as the Oxford Dictionaries of Biography and Art. After the review and its resulting actions, the Article(s) should be semi-locked.Okan 09:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get too excited. It's banned editor Nitramrekcap, aka "Martin". No-one is stopping you creating a specific article on the PRB's history as a brotherhood if you want to. As for Rossetti, the later works have always been identified as Pre-Raphaelite. The 2012 show did nothing to alter established conventions, or anything else. Paul B (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course Rosetti's later works are included under discussions, books, exhibitions etc. as "Pre-Raphaelite"! He and Millais "owned the brand" so to speak. The last Tate exhibition even included some large, impressive, late Millais Scottish landscapes, but none of that sort of thing is Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, which is the (IMHO) important point that I keep making - after all, that is the present Title of the Article! However, I wonder whether it is worthwhile wasting time on Wikipedia on visual arts subjects. It seems easier to achieve harmony and success if one sticks to "anorak" subjects, like aircraft! Some commentators here seem to me frankly ignorant, there —are "experts" - do people quibble in the same way in articles on Classical Music, I wonder? Okan 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By "quibbling" you presumably mean "disagreeing with me". To answer your question, sometimes, yes. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Millais's later works are not usually counted as Pre-Raphaelite, and indeed they were not normally described as such in his own lifetime, or in the biography written after his death by his son. The late landscapes were included in the 2012 exhibition because they are the pet-interest of one of the curators, Jason Rosenfeld. You could argue that any painting produced after the mid-1850s is not the work of the "brotherhood" as such, because it no longer existed. If anyone "owned the brand", or at least tried very hard to own it, it was Holman Hunt. Hunt's autobiography was a bid to control the meaning of the term and to counter the claims being made both in the writings of Rossetti's brother William and in Robert de La Sizeranne's books (Sizeranne identified Madox Brown as the "inventor" of Pre-Raphaelitism). Paul B (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

LIST OF PRE-RAPHAELITES (b)
1. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood : + James Collinson (painter) + William Holman Hunt (painter) + John Everett Millais (painter) + Dante Gabriel Rossetti (painter, poet) + William Michael Rossetti (critic) + Frederic George Stephens (critic) Thomas Woolner (sculptor, poet)

2. Associated artists and figures: tba

John Brett (painter) Ford Madox Brown (painter, designer) Lucy Madox Brown (painter, writer) Richard Burchett (painter, educator) Edward Burne-Jones (painter, designer) Charles Allston Collins (painter) Frank Cadogan Cowper (painter) Fanny Cornforth (artist's model) Walter Deverell (painter) Henry Holiday (painter, stained-glass artist, illustrator) Arthur Hughes (painter, book illustrator) Mary Lizzie Macomber (painter) Robert Braithwaite Martineau (painter) Annie Miller (artist's model) Jane Morris (artist's model) Louisa, Marchioness of Waterford (painter and artist's model) May Morris (embroiderer and designer) William Morris (designer, writer) Christina Rossetti (poet and artist's model) John Ruskin (critic) Anthony Frederick Augustus Sandys (painter) Thomas Seddon (painter) Frederic Shields (painter) Elizabeth Siddal (painter, poet and artist's model) Simeon Solomon (painter) Marie Spartali Stillman (painter) Algernon Charles Swinburne (poet) Henry Wallis (painter) William Lindsay Windus (painter)

3. Loosely associated artists : tba

Lawrence Alma-Tadema (painter) Sophie Gengembre Anderson (painter) Wyke Bayliss (painter) George Price Boyce (painter) Joanna Mary Boyce (painter) Sir Frederick William Burton (painter) Julia Margaret Cameron (photographer) James Campbell (painter) John Collier (painter) William Davis (painter) Evelyn De Morgan (painter) Frank Bernard Dicksee (painter) John William Godward (painter) Thomas Cooper Gotch (painter) Charles Edward Hallé (painter) Edward Robert Hughes (painter) John Lee (painter) Edmund Leighton (painter) Frederic, Lord Leighton (painter) James Lionel Michael (minor poet, mentor to Henry Kendal Charles William Mitchell (painter) Joseph Noel Paton (painter) Gustav Pope (painter) Frederick Smallfield (painter) James Tissot (painter) Elihu Vedder (painter) John William Waterhouse (painter) Daniel Alexander Williamson (painter) James Abbott McNeill Whistler

+ I CAN NOW IDENTIFY WHERE THE GRAVES ARE FOR 34 OF THE 68? LISTED ABOVE, BUT NOT TONIGHT! 2.27.113.69 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

LIST OF PRE-RAPHAELITES (a)
Quote : It's banned editor Nitramrekcap, aka "Martin" (above); for the record, I am not 'banned' and I am not an "editor" [I regard the latter as an insult!], I am only a contributor.

Unlike certain 'editors' (sic) I am not BELGIAN (WALLOON), not FRENCH-CANADIAN and not DUTCH; see respectively: Bloomsbury Group, Order of Merit, Cambridge Apostles articles.


 * If you are not Belgian, Dutch, or French-Canadian, why do you think you have any right to edit... sorry, contribute? Paul B (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Later becoming
I don't think it is correct to say that the PRB later "became" the "Pre-Raphaelites". Firstly, according to Hunt, the term Pre-Raphaelite was first used before the PRB came into existence as a brotherhood. Hunt (PR&PRB I, p.101) says that other RA students called Millais and Hunt Pre-Raphaelites (Hunt has one of them say "you are a Pre-Raphaelite"), and so "Millais and I laughingly agreed that the designation must be accepted". In a letter to Millais' son, Hunt also wrote "I went on to convince him [Rossetti] that our real name was 'Pre-Raphaelites" (Life and Letters, I, p. 49). This was a response to Rossetti's suggestion that they should call themselves "Early Christians". According to Hunt, Rossetti then insisted on adding the word Brotherhood. So in a sense they were called Pre-Raphaelites before they were called PRB! It was also used in all the earliest pro-PRB writings of Ruskin and in the earliest anti-PRB reviews and essays. The title of Ruskin's 1851 letter to the Times was "The Pre-Raffaelites" (the "f" spelling was common in the 1850s). He also uses the term regularly in his essay Pre-Raphaelitism, e.g. "The Pre-Raphaelites imitate no pictures". Paul B (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you add some of this useful information to the Article then? Talk Pages are meant to lead to improvements in the Articles. They are NOT Blogs for a limited number of "enthusiasts" constantly to debate with one another. By the way, the OED definition of "quibble" is highly apt - look it up! And the Article is rated as important yet at present it is only C Class. The alleged Review by PRB Society appears to be a hoax or a delusion. So, the way things are at present, little or nothing constructive is likely to happen any time soon. The primary need is to explain that The Brotherhood differs significantly, both historically and (stylistically + technique), from The Pre-Raphaelites. "Proserpine" is about as different to "Christ in the House of ..." as a Jack Vettriano to a Lucian Freud! And of course, William Morris, was never a PRB, but a highly significant Pre-Raphaelite. We need some more constructive input from you, Mr. Barlow!Okan 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article does not need excessive pedantic detail. It needs to be clear and readable. You seem to think it's important to assert that the "Brotherhood" differs from "the Pre-Raphaelites". Does it? As we always say here, WP:V WP:RS. Look, I appreciate that you would like the article to be improved. For reasons that are probably more psychological than logical, I have left many articles on topics I am qualified to improve in a so-so state. I think it's because I don't want to bias them in favour of my own take on the topic. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm coming to think that many of our articles, especially on popular subjects, are probably longer than most of our readership (increasingly on mobile devices) actually want. All the individuals, and many key works, have their own articles, and there may be something to be said for keeping this fairly concise. Not that I'd want to discourage anyone from expanding it. It could do with a going-over though. I've removed some crud from the bottom, and added the first WHH painting illustration! More links to articles on key works need adding, See also clearing out, etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

GRAVES
Alma-Tadema, Lawrence b. Jan. 8, 1836 d. Jun. 28, 1912 Saint Paul's Cathedral London City of London Greater London England

Anderson, Sophie Gengembre b. 1823 d. Mar. 10, 1903 Falmouth Cemetery Falmouth Cornwall Unitary Authority Cornwall England

Beresford, Lady Louisa Ann Stuart b. 1816 d. May 12, 1891 St Michael and All Angels... Ford Northumberland Unitary Authority Northumberland England

Boyce, George Price b. 1826 d. 1897 Kensal Green Cemetery Kensal Green London Borough of Brent Greater London England

Brown, Ford Maddox b. Apr. 16, 1821 d. Oct. 6, 1893 St Pancras Cemetery East Finchley London Borough of Barnet Greater London England

Burne-Jones, Edward Coley b. Aug. 28, 1833 d. Jun. 17, 1898 St Margaret Churchyard Rottingdean Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority East Sussex England

Collier, John b. Jan. 27, 1850 d. Apr. 11, 1934 Golders Green Crematorium Golders Green London Borough of Barnet Greater London England

Collinson, James b. May 9, 1825 d. Jan. 24, 1881 in a Brittany Cemetery France

De Morgan, Evelyn b. Aug. 30, 1855 d. Feb. 5, 1919 Brookwood Cemetery Brookwood Woking Borough Surrey England

Godward, John William b. Aug. 9, 1861 d. Dec. 13, 1922 Brompton Cemetery West Brompton Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Greater London England

Holiday, Henry William b. 1853 d. Apr. 19, 1917 City of London Cemetery a... Newham London Borough of Newham Greater London England

Hughes, Arthur b. Jan. 27, 1832 d. Dec. 22, 1915 East Sheen and Richmond C... Richmond London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Greater London England

Hunt, William Holman b. Apr. 2, 1827 d. Sep. 7, 1910 Saint Paul's Cathedral London City of London Greater London England

Leighton, Sir Frederic b. Dec. 3, 1830 d. Jan. 25, 1896 Saint Paul's Cathedral London City of London Greater London England

Millais, Sir John Everett b. Jun. 8, 1829 d. Aug. 13, 1896 Saint Paul's Cathedral London City of London Greater London England

Morris, Jane Burden b. Oct. 19, 1839 d. Jan. 26, 1915 St George Churchyard Kelmscott West Oxfordshire District Oxfordshire England Morris, May b. Mar. 25, 1862 d. Oct. 17, 1938 St George Churchyard Kelmscott West Oxfordshire District Oxfordshire England

Morris, William b. Mar. 24, 1834 d. Oct. 3, 1896 St George Churchyard Kelmscott West Oxfordshire District Oxfordshire England

Rossetti, Christina b. Dec. 5, 1830 d. Dec. 29, 1894 Highgate Cemetery (West) Highgate London Borough of Camden Greater London England

Rossetti, Dante Gabriel b. May 12, 1828 d. Apr. 9, 1882 All Saints Churchyard Birchington Thanet District Kent England

Rossetti, William Michael b. 1801 d. 1886 Highgate Cemetery (West) Highgate London Borough of Camden Greater London England

Ruskin, John b. Feb. 8, 1819 d. Jan. 20, 1900 St Andrew Churchyard Coniston South Lakeland District Cumbria England

Sandys, Anthony Frederick Augustus b. May 1, 1829 d. Jun. 25, 1904 Brompton Cemetery West Brompton Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Greater London England

Siddal, Elizabeth Eleanor b. Jul. 25, 1829 d. Feb. 11, 1862 Highgate Cemetery (West) Highgate London Borough of Camden Greater London England

Solomon, Simeon b. Oct. 8, 1840 d. Aug. 14, 1905 Willesden United Synagogu... Willesden London Borough of Brent Greater London England

Stephens, Frederic George b. 1828 d. Mar. 9, 1907	Brompton Cemetery West Brompton Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Greater London England

Stillman, Marie Euphrosyne Spartali b. Mar. 10, 1844 d. Mar. 6, 1927 West Norwood Cemetery and... West Norwood London Borough of Lambeth Greater London England

Stillman, Marie Euphrosyne Spartali b. Mar. 10, 1844 d. Mar. 6, 1927 Brookwood Cemetery Brookwood Woking Borough Surrey England

Swinburne, Algernon Charles b. Apr. 15, 1837 d. Apr. 10, 1909 St Boniface Bonchurch Chu... Bonchurch Isle of Wight Unitary Authority Isle of Wight England

Wallis, Henry b. Feb. 21, 1830 d. Dec. 16, 1916 Highgate Cemetery (West) Highgate London Borough of Camden Greater London England

Waterhouse, John William b. Apr. 6, 1849 d. Feb. 10, 1917 Kensal Green Cemetery Kensal Green London Borough of Brent Greater London England

Wells, Joanna Mary Boyce b. Dec. 7, 1831 d. Jul. 15, 1861 Kensal Green Cemetery Kensal Green London Borough of Brent Greater London England

Woolner, Thomas b. Dec. 17, 1825 d. Oct. 7, 1892 St Mary Churchyard Hendon London Borough of Barnet Greater London England

I hope all the above helps in the improvement of this article and all 34 of the above, Editors? Martin 2.30.198.121 (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why on earth do you think the article needs information on where they are buried? If anyone wants to add that information to articles on individual artists, go ahead. But be reminded, "Martin", that you are blocked, so you should not be editing at all. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I do enjoy an occasional visit to Wikipedia to see how the "Lunatics" (editors) are getting on, just like Bedlam; NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT THE ABOVE 33 SHOULD BE ADDED TO THIS ARTICLE, OF COURSE PAUL. 2.27.113.224 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Listed shown in the WIKIPEDIA list, but NOT confirmed by Jan Marsh in "The Pre-Raphaelite Circle"
Wyke Bayliss (painter) Richard Burchett (painter, educator) Frederick William Burton (?) Charles Allston Collins (painter) Frank Cadogan Cowper (painter) Fanny Cornforth (artist's model) Frank Bernard Dicksee (painter) William Davis (?0 John William Godward (painter) Thomas Cooper Gotch (painter) Charles Edward Hallé (painter) Edward Robert Hughes (painter) John Lee (painter) Edmund Leighton (painter) Mary Lizzie Macomber (painter) James Lionel Michael (minor poet, mentor to Henry Kendall) Charles William Mitchell (painter) Annie Miller (artist's model) Joseph Noel Paton (painter) Gustav Pope (painter) Thomas Seddon (painter) Frederic Shields (painter) Frederick Smallfield (painter) Jacques "James" Tissot (painter) Elihu Vedder (painter) John William Waterhouse (painter) Daniel Alexander Williamson (painter) James Abbott McNeill Whistler (painter) William Lindsay Windus (painter)

Most of the above are referred to as being 'Pre-Raphaelite' in their articles! Surely this casts doubt on the credibility of the list (in three parts) in this article? There is real room for its improvement. 2.27.130.148 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What casts doubt on credibility is having Effie Gray and Jane Morris, who never painted a picture in their lives, listed! Tennyson, and Wilkie Collins? Are you serious?! Watts? That's ludicrous. Some of the others went through brief phases that might be describes as Pre-Raphaelite. Georgiana Burne-Jones made some very minor works as an amateur. Some of them were linked to Morris, but are hardly Pre-Raphaelite in style. Emery Walker? Webb was an arts-and-crafts designer. Stephen Lushington was a judge. Perhaps you mean his son, Vernon Lushington. The only names here who I think should be on the list are Scott and maybe Stanhope (Sandys is already there). Paul B (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note this list has been altered since my last comment. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Unknown 20

 * William Bell Scott
 * John Brett
 * William Shakespeare Burton
 * James Collinson
 * Elizabeth Cornforth
 * Frank Cowper
 * William Davis (artist)
 * Walter Deverell
 * Charles Edward Hallé
 * John Lee (artist)
 * Edmund Leighton
 * Mary Macomber
 * James Michael (artist)
 * Charles William Mitchell
 * Charles Murray (artist)
 * Gustave Pope
 * Anne Thomson (artist)
 * Philip Webb
 * Daniel Alexander Williamson
 * William Lindsay Windus

2.30.207.16 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class."
Start by giving this article a new title which correctly reflects its content: THE PRE-RAPHAELITES ?

2.30.207.16 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't you read???? Check the section above your stupid list. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No wonder this article is only CATEGORY C! Start by correcting its title to : The Pre-Raphaelites please?

2.30.207.202 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's obviously impossible to engage in any kind of rational conversation with you, but I will nevrtheless point out that the title "Pre-Rapghaeliter Brothehood" is not "incorrect" - neither is The Pre-Raphaelites nor is Pre-Raphaelitism. All are correct in different ways. If there is to be a change, I would support "Pre-Raphaelitism", for reasons already given. If you really wanted to improve the article you would add useful content, not engage in childish activities like rearranging a list of towns to put Birmingham first (where is it that you live again?) or reordering wording to conform to your title preference while leaving the title itself unchanged. Why don't you add useful content to articles. That's what makes them better. As I have said, it is not difficult to engage with other editors to gain consensus for a change of title. All you need to do is add a request on the talk page and notify relevant projects. I am happy to assist if you choose to engage collegially. I'm sure you would have at least one supporter. But unless you engage with other editors in a reasonable way, I, for one, will treat your edits as vandalism. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede edits 20/12/15
Re reverts by Johnbod of my lede-edit of today: he asks if painters, poets, and critics is correct, but this was already in the copy. My point was that you could read the whole of the first para, and still not know what the movement was about. So, for example, the last sentence says Their principles were shared..., but it hasn’t said what these principles were. The current lede would only carry meaning with someone familiar with the named artists. I think it is a good principle that the lede should define the topic to someone new to it. (Won’t re-revert, because I think it’s childish. But you may feel like doing so.) Valetude (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think "influenced by Romanticism, who believed in the spiritual and creative integrity of medieval culture." helps the reader much, and I'm not entirely sure it's even true - they were not William Morris, and their interest in the Early Renaissance (more than the MA) was essentially in the style of its visual arts. A decent description of what they were about is in the para immediately after. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE
is blatantly wrong; they are now known as THE PRE-RAPHAELITES, and not as 'The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood'!

2.27.132.184 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK!!!!! Mr excited!!! If you want to change the title of the article, make the case, but per WP:MOS the first sentence should reflect the title. To do otherwise is BAD!!!! Paul B (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The case is made mate; I have two major exhibition catalogues, both are called 'The Pre-Raphaelites'; why stick with the archaic "Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood" which was the forerunner of the PRE-RAPHAELITES? 2.30.207.16 (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not archaic. That's silly. Both terms are the same age. If the title should changed, it should be "Pre-Raphaelitism", in conformity with Impressionism, Cubism etc. In any case, the title is PRB at the moment, so you can't just change the text while a different title remains on top. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this should be Pre-Raphaelitism... Brotherhood should be first section.RobyneErica (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)