UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Art and poetry : a study of the illustrations of two pre-raphaelite artists, William Holman Hunt and… Life, Allan Roy 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A1 L53_9.pdf [ 62.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093217.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093217-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093217-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093217-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093217-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093217-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093217-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093217-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093217.ris

Full Text

ART AND POETRY: A STUDY OF THE ILLUSTRATIONS OF TWO PRE-RAPHAELITE ARTISTS, WILLIAM HOLMAN HUNT AND JOHN EVERETT -MILLAIS by ALLAN ROY LIFE B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n the Department of English We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1974 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be al1 o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a i ABSTRACT Despite the growing sc h o l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n the Pre-Raphaelites, the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r i l l u s t r a t i o n s have not been determined, and the complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these works and t h e i r sources have been neglected. This study of William Holman Hunt's and John Everett M i l l a i s ' i l l u s t r a t i o n s f o r poetry outlines and applies exegetical techniques that are indispensable to the l i t e r a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of Pre-Raphaelite designs. I l l u s t r a t i o n i s a fundamental aspect of Pre-Raphaelite a r t , which i s often o v e r t l y l i t e r a r y . Indeed, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood not only based t h e i r paintings on contemporary poetry, they were also p r a c t i s i n g poets. Their s e n s i t i v i t y to l i t e r a r y s t y les and themes i s r e f l e c t e d i n the complex i n t e r p r e t a t i v e methods of t h e i r designs. Most s i g n i f i c a n t Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n s contain f i g u r a t i v e elements; a few are genuine v i s u a l a l l e g o r i e s , i n which an i l l u s t r a -t i v e secondary l e v e l of meaning embodies a symbolic primary one. These fac t s have been obscured by the r e s t r i c t e d c r i t e r i a f o r v i s u a l allegory proposed by such c r i t i c s as Angus Fletcher. A l l e g o r i c a l art can be formally n a t u r a l i s t i c , and E. H. Gombrich maintains that the Neo-Platonic theory of analogical symbolism j u s t i f i e s associations between b e a u t i f u l images and s p i r i t u a l concepts. On a simpler l e v e l , analogies between external and i n t e r n a l q u a l i t i e s can become what Gombrich c a l l s "natural metaphor." This device i s e s p e c i a l l y i i appropriate t o y n a t u r a l i s t i c a r t , i n which t r a d i t i o n a l iconography can be introduced among non-figurative motifs, i n a process that Erwin Panofsky terms "disguised symbolism." In u t i l i z i n g these fundamental aspects of v i s u a l a r t , Hunt and M i l l a i s followed the lead of t h e i r immediate Eng l i s h and continental predecessors. German i l l u s t r a t o r s and t h e i r followers employed elaborate symbolic techniques, while such a r t i s t s as William Mulready and the members of the Etching Club introduced greater realism i n t o English i l l u s t r a t i o n . Though Hunt and M i l l a i s hoped co n j o i n t l y to i l l u s t r a t e Keats' " I s a b e l l a " and other works, t h e i r mature i n t e r p r e t a t i v e approaches are s t r i k i n g l y d i f f e r e n t . Influenced by Ruskin and by Evangelical readings of the'Bible, Hunt s p e c i a l i z e s i n symbolic methods employed by early Renaissance a r t i s t s . In h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n f o r Tennyson's "Godiva," he employs elaborate "disguised symbolism"; i n h i s design f o r "The Lady of Shalott," he i n t e n s i f i e s the a l l e g o r i c a l l e v e l of the poem by r e l a t i n g i t s thematic and symbolic elements to a c l e a r l y defined h i e r a r c h i c a l system, while v i s u a l l y epitomizing h i s own conception of the a r t i s t i c imagination. Even when Hunt p a r a l l e l s l i t e r a r y e f f e c t s with p r i m a r i l y formal techniques, h i s d i s p o s i t i o n of motifs i s more s i g n i f i c a n t than t h e i r rendering. By contrast, M i l l a i s i s more concerned with n a t u r a l metaphor than with s p e c i f i c symbolism, and he varies h i s s t y l e to approximate d i f f e r e n t aspects of h i s sources. Avoiding v i o l e n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between f i g u r e s , he depicts dramatic s i t u a t i o n s and emotional states with subtle gestures and chiaroscuro. Comparing the designs of Hunt and M i l l a i s demonstrates the i i i d i v e r s i t y and c r i t i c a l complexity of Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n s . Despite the differences between t h e i r works, however, both a r t i s t s produced v i s u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of l i t e r a t u r e , which must be rela t e d to t h e i r sources and to the t o t a l oeuvres of t h e i r creators. Like many great i l l u s t r a t o r s , Hunt and M i l l a i s produced t h e i r best designs f o r poems that were compatible with t h e i r own f a v o r i t e themes and symbolic methods. i v CONTENTS Page VOLUME I: TEXT L i s t of Plates v Acknowledgments x i i Note , x i i i Chapter One INTRODUCTION 1 Two PRINCIPLES OF ILLUSTRATION AND VISUAL SYMBOLISM . . . . 26 Three SOME ANTECEDENTS OF PRE-RAPHAELITE ILLUSTRATION . . . 79 Four WILLIAM HOLMAN HUNT 139 Five JOHN EVERETT MILLAIS 256 Six CONCLUSION ,. <- 331 GLOSSARY OF CRITICAL TERMS 338 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 342 VOLUME I I : ILLUSTRATIONS V LIST OF PLATES Unless otherwise stated, the i l l u s t r a t i o n s are wood-engravings; the place of p u b l i c a t i o n i s London. Plate 1. John G i l b e r t . "The Restoration of King Charles I I , " engraved by F. Smyth. Illustrated London News,, 2 (3 June 1843), 390. 2. Richard Westall. "Death of the F i r s t Born," engraved by Baxter a f t e r a painting by Westall. Illustrations of the Bible, by Richard Westall and John Martin, with descriptions by the Rev. Hobart Caunter, B.D. (Churton, 1835-36), 2, p i . 79. 3. Thomas Landseer. "The V i s i o n , " etching. [Thomas Gordon Hake], Vates: or the Philosophy of Madness; being an Account of the Life, Actions3 Passions, and Principles of a Tragic Writer (Southgate, 1840), part I, p i . 2. 4. Moritz Retzsch. Etching from Umrisse zu Goethe's Faust (Stutt-gart: J . G. Cotta, 1820), p i . 4. 5. Joseph von Fiihrich. Line engraving by A. Petrak from Die Geist-liche Rose (Regensburgh: Manz, 1859), p i . 1. O r i g i n a l l y l i t h o -graphed by Joseph Binder i n Die Geistige Rose (1844). 6. Joseph von Fiihrich. Etching from Bilder zu Tiecks Genovefa ( B e r l i n : Reimer, [c. 1830]), p i . 10. 7-9. J u l i u s Schnorr von C a r o l s f e l d . I l l u s t r a t i o n s f o r Der Nibelungen Both (Stuttgart: J . G. Cotta, 1843), pp. 54, 211, 324. 10. Daniel Maclise. I l l u s t r a t i o n f o r "The Mountain S p r i t e , " l i n e engraving by F. P. Becker. Moore's Irish Melodies (Longman, 1845), p. 189. 11. William Cave Thomas. "Come, pensive Nun, devout and pure . . . ," engraved by M. Jackson. John Milton, L'Allegro and II Penseroso, with t h i r t y i l l u s t r a t i o n s designed expressly f o r the Art-Union of London (1848), p i . 18. 12. William Dyce. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Charles Gray, f o r "The Spinning Maiden's Cross" [by William Whewell]. Poems and Pictures: A Collection of Ballads, Songs, and Other Poems, with one hundred i l l u s t r a t i o n s on wood by Engli s h a r t i s t s (Burns, 1846), p. 126. v i P l ate 13-14. William Mulready. I l l u s t r a t i o n s , engraved by John Thompson, f o r O l i v e r Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield (Van Voorst, 1843), pp. 209, 278. 15-16. Frederick Tayler. I l l u s t r a t i o n s , engraved by John Thompson and Thomas Williams, f o r "The Deserted V i l l a g e . " The Poetical Works of Oliver. Goldsmith, ed. Bolton Corney (Longman, 1846), pp. 49, 64. 17. John C a l l c o t t Horsley. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by John Thompson, fo r "The Deserted V i l l a g e . " The Poetical Works of Oliver Gold-smith (1846), p. 59. 18. Richard Redgrave. Etching on copper f o r John Mil t o n , L'Allegro, i l l u s t r a t e d by the Etching Club (Cundall, 1849), p i . 12. 19-20. Henry James Townsend. Etchings on copper f or Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, i l l u s t r a t e d by the Etching Club (Cundall, 1847), p i s . 9, 11. 21-22. Henry James Townsend. Etchings on copper for L''Allegro (1849), p i s . 16, 7. 23. William James Linton, engraving a f t e r an etching by Henry James Townsend (Plate 22). John Mil t o n , L'Allegro, i l l u s t r a t e d by the Etching Club (Sampson Low, 1859), p. 8. 24. Henry James Townsend. Etching on copper f or L'Allegro (1849), p i . 12. 25-31. Henry James Townsend. I l l u s t r a t i o n s , engraved by G. P. N i c h o l l s , for " G l e n f i n l a s , " by S i r Walter Scott. The Book of British Ballads, ed. S. C. H a l l , 2nd series (How, 1844), pp. 242-251. 32. William Holman Hunt. Design i n brush and Indian ink f o r an etching i l l u s t r a t i n g Keats' " I s a b e l l a " (1848). William Holman Hunt, Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (Macmillan, 1905), 1, 143. 33. John Everett M i l l a i s . Design i n brush and India ink for an etch-ing i l l u s t r a t i n g Keats' " I s a b e l l a " (1848). [Mary Bennett], Millais: PRB to PRA: An Exhibition Arranged by the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool and the Royal Academy of Arts, London, Jan. to A p r i l 1967 [Catalogue of the E x h i b i t i o n ] , p i . 4. 34. William Holman Hunt. The Light of the World (1853). S i r Edwin Arnold, The Light of the World; or, The Great Consummation (London: Longman, 1893), f r o n t i s . 35. William Holman Hunt. The Awakening Conscience (1853). [Mary Bennett], William Holman Hunt: An Exhibition Arranged by the v i i " P late Walker Art Gallery [Catalogue of the Exhibition] (Liverpool: Walker Art Gallery; London: V i c t o r i a and Albert Museum, March to June 1969), p i . 40. 36. William Holman Hunt. The Hireling Shepherd (1851-52). Bennett, Hunt, p i . 37. 37. William Holman Hunt. Isabella and the Tot of Basil (1866-68). Bennett, Hunt, p i . 72. 38. William Holman Hunt. Etching on copper f o r "My B e a u t i f u l Lady" and "Of My Lady, i n Death," by Thomas Woolner. The Germ, No. 1 (Jan. 1850), f r o n t i s . 39. John C a l l c o t t Horsley. Etchings on s t e e l f o r "Come Away, Come Away, Death." Ballads of Shakespeare, i l l u s t r a t e d by the Etching Club (Cundall, 1852). 40. John Everett M i l l a i s . "Two Lovers by a Rose-Bush," i l l u s t r a t i o n i n pen or brush and India ink for "My B e a u t i f u l Lady," by Thomas Woolner (1848). John Gere, "Pre-Raphaelite Drawings," Alphabet and Image, No. 6 (Jan. 1948), p. 28. 41-42. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n s , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "Oriana." Moxon Tennyson, pp. 51, 55. 43. Frederick Richard P i c k e r s g i l l . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "Oriana," by A l f r e d Tennyson. Charles Mackay, ed., The Home Affections Pourtrayed by the Poets (Routledge, 1858), p. 115. 44. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by John Thompson, f o r "The Lady of Shalott." Moxon Tennyson, p. 67. 45. William Holman Hunt. The Lady of Shalott (large version) (1886-1905). Pr'draffaeliten [Catalogue of the Exhibition] (Baden-Baden: St a a t l i c h e Kunstalle, 23 Nov. to 24 Feb. 1974), p i . 49. 46. William Holman Hunt. The Lady of Shalott (small version) (c. 1887-1905). Bennett, Hunt, p i . 96. 47. Dante Gabriel R o s s e t t i . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "The Lady of Shalott." Moxon Tennyson, p. 75. 48. William Holman Hunt, "The Lady of Shalott," pen and ink and black chalk (c. 1850). Bennett, Hunt, p i . 31. 49. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, for "Godiva." Moxon Tennyson, p. 281. 50. William Holman Hunt. Photograph of drawing on the block f o r v i i i P late "Godiva." Some Poems by Alfred Lord Tennyson (Freemantle, 1901), facing p. 106. 51. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Thomas Williams, f o r "The Beggar Maid." Moxon Tennyson, p. 359. 52. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n s , engraved by Thomas Williams and John Thompson, for "Recollections of the Arabian Nights." Moxon Tennyson, pp. 13, 19. 53. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "The Lent Jewels," by Richard Chenevix Trench. Robert A r i s Willmott, ed., English Saored Poetry, of the Sixteenth, Seven-teenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (Routledge, 1862), f r o n t i s . 54. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, fo r "At Night," anon. Once a Week, 3 (1860), 102. 55. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n f o r "A Morning Song of P r a i s e , " graphotype p l a t e . Isaac Watts, Divine and Moral Songs (Nisbet, [1867]), p. 47. 56. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "Go and Come," by D[inah Mulock]. Good Words, 3 (1862), 32. 57. William Holman Hunt. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, for "Temujin," by H. P. Once a Week, 3 (1860), 630. 58. John Everett M i l l a i s . "The Dying Man," pen and sepia ink and wash (1853). John G u i l l e M i l l a i s , The Life and Letters of Sir John Everett Millais (Methuen, 1899), 1, 207. 59. John Everett M i l l a i s , "The Best Days Sketching," pen and ink (1853). M i l l a i s , 1, 211. 60. Dante Gabriel R o s s e t t i , "Resolution; or, the Infant Hercules," caricature i n pen and India ink of William Morris (1869). R. C. H. Briggs, "Letters to Janey," The Journal of the William Morris Society, 1 (Summer 1964), 9. 61. John Everett M i l l a i s , The Order of Release,.1746 (1853). M i l l a i s , I, 180. 62. John Everett M i l l a i s . A Huguenot, on St. Bartholomew's day, refusing to shield himself from danger by wearing the Roman Catholic badge (1852). M i l l a i s , 1, 138. 63. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "On the Water," by "Memor." Once a Week, 1 (1859), 70. i x P late 64. James McNeill Whistler, "A River Scene," etching. Passages from. Modern English Poets, i l l u s t r a t e d by the Junior Etching Club (Day, [1862]), p i . 45. 65. James Mahoney. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Whymper, f o r "Autumn T o u r i s t s , " anon. The Argosy, 2 (1866), 217. 66. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, fo r "Dark Gordon's Bride," by B. S. Montgomery. Once a Week, 3 (1860), 238. 67. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, fo r "Iphis and Anaxarete," by Mary C. F. Minister. Once a Week, 4 (1861), 98. 68. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "St. Bartholomew," by H. E. E. M. Once a Week, 1 (1859), 514. 69. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, f o r "La F i l l e bien garde"e," by S [ h i r l e y ] B[rooks?]. Once a Week, 1 (1859), 306. 70. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "The Talking Oak." Moxon Tennyson, p. 255. 71. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, for "Last Words," by Owen Meredith. The Cornhill Magazine, 2 (1860), 513. 72. George Cruikshank. I l l u s t r a t e d t i t l e page f o r Angus B. Reach, Clement Lorimer; or, The Book with the Iron Clasps (Bogue, 1849). 73. John Dawson Watson. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, for "Last Words," by Henry A l f o r d . English Sacred Poetry (1862), p. 323. 74. John Everett M i l l a i s , I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "The Grandmother's Apology," by A l f r e d Tennyson. Once a Week, 1 (1859), 41. 75. John G i l b e r t , I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "Angel V i s i t s , " by Charles Mackay. The Home Affections Pourtrayed by the Poets (1858), p. 363. 76. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, for "The Bishop and the Knight," anon. The Cornhill Magazine, 6 (1862), 100. 77. William Mulready. I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by John Thompson, f o r The Vicar of Wakefield (1843), p. 7. X Plate 78. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Thomas Williams, f o r "Dora." Moxon Tennyson, p. 213. 79. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by John Thompson, fo r "Locksley H a l l . " Moxon Tennyson, p. 267. 80. John Everett M i l l a i s , "Locksley H a l l , " pen and brush and India , ink. William E. Fredeman c o l l e c t i o n . 81. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "Locksley H a l l . " Moxon Tennyson, p. 274. 82. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by John Thompson, f o r "Dora." Moxon Tennyson, p. 219. 83. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Thomas Williams, f o r Rev. John Anderson, The Pleasures of Borne, A Poem ( H a l l , [1856]), f r o n t i s . 84. John Everett M i l l a i s . Etching f o r "The Bridge of Sighs." Passages from the Poems of Thomas Hood, i l l u s t r a t e d by the Junior Etching Club (Gambart, 1858), p i . 10. 85. John Everett M i l l a i s . "The F i r e s i d e Story," i l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "Frost i n the Holidays." William Allingham, The Music Master, A Love Story, and Two Series of Bay and Night Songs (Routledge, 1855), p. 216. 86. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "There's Nae Luck About the House," a t t r i b u t e d to William J u l i u s Mickle. The Home Affections Pourtrayed by the Poets (1858), p. 245. 87. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, for "Love," by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Robert A r i s Willmott, ed. The Poets of the Nineteenth Century (Routledge, 1857), p. 137. 88. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "The Dream," by Lord Byron. The Poets of the Nineteenth Century (1857), p. 123. 89. Ford Madox Brown. Title-page vignette, engraved on s t e e l , f o r The Poetical Works of Lord Byron, ed. William Michael R o s s e t t i (Moxon, 1870). 90. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "Mistress and Maid," by [Dinah Mulock], Good Words, 3 (1862), 545. 91. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, x i P l a t e f o r " S i r Tristem," by [Robert] Buchanan. Once a Week, 6 (1862), 350. 92. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, fo r "Irene," by R. M. The Cornhill Magazine, 5 (1862), 478. 93. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, for "St. Agnes' Eve." Moxon Tennyson, p. 309. 94. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, fo r "Maude Clare," by C h r i s t i n a R o s s e t t i . Once a Week, 1 (1859) , 382. 95. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, fo r "The Head of Bran," by George Meredith. Once a Week, 2 (1860) , 132. 96. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, fo r "The Crown of Love," by George Meredith." Once a Week, 2 (1860), 10. 97. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by Joseph Swain, for "The Meeting," by G[eorge] M[eredith]. Once a Week, 3 (1860), 276. 98. John Everett M i l l a i s . I l l u s t r a t i o n , engraved by D a l z i e l Brothers, f o r "The S i s t e r s . " Moxon Tennyson, p. 109. 99. William Gale. Etching f or "The S i s t e r s , " by A l f r e d Tennyson. Passages from Modern English Poets [1862], p i . 32. 100. John Everett M i l l a i s , "The S i s t e r s , " p e n c i l study f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n . M i l l a i s , 1, 304, as a "Sketch for Tennyson I l l u s t r a t i o n . 1856." ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To formally acknowledge a l l the help received during t h i s project would be an enjoyable but impossible task. I would l i k e to thank the heads and s t a f f s of the c o l l e c t i o n s consulted, f o r making t h e i r holdings a v a i l a b l e to me, and f o r t h e i r kind assistance. Though I was unable to v i s i t the Huntington L i b r a r y , Mrs. J . G. Links (Mary Lutyens) generously gave me prolonged access to her copies of the l e t t e r s from M i l l a i s and Hunt i n t h i s c o l l e c t i o n , which she has j u s t published i n The Forty-first Volume of the Walpole Society, 1972-1974 (Glasgow: Walpole Society, 1974), pp. 1-93. I would also l i k e to thank Dr. Gordon N. Ray f o r allowing me to consult h i s superb c o l l e c -t i o n of i l l u s t r a t e d books of the S i x t i e s , and for h i s help and encouragement. P a r t i c u l a r thanks are also due to Mr. Robin de Beaumont, S i r Ernst Gombrich,, Mr. J u l i a n H a r t n o l l , Dr. Edward Hodnett, Mr. Jeremy Maas, and Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Marshall. Dr. Roy Dan i e l l s and Dr. George Knox have both improved the di s s e r t a t i o n with valuable suggestions. My p r i n c i p a l debt i s to my supervisor, Dr. William E. Fredeman, whose constant assistance with every aspect of t h i s study has been invaluable. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank the Canada Council f o r t h e i r generous support throughout my doctoral program. x i i i NOTE Throughout t h i s study, quotations from poems are c i t e d from the i l l u s t r a t e d e d i t i o n s . Unless the dates of p u b l i c a t i o n of the designs reproduced are supplied i n the discussion, they are given i n brackets with the Plate numbers. Dates are not provided, however, f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n s i n A l f r e d Tennyson, Poems (London: Moxon, 1857), which i s referred to i n the L i s t of Plates and elsewhere as the Moxon Tennyson. The following abbreviations f o r c o l l e c t i o n s are employed: Angeli: Angeli Papers, The Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Special C o l l e c t i o n s . B. M.: B r i t i s h Museum, P r i n t s Room. Hartley: The Harold Hartley C o l l e c t i o n , Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Huntington: The Henry E. Huntington L i b r a r y , San Marino, C a l i f o r n i a . Morgan: The Pierpont Morgan L i b r a r y , New York C i t y . Stephens: Frederic'!? George Stephens Papers, Bodleian L i b r a r y , Oxford. R. A. L i b r a r y : Royal Academy Library-, .Burlington, House, London. T r o x e l l : The Janet Camp T r o x e l l C o l l e c t i o n , Princeton University L i b r a r y . V & A: V i c t o r i a and Al b e r t Museum, London. Woolner: The Thomas Woolner Papers, Bodleian L i b r a r y , Oxford. 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Picture and poem bear the same r e l a t i o n to each other as beauty does i n man and woman: the point of meeting where the two are most i d e n t i c a l i s the supreme p e r f e c t i o n . D. G. R o s s e t t i 1 . . . where the realm of poetry meets that of a r t , i n the sphere of i l l u s t r a t i o n . 2 E. H. Gombrich i A f t e r long neglect, Pre-Raphaelite a r t and l i t e r a t u r e have recently emerged as respected s c h o l a r l y subjects. Rossetti and his c i r c l e , i n p a r t i c u l a r , have received considerable c r i t i c a l a t tention, and even minor associates of the movement are being re-assessed. Inevitably, t h i s r e v i v a l has touched the numerous i l l u s t r a t i o n s produced between 1850 and 1875 by Pre-Raphaelite a r t i s t s . L i s t e d i n a separate section of William E. Fredeman's Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study (1965), these designs and studies f o r them have appeared i n several recent e x h i b i t i o n s and cata-logues. The formal merits of these and other i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the " S i x t i e s " have been acknowledged by such c r i t i c s as Quentin B e l l , who commends them f o r possessing "a breadth of design, a nicety of drawing, a p u r i t y of sentiment, which i s wholly admirable." To B e l l , the eighteen-sixties i s "the Golden Age of English I l l u s t r a t i o n " — a n 3 epithet f i r s t applied to the decade i n the l a s t century. As B e l l ' s t r i b u t e s suggest, the renewed appreciation of Pre-Raphaelite designs has not s i g n i f i c a n t l y broadened c r i t i c a l understanding 2 of them. Aside from Fredeman, recent commentators on these works have added l i t t l e to the pioneer studies of S i x t i e s i l l u s t r a t i o n by Gleeson White (1897) and Forrest Reid (1928), who deserve high praise for c o l l e c t i n g and cataloguing the products of a s i g n i f i c a n t period of graphic art. Though pr i m a r i l y intended f o r c o l l e c t o r s , both books include c r i t i c a l comments on the Pre-Raphaelites and t h e i r con-temporaries, and Reid provides b r i e f but perceptive c r i t i q u e s of i n d i v i d u a l designs. Reid and White also attempt to place the work of these a r t i s t s i n a h i s t o r i c a l context; yet t h e i r views of the eighteen-sixties, l i k e t h e i r opinions of i t s a r t , are overtly sub-4 j e c t i v e . The period whose "grotesque costumes" repel White i s for Reid a "Golden Age" i n the widest aesthetic sense. Almost a f u l l paragraph of Reid's discussion of Charles Keene, f o r example, i s devoted to a defense of mid-Victorian fashions, including the c r i n o l i n e : "the most decorative adornment the feminine mind ever invented—incomparably, from the a r t i s t ' s point of view, superior to the formless wisps of clothing i n fashion to-day." In a characteris-t i c t r a n s i t i o n , Reid then notes "the p o s i t i v e aesthetic value" of the c r i n o l i n e i n Keene's i l l u s t r a t i o n s for George Meredith's Evan Harrington. He concludes by pronouncing these designs equal to any that were ever made for a novel. Nor, when I say t h i s , do I forget M i l l a i s ' s i l l u s t r a t i o n s f o r Trollope, or Walker's f o r the Thackerays, father and daughter; but somehow Keene's kind of beauty appeals to me more than theirs.5 Although t h i s passage shows Reid at h i s most i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c , i t exemplifies h i s approach to i l l u s t r a t i o n . Keene"s designs are judged as independent works of a r t , providing c e r t a i n kinds of aesthetic 3 pleasure. Their i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with Meredith's novel i s not considered, and Reid also ignores the e f f e c t on t h e i r "kind of beauty" of the c l u t t e r e d format of Once a Week. Generally, Reid only discusses the l i t e r a r y and p h y s i c a l context of i l l u s t r a t i o n s when he finds them conspicuously offensive, and h i s frequent i n d i f f e r e n c e to these matters i s shared by Gleeson White and most of h i s successors. Even Percy Muir, who i n h i s study of Victorian Illustrated Books gives some attention to the l i t e r a r y aspects of the works., he examines, fears that " t h i s preoccupation with texts may appear i r r e l e v a n t i n a book concerned with i l l u s t r a t i o n s . . . . How, then, would these authors define " i l l u s t r a t i o n " ? To Muir, the i l l u s t r a t o r seeks "to convey to the reader a recognizable graphic representation of scenes and characters i n the author's text."^ A s i m i l a r assumption underlies Forrest Reid's comments on Birket Foster's designs: In any true sense of the word he was not an i l l u s t r a t o r at a l l . He had no imagination, and apparently took l i t t l e account of the imagination of others. whatever poet he may be i l l u s t r a t i n g . . . he gives us p r e c i s e l y the same d e l i c a t e l i t t l e Birket Foster i d y l l . Reid's basic concern, however, i s l e s s with the s p e c i f i c a l l y l i t e r a r y content of i l l u s t r a t i o n s than with t h e i r more general n a r r a t i v e q u a l i t i e s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , he follows t h i s c r i t i c i s m of Birket Foster with a long t r i b u t e to that a r t i s t ' s Pictures of- the English Landscape, a c o l l e c t i o n of "admirable" engravings which Tom Taylor embellished with " i l l u s t r a t i v e " verses. Such a work poses problems for Muir, who questions "whether t h i s can s t r i c t l y be c a l l e d an i l l u s t r a t e d book at a l l , " and lamely concedes that " i t cannot be said 9 that the pictures are not relevant to the t e x t . " By contrast, 4 Gleeson White praises the independence of i l l u s t r a t i o n s from t h e i r ostensible sources, and he re j o i c e s at h i s questionable discovery that "dozens of p i c t u r e s " published i n Once a Week during the early S i x t i e s "are evidently purely the invention of the draughtsman.""""^ The a n t i t h e s i s of White's conception of i l l u s t r a t i o n i s expounded by J . R. Harvey. In defending a study of designs for V i c t o r i a n novels that ignores George E l i o t , Trollope, Hardy, and Meredith, Harvey argues that i l l u s t r a t i o n s are only " j u s t i f i e d " when they are "indispensable" to the works they accompany. "Indispensable" i l l u s t r a t i o n emerges from a so - c a l l e d "creative partnership" between a r t i s t and author, such as existed i n the ei g h t e e n - t h i r t i e s and f o r t i e s i n England. The f a c t that the p r o f e s s i o n a l association between Dickens and "Phiz" i s v i r t u a l l y unique does not prevent Harvey from associating i t with "almost a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t uses of i l l u s t r a t i o n . " Harvey's i d e a l i l l u s t r a t o r i s a sycophantic drudge, s l a v i s h l y obeying the orders of hi s "partner," and f a b r i c a t i n g work that i s a "product and agent of l i t e r a t u r e . " By his own l i g h t s , Harvey has written the " d e f i n i t i v e " study of i l l u s t r a t i o n . There are few i f any s i g n i f i c a n t draughtsmen before "Phiz" who meet these c r i t e r i a , and Harvey i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y censures modern i l l u s t r a t o r s f o r p r a c t i s i n g the " e n t i r e l y new mode of i l l u s t r a t i o n " established by the Pre-Raphaelites."""""" Some of Harvey's objections to t h i s "new mode" w i l l be considered i n l a t e r chapters, but he associates i t above a l l with a r t i s t s who conceive t h e i r designs to be at l e a s t as important as the texts they i l l u s t r a t e . To Harvey, such presumption i s only t o l e r a b l e from George Cruikshank. Few accounts of V i c t o r i a n i l l u s t r a t i o n are excessively l i t e r a r y , and Harvey can at l e a s t claim to have a t t r i b u t e d unusual shortcomings 5 to the Pre-Raphaelites. More frequently, these a r t i s t s are disparaged by w r i t e r s who, i n William M. I v i n s 1 devastating words, "know books only as means f o r d i v e r s i o n , " and hold "that i l l u s t r a t i o n s are mere decorations, and that as such no i l l u s t r a t i o n s are 'good' unless • . . 12 they 'harmonize' with the p r i n t e d text pages." Decoration and i l l u s t r a t i o n are frequently d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by w r i t e r s on the subject. Ronald B. McKerrow describes decoration as "intended to beautify the book i n which i t i s used, and . . . therefore . . . more or le s s successful as i t harmonizes w e l l or i l l " with "the,typography and general appearance of the work." I l l u s t r a t i o n , he sees as "intended p r i m a r i l y to elucidate the text or to place the reader i n a better p o s i t i o n f o r v i s u a l i z i n g the events narrated"; so defined, i l l u s t r a -t i o n can "be judged on i t s success i n t h i s aim and on i t s merits as 13 an independent work of a r t . " Unlike Ruari McLean, who adheres to 14 McKerrow s d i s t i n c t x o n throughout h i s works on book design, other c r i t i c s , such as David Bland, endorse i t i n theory and disregard i t i n p r a c t i c e . More interested i n typography than l i t e r a t u r e , and i n the "unity of the page" than a r t , Bland cannot forgive "the D a l z i e l s and t h e i r contemporaries" a lack of " f e e l i n g f o r the p r i n t e d page." " I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that, generally speaking, the work of the o l d school s i t s better on the page," observes Bland of Moxon's Tennyson, and though Arthur Hughes' sdesigns for Allingham's Music Master are " l e s s impressive" than those by h i s collaborators, he i s commended by Bland for showing "more care for the look of the page." Bland's obsession with t h i s s i n g l e aspect of book i l l u s t r a t i o n betrays him i n t o a e s t h e t i c a l l y dubious and sometimes contradictory judgments. A f t e r censuring the p r i n c i p a l S i x t i e s volumes f o r such blemishes as 6 "pretentious typography and an unfortunate framework of red r u l e s , " he says of the decline of i l l u s t r a t i o n by the end of the decade: "the f a i l u r e began when i l l u s t r a t o r s began to lose sight of the unity of the page."''""' Of the c r i t i c s considered i n t h i s b r i e f survey, only Percy Muir shows a consistent awareness of the a r t i s t ' s a b i l i t y to "elucidate the text," and even h i s analysis of t h i s function 1 of i l l u s t r a t i o n i s extremely cursory. Indeed, there have been v i r t u a l l y no c r i t i c a l studies of the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e aspects of Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n , which were recognized as early as 1896 by Laurence Housman. To Housman, these designs are "personal and i n t e l l e c t u a l readings of the poems to which they [belong], . . . not merely echoes i n l i n e of the words of the text. Often they [are] the successful summing up of the d r i f t of an e n t i r e poem within the space of a si n g l e p i c t u r e . . . Such designs can r e s u l t from neither the c a v a l i e r adaptation of l i t e r a r y sources e x t o l l e d by White, nor the subjection to a u t h o r i a l d i c t a t e s advocated by Harvey. As Housman argues, the Pre-Raphaelites are both perceptive i n t e r p r e t e r s of l i t e r a t u r e and s k i l l e d a r t i s t s , and a c r i t i c a l study of t h e i r i l l u s t r a t i o n s must combine the thorough analysis of these works with the e x p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r sources. A l l u s i o n s to a Golden Age of I l l u s t r a t i o n , to p u r i t y of sentiment and nicety of drawing, and to unspecified kinds of beauty, have not c l a r i f i e d Housman's i n s i g h t into Pre-Raphaelite designs. In part, Housman's arguments have remained unexplored because of the d i f f i c u l t y of defining Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n . Though Housman's comments d i r e c t l y r e f e r to the contributions by D. G. Ro s s e t t i , J . E. M i l l a i s , and Holman Hunt to the Moxon Tennyson (1857), they mainly 7 r e l a t e to the work of a younger contemporary of these a r t i s t s , Arthur Boyd Houghton. Housman considers Houghton "a d i r e c t descendant and d i s c i p l e of those whom one may c a l l the pre-Raphaelite Fathers," and one of the "representative exponents," with George John Pinwell and Frederick Walker, of "pre-Raphaelitism i n i t s second p e r i o d . " 1 ^ This i s at best a questionable theory, and none of these a r t i s t s i s included i n Forrest Reid's chapter on "The Pre-Raphaelite Group" or i n William E. Fredeman's bibliography of Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n s . Yet, though Reid and Fredeman concur i n r e j e c t i n g Housman's version of a Pre-Raphaelite "second period," t h e i r own sel e c t i o n s of a r t i s t s r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t conceptions of the movement. Both authors include Ford Madox Brown, Edward Burne-Jones, Arthur Hughes, William Holman Hunt, John Everett M i l l a i s , Dante Gabriel R o s s e t t i , Frederick Sandys, and Simeon Solomon. Fredeman, however, l i s t s i l l u s t r a t i o n s by Fred e r i c James Shields, whom Reid places among "Some Occasional Contributors," and by William B e l l Scott, who i s not even mentioned i n Reid's study. Reid devotes less space to Hunt or Brown than to Matthew James Lawless, a minor but genuine "descendant and d i s c i p l e " of the o r i g i n a l Pre-Raphaelites, and he swells the ranks of the move-ment by inclu d i n g Henry Hugh Armstead and Edward John Poynter. I f Poynter can be e n l i s t e d , why not Frederick Leighton, who i s represented 18 i n Robin Ironside's c o l l e c t i o n of Pre-Raphaelite reproductions? In f a c t , Leighton i s another of Reid's "occasional" and u n c l a s s i f i e d contributors, along with George Frederick Watts, whose career i s discussed i n the section of Fredeman's study devoted to "Minor Pre-Raphaelites, Associates, and A f f i l i a t e s . " This subdivision of Fredeman's bibliography also includes Joseph Noel Paton, whose i l l u s -8 trati o n s include a large f o l i o of designs f o r The Ancient Mariner (1863). With t h e i r l i n e a r and expressive naturalism, these works more clo s e l y resemble the drawings of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood than c h a r a c t e r i s t i c designs by Poynter; yet Fredeman does not l i s t Paton's i l l u s t r a t i o n s , and Reid relegates him to "the rank and f i l e " of S i x t i e s draughtsmen-Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t o r s could be more r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d i f Pre-Raphaelitism were i t s e l f better defined. P a r t l y owing to the f a i l u r e of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r aesthetics, i t remains a term of bewildering complexity. What Ruskin c a l l s t h e i r "unfortunate and somewhat ludicrous name" epitomizes both t h e i r acquiescence i n "vague and half-formed ideas" and t h e i r i n d u l -gence i n " c l i c h e d romanticisms." Even t h e i r scattered t h e o r e t i c a l expositions are sometimes contradictory, r e f l e c t i n g fundamental d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h e i r p i c t u r e s . The Brotherhood's "language of p r a c t i c a l demonstration" su f f e r s from d i a l e c t i c a l d i s p a r i t i e s ; and though W. M. R o s s e t t i exaggerates i n denying t h e i r mature paintings "any l i n k of resemblance," even Holman Hunt early recognized the need for "the utmost possible v a r i e t y i n our combination," and declined to write an exposition of Pre-Raphaelitism i n 1860, when each confederate 20 was "working on somewhat d i f f e r e n t l i n e s . " Inevitably, these divergent aims a f f e c t e d Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a -t i o n s , f o r each a r t i s t c u l t i v a t e d both d i s t i n c t i v e graphic s t y l e s and independent view of l i t e r a t u r e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with v i s u a l a r t . Consequently, these designs do not lend themselves to deductive c r i t i c a l procedures. An adequate d e f i n i t i o n of Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n must be based on intensive analyses of the designs of the three maj or Pre-9 Raphaelite Brothers, whose works must be r e l a t e d to t h e i r l i t e r a r y sources and to the aesthetics and t o t a l oeuvres of t h e i r creators. Though no attempt i s made i n t h i s study to define s p e c i f i c a l l y Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n , the discussion o u t l i n e s and applies e x e g e t i c a l techniques that are indispensable to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the term. In the process, various methods of v i s u a l l y i n t e r p r e t i n g l i t e r a t u r e emerge, which underscore those p a r t i c u l a r l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s that lend themselves to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n through i l l u s t r a t i o n . To accommodate the d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of s p e c i f i c designs and te x t s , t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s l i m i t e d to the i l l u s t r a t i o n s which William Holman Hunt and John Everett M i l l a i s made f o r poetry. R e s t r i c t i n g the discussion to a s i n g l e l i t e r a r y form both narrows and sharpens the focus of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and f a c i l i t a t e s comparisons between Hunt's and M i l l a i s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i v e techniques. Considering the close association between these a r t i s t s during the early Brotherhood period, t h e i r i l l u s t r a t i o n s are s u r p r i s i n g l y d i f f e r e n t . While M i l l a i s employs a wide range of s t y l e s , and p a r a l l e l s l i t e r a r y themes and imagery with na r r a t i v e and formal devices, Hunt combines a l i m i t e d s t y l i s t i c r e p e r t o i r e with complex symbolic methods, sometimes re -miniscent of e a r l y Renaissance a r t . Because without a precise c r i t i c a l vocabulary, these aspects of Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n cannot e a s i l y be demonstrated, l a t e r chapters, e s p e c i a l l y two and three, discuss i n some d e t a i l theories of i l l u s t r a t i o n and v i s u a l symbolism evolved by Erwin Panofsky, E. H. Gombrich, and other a r t h i s t o r i a n s . The p r i n c i p a l terms used throughout t h i s account are defined i n the "Glossary," which also includes some of Heinrich W o l f f l i n ' s terminology f o r formal q u a l i t i e s of a r t . 10 Naturally, the s t y l i s t i c analysis of Pre-Raphaelite designs must take into account the graphic processes of the S i x t i e s . Though Hunt and M i l l a i s etched a few of t h e i r designs on copper, most of t h e i r i l l u s t r a t i o n s were p r o f e s s i o n a l l y engraved on wood by the Brothers D a l z i e l and Joseph Swain. Generally, the engravers sent the i l l u s t r a t o r a block of boxwood, often composed of one or more pieces t i g h t l y screwed or joined together. Using p e n c i l , brush, or pen, the a r t i s t drew his design d i r e c t l y on the block, a f t e r t h i n l y coating i t with Chinese White. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , he might make h i s drawing on paper, which could be pasted or photographically transferred onto the 21 block. At the engravers, the block was cut by several craftsmen, who s p e c i a l i z e d i n rendering p a r t i c u l a r textures and e f f e c t s . They attempted to produce a true f a c s i m i l e of the design and often a l t e r e d t h e i r work to the a r t i s t ' s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Extensive correspondence from Hunt and M i l l a i s to the engravers survives, along with many corrected proofs of t h e i r designs. Unfortunately, much of t h i s documentation concerns minor formal blemishes, and i s i r r e l e v a n t to the l i t e r a r y analysis of i l l u s t r a t i o n . More useful are o r i g i n a l studies by Hunt and M i l l a i s f o r t h e i r designs, and photographs of some of Hunt's Moxon Tennyson i l l u s t r a t i o n s bn the block. Though the primary objects of c r i t i c a l s c r u t i n y must be the f i n a l states of the engravings, these works are e s s e n t i a l l y " t r a n s l a t i o n s " of drawings, and a l l evidence of the i l l u s t r a t o r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i v e intentions should be considered. Besides the designs of Hunt and M i l l a i s , the d i s s e r t a t i o n also examines representative English and continental i l l u s t r a t o r s of the e i g h t e e n - t h i r t i e s and f o r t i e s . Concentrating on i n t e r p r e t a t i v e methods 11 that were prevalent when the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood began, t h i s discussion r e f e r s frequently to works* admired by D. G. R o s s e t t i , who was more i n c l i n e d than Hunt and M i l l a i s to praise older a r t i s t s . His frequent references to contemporary graphic a r t i d e n t i f y i l l u s t r a t i o n s that were known to the Brotherhood, whose members admired and even emulated several English and German draughtsmen. Ros s e t t i also figures conspicuously i n the second section of t h i s chapter, which considers the l i t e r a r y o r i e n t a t i o n of Pre-Raphaelite a r t . With h i s genius as a w r i t e r and h i s devotion to the v i s u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of poetry, R o s s e t t i contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to Hunt's and M i l l a i s ' i n t e r e s t i n i l l u s t r a t i o n . Yet, though Rossetti's aesthetics and a r t i s t i c preferences are often noted, t h i s study i n t e n t i o n a l l y excludes h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n s , which deserve a separate and more elaborate t r e a t -ment, i n which the evolution of h i s iconography could be f u l l y explored. Far more than Hunt and M i l l a i s , R o s s e t t i developed an e s s e n t i a l l y p r i v a t e symbolism, compounded from a formidable v a r i e t y of sources. Occasionally, h i s borrowings are obvious; John C h r i s t i a n notes that the background of one of Rossetti's designs i n Moxon's Tennyson, f o r "Mariana i n the South," i s almost i d e n t i c a l with a portion of Durer's 22 "The B i r t h of the V i r g i n . " This example suggests a creative pre-occupation with e a r l i e r art less c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the S i x t i e s than the Nineties, when Ros s e t t i exerted h i s greatest influence. The complexity of Rossetti's iconography, and i t s recurrence i n h i s poems as w e l l as h i s p i c t u r e s , make h i s i l l u s t r a t i o n s as c r i t i c a l l y challenging as those of Blake. Consequently, a discussion of a l l three major Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t o r s i s better suited to a book-length study than to a doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . 12 i i With few exceptions, recent commentators on Pre-Raphaelitism agree with William E. Fredeman that "the . . . force which animated 23 the movement" was " e s s e n t i a l l y l i t e r a r y . " This fundamental impulse informs most Pre-Raphaelite paintings, e i t h e r overtly through the use of d i r e c t l i t e r a r y subject-matter or i m p l i c i t l y through the employment of n arrative techniques. I t was, i n f a c t , so fundamental to V i c t o r i a n art as a whole that the movement's o r i g i n a l exponents took i t f o r granted, emphasizing representational issues more appropriate to a school of landscape than fi g u r e painters. Yet even Holman Hunt, whose preoccupation with " f u l l e r Nature" led him i n Pre-Raphaelitism to a l t e r The Germ 1s second t i t l e from Art and Poetry to Art and Nature, i d e n t i f i e s one of the major Pre-Raphaelite innovations as painting backgrounds of figure-subjects d i r e c t from nature, and he reports that, when he expounded Pre-Raphaelitism i n Oxford, he censured the lack of 24 "Nature" i n contemporary "imaginative work." Writing i n The Germ3 F. G. Stephens commends the procedural example of n a t u r a l i s t i c landscape 25 painters to h i s t o r i c a l painters, and early Pre-Raphaelite c r i t i c i s m tended c h i e f l y to condemn such "unmentionable" l i t e r a r y and domestic a r t i s t s as Frank Stone. Constable i s acknowledged by Hunt as a fore-26 runner of the e f f o r t "to paint landscape green," and Turner, whom one c r i t i c claims the Pre-Raphaelites "hated," was at l e a s t respected 27 by a l l of them except M i l l a i s . Yet, although Mark Anthony and other contemporary landscape painters were esteemed by the P.R.B., t h e i r own highest aspirations lay i n other branches of art. They regarded s p e c i a l i s t s i n Pre-Raphaelite landscape per se with some suspicion, and Hunt's s t r i c t u r e s on the movement's "prosaic" and "mechanical" r e c r u i t s , 13 d e f i c i e n t i n the "poetic" and "imaginative s t r a i n " of the o r i g i n a t o r s , r e c a l l the c r i t i c i s m s l e v e l l e d against Seddon i n the Redgraves' Century of Painters.^ Though he applauds h i s own d i l i g e n t p u rsuit and rendering of motifs, and disparages Rossetti's neglect of such exertions, Hunt propounds a less r i g i d s t y l i s t i c d e f i n i t i o n of Pre-Raphaelitism than R o s s e t t i himself. Anxious to d i s s o c i a t e himself from "the v i s i o n a r y v a n i t i e s of half-a-dozen boys," Ro s s e t t i describes the " s t y l e nomme'preraphaelite" as "realisme[,] emotionnel mais extremement m i n u t i e u x . H o w e v e r , as Ruskin perceives, and as Hunt, M i l l a i s , and Rossetti's brother confirm, meticulous elaboration was e s s e n t i a l l y a form of t u i t i o n ; i n Hunt's words, "the relinquishment of t h i s habit of work by a matured 30 painter would [not] make him less a Pre-Raphaelite." Not only l a t e r converts l i k e William Morris, but Hunt himself asserts that the Pre-Raphaelites were "never r e a l i s t s " intent on "the i c y double" of mere " f a c t s , " and he describes French "Naturalism" as "a repudiation, rather than a purgation,.of a r t . " The world, Hunt declares, must be " i n t e r -preted into beauty," and i t i s the "uninterpretive" approach to nature of previous f i g u r e painters that he c h i e f l y deplores. This i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n involves both " s e l e c t i o n , " through which "the frank worship of Nature" i s to be "kept i n check," and an adherence to "the s p i r i t of imaginative purpose." Commensurate with t h i s "purpose" i s the "dramatic s i g n i f i c a n c e " which every Pre-Raphaelite considered the sine 31 qua non of great art. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , "dramatic" painting has been influenced by l i t e r a r y technique, and the Pre-Raphaelites openly advocate t h i s d e r i v a t i o n . 32 Indeed, Hunt extols the dependence of painting on i t s " s i s t e r a r t " 14 with a fervour b e f i t t i n g the most dogged b e l i e v e r i n ut piotura poesis. "The L i t e r a t u r e and Art of an age are ever i n s p i r e d by a kindred s p i r i t , the l a t t e r f a i t h f u l l y following the former," declares Hunt, who acknow-33 ledges c e r t a i n early V i c t o r i a n poets as "our examplars i n l e t t e r s . " W. M. R o s s e t t i speaks of the Pre-Raphaelite e f f o r t to b r i n g "the arts of form i n t o general unison with what i s highest i n other a r t s , es-p e c i a l l y poetry"; and his brother, who maintains that "the next Keats ought to be a painter," and that "the noblest p i c t u r e i s a painted poem," informs Coventry Patmore that he i s t r y i n g to do " f o r p a i n t i n g , as f a r as poss i b l e , what you and a very few more poets are doing now 34 f o r poetry." The Pre-Raphaelites often equate performances i n the two art s : to Hunt, William C o l l i n s 1 , realism i s "Crabbe-like" and Gozzoli's humour "Chaucerian," while R o s s e t t i describes Madox Brown's sonnets as "Hogarthian" and Burne-Jones' works as "Aurora Leighs of a r t . " Reminiscent of attempts to elevate painting by associating i t with l i t e r a t u r e , these p a r a l l e l s r e f l e c t the Pre-Raphaelite conception of the "poetic," a q u a l i t y discerned by Hunt i n Van Dyck and M i l l a i s , Arthur Hughes and C e c i l Gordon Lawson, and by R o s s e t t i i n Memling and E l i z a b e t h Siddal, Morris (who constructed "more a poem than a house") 35 and Benjamin Woodward. Though the elder Pre-Raphaelites generally employ "poetry" as a l i t e r a r y term, they also share Ruskin's view of i t as an elevated form of expression embracing p l a s t i c as w e l l as verbal - 3 6 a r t . Like t h e i r avowed indebtedness to s p e c i f i c authors, aspects of the Pre-Raphaelites' working aesthetic i l l u s t r a t e Northrop Frye's thesis that "the possession of o r i g i n a l i t y . . . drives [an a r t i s t ] further 37 into convention . . . ." Paradoxically, t h e i r romantic quest for 15 f i d e l i t y to inner experience often l e d to a t e c t o n i c , planimetric s t y l e l a r g e l y derived from Renaissance works. Unlike most of t h e i r contemporaries, however, the Pre-Raphaelites both sought these s t r u c t u r a l precedents i n the works themselves, and t r i e d to employ them f l e x i b l y and appropriately. Hunt argues that, by r e j e c t i n g what W. M. R o s s e t t i c a l l s "Raphaelesque dogma," he and h i s associates emulated^Raphael himself, who had " t a c i t l y demonstrated that there was no f a s t r u l e of composition to trammel the arrangement di c t a t e d to the a r t i s t ' s w i l l 38 by the theme." The "conventional" rules of composition, l i g h t and 39 shade, and colour embodied i n t h i s "dogma" were doubly i n j u r i o u s to n a r r a t i v e a r t , f o r they predisposed the a r t i s t to a small range of l i t e r a r y subjects, while hindering him i n attempting others, e s p e c i a l l y modern ones. During the eighteen-forties, Royal Academy exhibitors essayed "ever-repeated" themes, which through r e p e t i t i o n had become "at best but second-hand i d e a s . W . P. F r i t h , who confesses to having s l a v i s h l y copied Maclise i n his early work, r e c a l l s that the example set by that master i n i l l u s t r a t i n g " G i l Bias" and the "Vicar of Wakefield" caused so many Vicars and G i l Biases to blossom on the walls of the Exhibitions from the hands of so many ad-mirers, that the c r i t i c s f e l l f o u l of us; and Thackeray, who was the c r i t i c i n Fraser of that day, declined to give the names of e i t h e r G i l Bias or the Vica r i n f u l l , but always wrote of the l a t t e r as the "V r of W d," and warned us that i f our s e r v i l e conduct was persevered i n , he would never look at pictures of e i t h e r of those distinguished i n d i v i d u a l s , much less write about them. On the rendering of these stock themes, the Pre-Raphaelites d e l i v e r ample judgments. They compare the figures i n canvases by a group of A.R.A.'s headed by F r i t h and Frank Stone to "motionless l a y - f i g u r e s " and "waxworks," to "second-rate actors . . • . a l l arrayed i n clothes fresh from the bandbox," i n scenes h i s t r i o n i c a l l y " a r t i f i c i a l " and u n p a t r i o t i -c a l l y "worked . . . i n the i d e a l adopted by the decorators of French 16 plum-boxes." Selected f o r t h e i r "anecdotal" p o t e n t i a l , subjects were treated without e i t h e r any " e f f o r t at sturdy r e a l i z a t i o n " or any attempt to "express thought, f e e l i n g , or purpose of the painter's own mind." "Chromatic t r a n s l a t i o n [ s ] of a n o v e l i s t or poet" re s u l t e d from such d e f i c i e n c i e s . To the Pre-Raphaelites, these works examplified the technical and i n t e l l e c t u a l "sloshiness" they were determined to avoid. Though some df t h e i r older colleagues were f a i r l y well-read, and a few, l i k e Turner and Maclise, occasionally composed poetry, many young A.R.A.'s lacked both l i t e r a r y culture and, as D. G. Ros s e t t i complained, "the capacity to educate themselves." F r i t h , though less a " f o o l " than R o s s e t t i thought him, concedes that "my . . . reading lay c h i e f l y i n books suggestive of subjects f o r p i c t u r e s — S t e r n e , Goldsmith, Moliere, Cervantes, and the 'Spectator' taking the lead of a l l o t h e r s . I n s t e a d of complaisantly browsing among established " c l a s s i c s , " the Pre-Raphaelites approached l i t e r a t u r e , l i k e nature, with an empirical disregard of "convention." Hunt states that "our common enthusiasm f o r Keats" brought him and Ros s e t t i together, and Rossetti's brother r e c a l l s that Browning admiration "formed a bond of union" among the P.R.B.'s.^ As the "P.R.B. Journal" and other contemporary documents a t t e s t , early Pre-Raphaelite paintings were produced i n an intensely l i t e r a r y atmosphere. Hunt and R o s s e t t i a f f i x e d passages of "our poets" to the walls of t h e i r studio, compiled a " L i s t of Immortals" dominated by poets and painters, and read and r e c i t e d to each other while working. I f , i n l a t e r years, R o s s e t t i "would have a l l men pai n t e r s , " during the Brother-hood period he t r i e d as ardently to make them poets, and i t was p a r t l y at hi s i n s t i g a t i o n that the en t i r e Pre-Raphaelite c i r c l e not only 17 46 s c r u t i n i z e d and discussed l i t e r a t u r e but e n e r g e t i c a l l y composed i t . A e s t h e t i c a l l y , the P.R.B. incorporated the objectives of "The Cyclographic Society," whose members contributed i l l u s t r a t i v e drawings f o r c r i t i c a l assessment, and a " L i t e r a r y Society" that Rossetti t r i e d - • . 4 7 to inaugurate. This creative v e r s a t i l i t y permeates The Germ. S u b t i t l e d Thoughts towards Nature in Poetry, Literature, and Art, and soon r e t i t l e d Art 48 and Poetry, t h i s organ of "the Praeraphaelite p r i n c i p l e s i n a r t " c h i e f l y contains the l i t e r a r y productions and theories of i t s pro-p r i e t o r s . The young painters who applauded Tennyson's rebuke to a time when "the Poet's crown" [sio] was not "worth the winning," set out, "both i n t r i n s i c a l l y and by review, to claim f o r Poetry that place to which i t s present development i n the l i t e r a t u r e of t h i s country so 49 emphatically e n t i t l e s i t . " "Your share i s with the poet's share," F. G. Stephens informs h i s f e l l o w - a r t i s t s , who are apprised by The Germ's e d i t o r that England i s enjoying an unparalleled p o e t i c Renaiss-ance.'"'""' Appropriately, the magazine provides l i b e r a l extracts from Clough's Bothie and Arnold's Strayed Reveller. The creative vigour and t e c h n i c a l assurance of such works i n t e n s i f i e d the Pre-Raphaelites' awareness of the comparative desuetude of English painting, together with the fact that, as Humphry House observes, "to have attempted an exactly p a r a l l e l r e v o l t i n l i t e r a t u r e would have meant attacking very l i t t l e more than University P r i z e poems.""'"'';: Nevertheless, poets do not escape Pre-Raphaelite censure. They are rebuked by Stephens for inadequate use of "the knowledge of themselves, and the characteris-t i c s of t h e i r own actual l i v i n g , " and W. M. Rossetti emphasizes that 18 52 most modern English poetry i s beneath c r i t i c i s m . The " a r t i s t " whom The Germ exhorts to d i r e c t h i s thoughts towards Nature could be ei t h e r "painter or wr i t e r " ; and the sonnet on i t s front wrapper "indicated, fo r w r i t e r s , much the same p r i n c i p l e which the P.R.B. professed for p a i n t e r s , — i n d i v i d u a l genuineness i n the thought, reproductive 53 genuineness i n the presentment. 1 1 The Pre-Raphaelites saw no contradiction between i l l u s t r a t i o n and eit h e r reproductive or expressive "genuineness." Only economy pre-vented them from including two i l l u s t r a t i o n s i n each number of The 54 Germ, which appeared, as the f i r s t advertisement announces, with "an Etching, the subject . . . taken from the opening a r t i c l e of the month." Each design was to be doubly i l l u s t r a t i v e , f o r besides representing the "opening a r t i c l e , " i t was to " i l l u s t r a t e . . . p r a c t i c a l l y " the p r i n c i p a l "aim" of the art c r i t i c i s m i n The Germ: "to encourage and enforce an enti r e adherence to the s i m p l i c i t y of nature . . ." This dual function concurs with two fundamental Pre-Raphaelite b e l i e f s , one of which i s embodied i n the same advertisement's promise of "Stories to develop thought and p r i n c i p l e . " That i s , true l i t e r a t u r e engenders ideas and sentiments which can, as le g i t i m a t e l y as those avowedly derived from personal observation or experience, supply the themes for works of a r t . Furthermore, these themes can be presented by depicting motifs analogous to relevant components of the l i t e r a r y "source." Whether l i t e r a l or f i g u r a t i v e , the r e s u l t i n g analogy between v i s u a l and l i n g u i s t i c imagery allows the a r t i s t to enlarge the thematic and narr a t i v e , and frequently even the symbolic, capacities of his work. From the f i r s t , Hunt and M i l l a i s d i f f e r e d both i n t h e i r reasons fo r t r y i n g to amplify the " l i t e r a r y " resources of v i s u a l a r t , and i n 19 the s p e c i f i c methods they adopted to ach ieve that end. These d i v e r s e motives and approaches w i l l be cons idered s e p a r a t e l y , i n the chapters devoted to the two a r t i s t s . However, though Hunt, M i l l a i s , and the o ther P re-Raphae l i t es h e l d independent views of l i t e r a t u r e and p i c t o r i a l a r t , t h e i r shared sense of i nna te correspondences between the two, and t h e i r mutual c u l t i v a t i o n of e x p l i c i t l y l i t e r a r y i n s p i r a t i o n , made a l l of them regard book i l l u s t r a t i o n as a congen ia l form of e x p r e s s i o n . 20 NOTES ^From a serie s of "Sentences and Notes," i n The Works of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, ed. William Michael Ro s s e t t i (London: E l l i s , 1911), p. 606. 2 E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, 3rd ed. (London: Phaidon, 1968), p. 109. 3 . . . Quentin B e l l , Victoman Artists (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967), p. 61. The "Golden Age" l a b e l ultimately derives from Joseph Pennell's "A Golden Decade i n English A r t , " Savoy, No. 1 (Jan. 1896), 112-24. Though Pennell concedes Ji n h i s "Preface"-, to 'Some Poems by Alfred Lord Tennyson (London: Freemantle, 1901) that t h i s epithet was "in c a u t i o u s l y " applied, i t recurs throughout studies of the S i x t i e s , culminating i n A. B. Garrow's "The Golden Age of English I l l u s t r a t i o n , " Here and Now,. 1 (Dec. 1947), 49-56. ^Gleeson White, English Illustration: "The Sixties," 1855-1870 (Westminster: Constable, 1897), p. 22. "'Forrest Reid, Illustrators of the Sixties (London: Faber and Gwyer, 1928), p. 123. Percy Muir, Victorian Illustrated Books (London: Batsford, 1971), p. 238. ^Muir, p. xv. g Reid, p. 24. 9 Muiry, p. 135. "'"^White, p. 17. """"""J. R. Harvey, Victorian Novelists and their Illustrators (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1970), pp. 4, 160-62, 171. 12 William M. Ivins, J r . , Prints and Visual Communication (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1953), pp. 29-30. 13 Ronald B. McKerrow, An Introduction to Bibliography for L%terary Students, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928), p. 109. """^ In h i s excellent Victorian Book Design and Colour Printing, 2nd ed. (London: Faber, 1972), McLean emphasizes that " i l l u s t r a t i o n i s not the subject" of his study, since i l l u s t r a t i o n i s only one of several 21 p o t e n t i a l ingredients of "a well-designed book." He adds that he has "e s p e c i a l l y t r i e d . . . to exclude a r t i s t s who . . . made t h e i r c o n t r i -butions to i n d i v i d u a l pages, rather than to books as a whole." (p. 1). """^David Bland, A History of Book Illustration: The Illuminated Manuscript and the Printed Book, 2nd ed. (London: Faber, 1969), p. 19. 16 Laurence Housman, Arthur Boyd Houghton (London: Kegan Paul, 1896), p. 13. ^Housman, p. 16. 18 See Robin Ironside, Pre-Raphaelite Painters (London: Phaidon, 1948), p i . 94. 19 John Ruskin, Lectures on Architecture and Painting . . . 1853: "Pre-Raphaelitism," Works, ed. E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn (London: A l l e n , 1902-12), 12, 134; William E. Fredeman, "The Pre-Raphaelites , " i n The Victorian Poets: A Guide to Research, ed. Frederic E. Faverty, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1968), p. 259. 20 ^ William Michael Ros s e t t i , "Praeraphaelitism," Fine Art, Chiefly Contemporary (London: Macmillan, 1867), p. 171; "Introduction," The Germ . . . A Facsimile Reprint (London: Stock, 1901), p. 7; W. Holman Hunt, Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (London: Macmillan, 1905), 1, 221; 2, 197. 21 See Paul F i l d e s , "Phototransfer of Drawings i n Wood-Block Engraving," Journal of the Printing Historical Society, No. 5 (1969) pp. 87-97. 22 See John C h r i s t i a n , "Early German Sources f o r Pre-Raphaelite Designs," The Art Quarterly, 36 (Spring to Summer 1973), 58. 23 William E. Fredeman, Pre-Raphaelitism: A Bibliocritical Study (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1965), p. 15. 2 4Hunt, 1, 87, 210, 314-15; 2, 435. 25 See [F. G. Stephens], "The Purpose and Tendency of Early I t a l i a n A r t , " The Germ, No. 2 (Feb. 1850), p. 58. ? 6 Hunt, 1, 25. 2 7 A. Paul Oppe", "Art," i n Early Victorian England: 1830-1865 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1934), 2, 164. For M i l l a i s ' d i s l i k e of Turner, see John G u i l l e M i l l a i s , The Life and Letters of Sir John Everett Millais (London: Methuen, 1899), 1, 119. From Holman Hunt, Turner received l a r g e l y p a t r i o t i c t r i b u t e s ; from D. G. Ro s s e t t i , occasionally ir r e v e r a n t t o l e r a t i o n ; from Ford Madox Brown and Thomas Woolner, enthusiastic approval. In 1861, W. M. Ro s s e t t i declared that "the character of Turner's a r t , and the q u a l i t y of h i s p i c t o r i a l genius 22 . . . transcend . . . i n every mental, and . . • almost every p i c t o r i a l and executive q u a l i t y a l l previous and succeeding landscape p a i n t e r s and landscape a r t put together" ("Turner's L i f e and Genius," Fine Art, p. 313). This i s f a r warmer p r a i s e than W. P. F r i t h gives Turner's l a t e r work i n My Autobiography and Reminiscences (London: Bentley, 1887-88), 1, 130-131. 28 Hunt, 2, 89; see Richard and Samuel Redgrave, A Century of Painters of the English School (London: Smith, E l d e r , 1866), 2, 621ff. The e l d e r Pre-Raphaelites p r e f e r r e d Thomas Seddon, a prote'ge of Hunt's and Madox Brown's, to John B r e t t : W. J . S t i l l m a n i n The Autobiography of a Journalist (Boston: Houghton, M i f f l i n , 1901), 2, 82, r e c a l l s that "the only p a i n t e r of any note I ever heard [ R o s s e t t i ] speak of w i t h strong d i s l i k e was B r e t t , whom he could not t o l e r a t e . " Nevertheless, t h e i r admiration f o r Seddon's works, which to Ruskin epitomize " h i s t o r i c " or t o t a l l y o b j e c t i v e landscape, was q u a l i f i e d ; see I r o n s i d e , p. 25. R o s s e t t i ' s approval of J . W. Inchbold's vaguely symbolic rendering of n a t u r a l m o t i f s was soon undermined by p e r s o n a l animosity, and i n 1864 he r e v i l e d Inchbold to Madox Brown.as "a curse" (Letters,-ed. Oswald Doughty and John Robert Wahl [Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s , 1965-67], 2, 497). The importance of " n a t u r a l i s t i c " landscape to Pre-Raphaelitism i s described, and o c c a s i o n a l l y overestimated, i n A l l e n S t aley's s c h o l a r l y study of The Pre-Raphaelite Landscape, Oxford Studies i n the H i s t o r y of A r t and A r c h i t e c t u r e (Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s , 1973). 29 T. H a l l Caine, Recollections of Dante Gabriel Rossetti (London: Stock, 1882), p. 219; R o s s e t t i to Ernest Chesneau, 7 Nov. 1868, Letters, 2, 672. W r i t i n g to Madox Brown on 3 A p r i l 1866 about the s a l e of one of Brown's e a r l y works, R o s s e t t i d e c l a r e s : "Were i t s subject a l e s s p u r e l y r e a l i s t i c one, I should have no f e a r f o r i t s f a t e even now but the epoch of p r e r a p h a e l i t i s m was a short one which i s q u i t e over and w i l l never be renewed, and i t s products w i l l be e x c e p t i o n a l l y v a l u a b l e one day but not y e t " (Letters, 2, 595). 30 Hunt, 1, 150; quoted w i t h approval (from the Contemporary Review, 49 [May 1886], 741) by W i l l i a m Michanl R o s s e t t i i n Dante Gabriel Rossetti: Bis Family-Letters with a Memoir (London: E l l i s , 1895, h e r e a f t e r c i t e d as Memoir), 1, 129. In the same study, W. M. R o s s e t t i observes " t h a t , although . . . the P r a e r a p h a e l i t e s looked upon e l a b o r a t i o n of d e t a i l as being r a t h e r a d i s c i p l i n e f o r students than a necessary p r a c t i c e f o r p r o f i c i e n t s , they were not always s u f f i c i e n t l y c a r e f u l to a f f i r m t h i s , but, i n the heat of controversy, would sometimes seem to imply that such e l a b o r a t i o n was r e a l l y r e q u i s i t e , as w e l l as admissible and u s e f u l " (1, 130). Yet W. M. R o s s e t t i h i m s e l f c l e a r l y expounds the t u i t i o n a l f u n c t i o n of "scrupulous f i d e l i t y " i n h i s 1851 a r t i c l e on " P r a e r a p h a e l i t i s m , " which i n c i d e n t a l l y denies the charge that the school was bent on s e l e c t i n g and r e j e c t i n g nothing (see p. 174n). A decade l a t e r , i n " S t y l e , Subject-Matter, and Successes i n A r t " (1861), he a t t r i b u t e s "the advance i n e s t y l e . . . of the B r i t i s h school . . . to the s t e r n and t r u e d i s c i p l i n e of P r a e r a p h a e l i t i s m . This has taught p a i n t e r s 23 how to exhibit f a c t s : they are now p r a c t i c i n g how to combine r e a l i z e d f a c t s i n t o p i c t u r e s . I t i s not a superceding of Praeraphaelitism, but the second and forecast stage of i t — t h e one i t contemplated and prepared" (Fine Art, p. 6). Hunt, 1, 150, declares that he retained "the restrained handling of an experimentalist" longer than Rossetti and M i l l a i s ; the l a t t e r t o l d Arthur Hughes i n 1852 that " i f you do not begin by doing too much you w i l l end by doing too l i t t l e . . . " ( M i l l a i s , 1, 177). "What f a c u l t i e s higher than i m i t a t i v e may be i n these men," wrote Ruskin i n 1851 of the Pre-Raphaelites, "I do not yet venture to say; but I do say, that i f they e x i s t , such f a c u l t i e s w i l l manifest themselves i n due time a l l the more f o r c i b l y because they have received t r a i n i n g so severe" (Vfref.RapJiaelit4'sii^:,V WorJcs, 12, 358). 3 1Hunt, 1, 135, 150, 189, 217; 2, 452. Cf. William Morris on Pre-Raphaelite "Naturalism": "Besides the mere presentment of n a t u r a l f a c t , [the Pre-Raphaelites] aimed . . . at the conscientious present-ment of incident [,] . . . [at] t e l l i n g some kind of story to the beholder. That you see completes the Naturalism. Granted that you have something to say, and that you say i t w e l l by means of the Art of Painting, you are then, and then only, a N a t u r a l i s t i c Painter" ("Address on the C o l l e c t i o n of Paintings of the English Pre-Raphaelite School i n the C i t y of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery on Friday, October 24, 1891," William Morris: Artistt\.Writer-,'•••>Socialist', ed. May Morris [Oxford: B a s i l Blackwell, 1936], 1, 300-01). 3 2Hunt, 1, 354. 3 3Hunt, 1, 325-26; 2, 466; see 2, 359. R o s s e t t i , Memoir, 1, 134; G[eorgina] B[urne]-J[ones], Memorials of Edward Bume-Jones (London: Macmillan, 1904), 1, 145; A. W. Baldwin, The Macdonald Sisters (London: Davies, 1960), pp. 141-42, c i t e d i n Fredeman, Pre-Raphaelitism, p. 154; Rossetti to Coventry Patmore, [1855], Letters, 1, 275. W. M. Rossetti declares that, i f i n about 1847 h i s brother "had been accomplished i n the a r t of painting, he would have c a r r i e d out i n that a r t very much the same range of subject and treatment which he found i n Browning's poetry . . . " {Memoir, 1, 102). 3 5Hunt, 1, 50, 133, 191; 2, 152, 366, 417; Rossetti to James Col l i n s o n , 25 Oct. 1849, to Madox Brown, [23 Sept. 1853], to William Allingham, 18 Dec. 1856, to Alexander G i l c h r i s t , June 1861, to Charles E l i o t Norton, 9 June 1862, Letters, 1, 84, 154, 311; 2, 408, 435, 436. 36 For Ruskin's conception of the "poetic", see George P. Landow, The Aesthetic and Critical Theories of John Ruskin (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1971), pp. 43-86. 37 Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1957), p. 132. R o s s e t t i , "Praeraphaelitism," p. 176; Hunt, 1, 136. In h i s 24 r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of h i s p r i n c i p a l d iscourse to M i l l a i s , Hunt (1, 87) emphasizes "the need of making each design accord w i t h the s p i r i t of the s u b j e c t . " 39 The " p o s i t i v e " and "c o n v e n t i o n a l " " r u l e s of a r t " are enumerated i n " P r a e r a p h a e l i t i s m , " pp. 168-70. 4 0 [F. G. Stephens], William Holman Hunt and His Works: A Memoir of the Artist's Life, with Descriptions of His Pictures (London: N i s b e t , 1860), p. 10. 4 1 F r i t h , 1, 96. 126. 4 2 S t e p h e n s , Hunt, pp. 10, 13; Hunt, 1, 51; R o s s e t t i , Memoir, 1, 4 3 R o s s e t t i , " E x h i b i t i o n of Modern B r i t i s h A r t at the Old Water-Colour G a l l e r y , 185QV" Works, p. 571 44 R o s s e t t i to Madox Brown, [?30 A p r i l 1865], Letters, 2, 554; F r i t h , 1, 152. 45 Hunt, 1, 107; R o s s e t t i , The Germ, p. 27. 46 Hunt, 1, 159; R o s s e t t i to W. M. R o s s e t t i , 30 August 1848, Letters, 1, 42; Oswald Doughty, A Victorian Romantic: Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1960), p. 206. 47 On the a b o r t i v e " L i t e r a r y S o c i e t y , " see R o s s e t t i to W. M. R o s s e t t i , 30 August 1848, and to Holman Hunt, Sept. 1848, Letters, 1, 41, 45. R o s s e t t i presumably abandoned h i s plans f o r t h i s club when the P.R.B. began. The Society was to i n c l u d e Walter Howell D e v e r e l l , a co-founder w i t h R o s s e t t i of the Cyclographic, and an "eager reader" who wrote verse and acted on the stage (see Hunt, 1, 197). "How devoutly do I wish," D e v e r e l l wrote i n h i s " J o u r n a l " i n June [1847?], "that I could express what moves me, e i t h e r i n music, p a i n t i n g , verse or prose. . ( c i t e d i n F r a n c i s E. D e v e r e l l , "The P.R.B. and Walter Howell D e v e r e l l , " MS. i n Huntington). 48 R o s s e t t i , Memoir, 1, 149. 49 Hunt, 1, 145-46; The Germ, advertisement f o r Nos. 1 and 2 (Jan. and Feb. 1850). 5 0 F . G. Stephens, "The Purpose and Tendency of E a r l y I t a l i a n A r t , " p. 64; W. M. R o s s e t t i , review of Clough's Bothie, The Germ, No. 1. (Jan. 1850), p. 34. "'"'"Humphry House, "Pre-Raphaelite Poetry," All in Due Time (London: Hart-Davis, 1955), p. 152. 52 [F. G. Stephens], Modern G i a n t s , " The Germ, No. 4 (May 1850), p. 170; W. M. R o s s e t t i , review of Bothie, p. 34. 25 53 R o s s e t t i , The Germ, pp. 9, 16. 5 4 S e e "The P.R.B. J o u r n a l , " 15 J u l y 1849, i n Praeraphaelite Diaries and Letters, ed. W i l l i a m M i c h a e l R o s s e t t i (London: Hurst and B l a c k e t t , 1900), p. 215. 26 CHAPTER TWO PRINCIPLES OF ILLUSTRATION AND VISUAL SYMBOLISM In a work of a r t , "form" cannot be divorced from "content": the d i s t r i b u t i o n of colour and l i n e s , l i g h t and shade, volumes and planes, however d e l i g h t f u l as a v i s u a l spectacle, must also be understood as carrying a more-than-visual meaning. Erwin Panofsky 1 . . . i n iconography no less than i n l i f e , wisdom l i e s i n knowing where to stop. 2 E. H. Gombrich Most s i g n i f i c a n t Pre-Raphaelite i l l u s t r a t i o n s contain symbolic elements, and a few are genuine v i s u a l a l l e g o r i e s , i n which an i l l u s t r a t i v e secondary l e v e l of meaning embodies an emblematic primary one. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Pre-Raphaelite designs have been neglected by c r i t i c s who r i g i d l y segregate the representational, i l l u s t r a t i v e , and symbolic functions of v i s u a l imagery, and mechani-c a l l y group pictures under these headings. The modern censor of mere i l l u s t r a t i o n and allegory i s d i r e c t l y descended from the V i c t o r i a n who rebuked mere representation—both are equally b l i n d to the subtle interpenetration of these functions that characterizes many works of a r t . Even those c r i t i c s who recognize the f i g u r a t i v e l e v e l of Pre-Raphaelite pictures frequently associate i t with the t h e o r e t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the "romantic image," which they treat as the epitome of "symbolic" a r t . This approach has i t s value i n l i n k i n g Pre-Raphaelitism with movements that immediately preceded and followed i t ; but these are often literary movements, whose precepts can s e r i o u s l y d i s t o r t the most iconographic i l l u s t r a t i o n . In a f a r more fundamental sense than ut pictura poesis t h e o r i s t s perceived, v i s u a l art has i t s own "language," i t s own s t r u c t u r a l resources and t r a d i t i o n s of symbolism, and these properties have been ex-plored by several generations of distinguished scholars. Con-s i d e r i n g the growing complexity of h i s own d i s c i p l i n e , the l i t e r a r y s p e c i a l i s t cannot be expected to assimilate a l l the exegetical techniques of art h i s t o r y and c r i t i c i s m . But he must master the basic formal and iconographic approaches to the aspects of v i s u a l art he wishes to i n v e s t i g a t e . This chapter considers the nature of i l l u s t r a t i o n , and some of the p r i n c i p a l symbolic techniques associated with i t . " i l l u s -t r a t i o n " i s not used here i n the l i m i t e d sense of i n t e r p r e t a t i v e or representational pictures i n books, but i n the wider one of i s o l a t e d works with " i l l u s t r a t i v e " subject matter. I t must be emphasized that this discussion i s not e x p l i c i t l y r e l a t e d to Pre-Raphaelitism, or indeed to nineteenth-century a r t . L i k e the previous chapter, i t a r t i c u l a t e s e s s e n t i a l p r i n c i p l e s which constitute the c r i t i c a l foundation of the d i s s e r t a t i o n . In the f i r s t s ection, Erwin Panofsky's t r i p a r t i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e system i s outlined, and some of the basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i l l u s t r a t i o n and allegory are described. The second section examines Angus Fletcher's p r i n c i p l e s of l i t e r a r y allegory, and h i s a p p l i c a t i o n of them to v i s u a l a r t . To demonstrate the l i m i t a t i o n s of Fletcher' method, a summary i s provided i n section three of E. H. Gombrich's h i s t o r i c a l account of v i s u a l imagery, which draws a valuable d i s -28 t i n c t i o n between mystical and analogical symbolism. The fourth section considers other aspects of v i s u a l symbolism discussed by Gombrich, whose writings are exceptionally relevant to the l i t e r a r y analysis of i l l u s t r a t i o n . This d i s s e r t a t i o n i s heavily indebted to his dedicated i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the "language" of v i s u a l a r t . i In h i s "Introduction to the Study of Renaissance A r t , " which has equal s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the study of other periods, Erwin Panofsky distinguishes three l e v e l s i n the "subject matter or meaning" of a work of a r t . The f i r s t , "primary ot n a t u r a l subject matter," consists of a r t i s t i c motifs: "pure forms" ("certain configurations of l i n e and colour, or c e r t a i n peculiarly; - shaped lumps of bronze or stone") i d e n t i f i a b l e as "representations of n a t u r a l objects such as human beings, animals, . . . and so f o r t h , " whose "mutual r e l a t i o n s can constitute 'events'," and which can embody "such expressive q u a l i t i e s as the mournful character of a pose or gesture, or the homelike and peaceful atmosphere of an i n t e r i o r . " Enumerating these motifs constitutes "pre-iconographical d e s c r i p t i o n . 1 1 In the second l e v e l , "secondary or conventional subject matter," " a r t i s t i c motifs and combinations of a r t i s t i c motifs (compositions)" are associated with "themes or concepts." Panofsky c a l l s such motifs "images," which are of two kinds: (i) those "conveying the idea of concrete and i n d i v i d u a l persons or objects (such as St. Bartholomew, Venus, Mrs. Jones, or Windsor C a s t l e ) " ; ( i i ) those conveying the idea of "abstract and general notions such as F a i t h , Luxury, Wisdom, etc., [which] are c a l l e d p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s or symbols ( . . . e.g. the Cross, or the Tower of C h a s t i t y ) . " Images of the f i r s t kind are 29 combined into purely narrative p i c t u r e s , which Panofsky c a l l s " s t o r i e s , " while "combinations of p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s and / or symbols" are " a l l e g o r i e s . " Both categories are interpreted through "iconographical a n a l y s i s , " which "presupposes a f a m i l i a r i t y with s p e c i f i c themes or concepts as transmitted through l i t e r a r y sources, whether acquired by purposeful reading or by o r a l t r a d i t i o n . " This method of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s inappropriate to "European landscape painting, s t i l l l i f e and genre, not to mention 'non-objective' a r t , " which e f f e c t "a d i r e c t t r a n s i t i o n " from motifs to the t h i r d l e v e l of subject matter, " i n t r i n s i c meaning or content." In dealing with t h i s t h i r d l e v e l , the c r i t i c employs the " i n t e r p r e t a -t i v e " "synthesis" of i c o n o l o g i c a l analysis to determine "those underlying p r i n c i p l e s which reveal the basic a t t i t u d e of a nation, a period, a c l a s s , a r e l i g i o u s or p h i l o s o p h i c a l p e r s u a s i o n — q u a l i f i e d 3 by one personality and condensed into one work." In the purest sense, i l l u s t r a t i o n corresponds to Panofsky's " s t o r i e s . " To E. H. Gombrich, i l l u s t r a t i o n i s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c product of "the Greek Revolution" i n a r t , which effected "the gradual emancipation of conscious f i c t i o n from myth and moral parable." When the poet could f r e e l y revise and embroider mythology with d e s c r i p t i o n suggesting an "eyewitness" account, the v i s u a l a r t i s t could do likewise. He eventually abandoned the "timeless," "potent image" of e a r l i e r art f o r the i l l u s i o n i s t n a r r a t i v e tech-niques that transform viewers into "spectators of an imaginary scene." A l a t e product!-;o£ t h i s development i s the Pompeian mosaic, Alexander's Victory over Darius, which 30 compels us to look at the scene of slaughter not only through the eyes of the v i c t o r s but also through those of the man i n f l i g h t . . . . The bold fore-shortening of the foreground f i g u r e s , the f a l l e n Persian whose face i s r e f l e c t e d i n h i s s h i e l d , a l l draw us into the scene. We are forced to sort out the puzzling shapes to b u i l d up the image of events i n our mind, and i n thus l i n g e r i n g over the s i t u a t i o n we come to share the experience of those involved.. I believe that the one response cannot be separated from the other. Gombrich notes that "psychologists class the problem of p i c t u r e reading with what they c a l l 'the perception of symbolic m a t e r i a l ' , " and h i s account of empathically "reading" i l l u s t r a t i o n s conforms to Hogarth's conception of p i c t o r i a l n a r r a t i v e . As Ralph Cohen observes, e a r l y eighteenth-century ^ d e f i n i t i o n s of "read" meant not only "to read a book" (peruse) but . . . Vto guess, divine or f o r e t e l l " and Johnson included "to discover by character or marks; to learn by observation." To consider i l l u s t r a t i o n s as needing to be read i s not inconsistent with these d e f i n i t i o n s . . . . I t need only be added that references to the "language" of art are common and confirm t h i s assumption.5 Gombrich's Art and Illusion l a r g e l y concerns the "vocabulary" of v i s u a l a r t , which he considers a form of "communication . . . through the medium of a language."*" But, unlike most of the t h e o r i s t s alluded to by Cohen, Gombrich-recognizes that-"no v e r b a l - d e s c r i p t i o n can be as p a r t i c u l a r i z e d as a p i c t u r e must be"; for verbal language "operates with universals, and the p a r t i c u l a r w i l l always s l i p through i t s net . . . . " H e n c e , " concludes Gombrich, "any text w i l l give plenty of scope to the a r t i s t ' s imagination": i t "can be i l l u s t r a t e d i n countless ways." This observation opposes numerous c r i t i q u e s which require every image i n an i l l u s t r a t i o n to be t e x t u a l l y "authorized." 31 S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Gombrich intends h i s comparison between " d i s -crete" language and "continuous" painting to extend to v i s u a l allegory, which i s e s s e n t i a l l y i l l u s t r a t i o n with a symbolic meaning. However, as Gombrich demonstrates, the f a c i l e d i s t i n c t i o n between the representational, i l l u s t r a t i v e , and symbolic "meaning" of works "breaks down on a l l l e v e l s " when applied even to so pro-v e r b i a l an a l l e g o r i c a l monument as the Eros fountain i n P i c a d i l l y Circus. He does not dispute the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a n s i t i o n from motif to image described by Panofsky; but he emphasizes that sym-bols derive t h e i r conceptual s i g n i f i c a n c e from t h e i r context, to which they cannot add a d d i t i o n a l "meaning." In Leonardo's p i c t u r e of the C h r i s t c h i l d playing with a yarn-winder, the event i s i l l u s t r a t e d and the things f i g u r i n g i n the event echo and expand the meaning. But t h i s symbolism can only function i n support of . . . the dominant meaning, the intended mean-ing or p r i n c i p a l purpose of the picture . . . . Here as always the symbol functions as a metaphor which only acquires i t s s p e c i f i c meaning i n a given context. The picture has not several meanings but one.^ Later i n the same study, Gombrich ventures that the term "meaning" has been so "much abused" that " i t i s best to confine i t s a p p l i c a -t i o n to statements or propositions i n 'discursive speech' . . . . " ^ This i s h i s most extreme reaction against the i n f l e x i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n of Panofsky's t r i p a r t i t e system by "the i n t e r p r e t e r eager to a r r i v e at the meaning of i t all."''""'" Panofsky himself would have endorsed Gombrich's sentiments; f o r though he somewhat imprudently supplies a synoptical table of h i s "three s t r a t a of subject matter or meaning," he emphasizes that these "neatly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d categories" " r e f e r 12 i n r e a l i t y to one phenomenon, namely, the work of a r t as a whole." 32 C l e a r l y , Panofsky would have accepted Gombrich's concept of a s i n g l e , dominant meaning, within which considerable symbolic ambiguity i s permissible. Indeed, Gombrich regards "the penumbra of vagueness, the 'openness' of the symbol" as "an important con-st i t u e n t of any r e a l work of a r t , " and he decries "the impression . . . that symbols are a kind of code with a one-to-one s i g n i f i c a n c e . " The ic o n o l o g i s t who seeks to determine the dominant tenor of which an image i s the v e h i c l e i s "concerned with categories of s o c i a l acceptance, as i s the case with a l l symbols and sign systems." O r i g i n a l l y , " i l l u s t r a t i v e of C h r i s t i a n Charity" i n general and Lord Shaftsbury's philanthropy i n p a r t i c u l a r , A l f r e d G i l b e r t ' s Eros now t y p i f i e s l e s s elevated passions. Even at i t s unveiling, the fountain was variously i n t e r p r e t e d — a f a c t that prompts Gombrich's observation that "images apparently occupy a curious p o s i t i o n somewhere between the statements of language, which are intended to convey a meaning, and the things of nature, to which we can only give a meaning." What i s relevant to t h i s discussion, however, i s that the fountain has always conveyed the idea of "abstract and general n o t i o n s " — t h a t i t i s , i n short, a l l e g o r i c a l . As Gombrich notes, "'allegory' means l i t e r a l l y 'saying something e l s e ' , " and t h i s "something e l s e " constitutes the dominant meaning of an a l l e g o r i c a l work. Leonardo's The Virgin and Child with St. Anne remains a l l e g o r i c a l as long as the i n t e r a c t i o n of i t s figures i s i n t e r p r e t e d " i n terms of the coming drama of s a l v a t i o n . " But i f an a l t e r n a t i v e "reading" i s accepted, implying that "St. Anne had prophetic g i f t s and interpreted the portent of 'things' at the time," the dominant meaning s h i f t s from the symbolic to the l i t e r a l , 33 and the work becomes "a genuine i l l u s t r a t i o n rather than . . . an allegory.""'" 3 Though Gombrich holds that these a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e approaches to the same work do not constitute two co-existent meanings, they do indi c a t e that the l i n e between allegory and i l l u s t r a t i o n i s at best obscure. Besides "the e l u c i d a t i o n or embellishment of a l i t e r a r y a r t i c l e - , , book, etc. by p i c -t o r i a l representations," " i l l u s t r a t i o n " has the older meanings of "making clear or evident to the mind; s e t t i n g f o r t h c l e a r l y or p i c t o r i a l l y ; e l u c i d a t i o n ; explanation; exemplification" (OED). Thus, Panofsky can define an emblem as "a p h i l o s o p h i c a l maxim i l l u s t r a t e d by a v i s u a l image." Simultaneously, he describes an allegory as "a v i s u a l image invested with p h i l o s o p h i c a l connotation^V: When confronted with T i t i a n ' s A l l e g o r i e s . . . we are i n v i t e d but not forced to look f o r an ab-s t r a c t and general s i g n i f i c a n c e behind the concrete and p a r t i c u l a r spectacle that enchants our eyes and can be understood as representing an event or s i t u a t i o n rendered f o r i t s own sake. I t i s , i n f a c t , only quite recently that the Feast of Venus, and Bacchanal of the Andrians and the Apotheosis of Ariadne have revealed t h e i r Neo-Platonic content: conversely, there are those who i n t e r p r e t the Sacred and Profane Love&s "a straightforward, n o n - a l l e g o r i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n i n s p i r e d by a s p e c i f i c incident i n Francesco Colonna's Eypnerotomachia Polyphili. Nor isothe d i f f i c u l t y of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g allegory from i l l u s t r a t i o n confined to disputes over "content" and sources. A f t e r discussing " a l l e g o r i e s and s t o r i e s " i n the passage already quoted, Panofsky concedes that"there are many intermediary p o s s i b i l i t i e s " between the two. Sometimes, the combination of symbolic and l i t e r a l 34 elements causes "an ambiguity of content, which can, however, be overcome or even turned into an added value i f the c o n f l i c t i n g ingredients are molten i n the heat of a fervent a r t i s t i c temperament as i n Rubens' "Galerie de Medicis. Gombrich finds an equally successful product of t h i s fusion i n Rubens' The Horrors of War. As the a r t i s t himself records i n a l e t t e r , the p i c t u r e shows "Mars . . . who, leaving open the Temple of Janus . . . advances with h i s s h i e l d and bloodstained sword, threatening the nations with great devastation and paying l i t t l e heed to Venus h i s lady . . . ." Surrounding the p a i r are "the Fury Alecto"; p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s of "Pestilence and Famine"; "a Mother with her babe i n her arms"; a prostrate " a r c h i t e c t " ; "a bundle of arrows with the cord which bound them together undone, they when bound together, being the emblem of Concord"; and, "beneath the feet of Mars, a book and some drawings on paper, to show that he tramples on l i t e r a t u r e and the other a r t s . " Lamenting t h i s scene i s "unhappy Europe": a "lugubrious Matron clad i n black and with her v e i l torn, despoiled of her jewels and every other ornament," except for her " a t t r i b u t e , " "the C h r i s t i a n orb," 16 held by an o b l i g i n g "putto or genius." By accepting The Horrors of War as a true allegory, rather than "an i l l u s t r a t i o n i n which f i c t i t i o u s beings, once believed to have a r e a l existence, are represented i n t h e i r imaginary form as they are i n so many other mythologies,""'"'' Gombrich r e j e c t s two prevalent assumptions about t h i s symbolic mode. For, though f i l l e d with beings of varying o n t o l o g i c a l status and with assorted emblems and a t t r i b u t e s , Rubens's pi c t u r e i s dominated by two "denizens of the ancient Olympus" customarily associated with myth—a form frequently ranked above mere allegory. Far more important, however, i s the s t y l e of the work, which p e r f e c t l y conforms to Heinrich W o l f f l i n ' s formula for the Baroque. The canvas i s manifestly p a i n t e r l y and "a-tectonic..''with a composition based on a powerful diagonal that reinforces the impression of f r e n z i e d , i r r e s i s t i b l e momentum. In W o l f f l i n ' s terms, The Horrors of War exemplifies the subordination of " m u l t i p l i c i t y " to "unity"; i n Panofsky's, " d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n " to " c o n t i n u i t y . " Rubens portrays a momentary dramatic climax with an expressive realism c l e a r l y designed to e l i c i t an empathic response from the viewer. " P a i n t e r l y , " "expressive," "dramatic"—these are the antitheses of the q u a l i t i t e s commonly ascribed to v i s u a l allegory. Most c r i t i c s now recognize that, i n Graham Hough's words, " i t does not r e a l l y work to see a l l e g o r y as t r a f f i c i n one d i r e c t i o n , 18 symbolism as t r a f f i c i n the other"; but the idea that "symbolic" ar t must conform to r i g i d formal p r e s c r i p t i o n s s t i l l p e r s i s t s . This b e l i e f i s perhaps most persuasively expounded i n Angus Fletcher's Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode. In t h i s stimulating and erudite study, Fletcher examines every aspect of allegory treated by previous w r i t e r s , whose conclusions are supplied i n copious footnotes. Not content with providing the most com-prehensive analysis of l i t e r a r y allegory to date, he attempts to r e l a t e h i s theories to v i s u a l a r t , i n observations of genuine value to Pre-Raphaelite s p e c i a l i s t s . Unfortunately, not a l l these in s i g h t s are embodied i n the formal a t t r i b u t e s which Fletcher s p e c i f i -c a l l y ascribes to a l l e g o r i c a l painting, few of which characterize Rubens' The Horrors of War. i i To Fletcher, allegory i s "a mode of symbolizing," found i n v i r t u a l l y " a l l l i t e r a t u r e " i n some degree, and never encountered 19 as "a pure modality." I t i s characterized by a d i d a c t i c emphasis on theme and, though " i t does not need to be read e x e g e t i c a l l y " (p. 7), i t has two l e v e l s of meaning, the primary and the secondary, roughly corresponding to I. A. Richards' "tenor" and " v e h i c l e , " r e s p e c t i v e l y . Allegory i s , i n f a c t , inherently d u a l i s t i c : t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e f l e c t i n g the t h e o l o g i c a l dualism of Absolute Good versus Absolute E v i l , i t was r e a d i l y adapted to "the sharply d u a l i s t i c psychology of the romantics" (p. 185). "At the heart of any alleg o r y , " declares Fletcher, " w i l l be found a c o n f l i c t of a u t h o r i t i e s . Oneeideal w i l l be p i t t e d against an-other, i t s opposite: thus the f a m i l i a r propogandist function of the mode, thus the conservative s a t i r i c a l function, thus the d i d a c t i c function" (p. 22). Fletcher's view of a l l e g o r i e s as "symbolic power struggles" (p. 23) informs h i s conception of the a l l e g o r i c a l agent. Whereas the protagonist of A r i s t o t e l i a n , mimetic drama deliberates about va r i a b l e courses of action, and the hero of myth i s a true god possessing " a l l power," t h e i r a l l e g o r i c a l counterpart often "acts on compulsion, continually demonstrating a lack of inner c o n t r o l . " In genuine allegory, "true s e l f c o n t r o l " i s impossible; f o r the agent i s possessed by a s i n g l e idea or, as Fletcher has i t , by a "daemon." Unlike Northrop Frye, Fletcher sees daemons as good as w e l l as e v i l : they are the suprasensible intermediaries between God and man which C h r i s t i a n i t y divided d u a l i s t i c a l l y into angels and demons. However, th i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n did not a l t e r the " e s s e n t i a l nature" of daemonic agency—"the embodiment of powers i n quasi-divine agencies," occupying f i x e d places and performing s p e c i f i c functions i n the c e l e s t i a l hierarchy. Nor does i t prevent Fletcher from using "the word daemon for any person possessed by a daemon, or even acting as if possessed by a daemon, since by d e f i n i t i o n i f a man i s possessed by an influence that excludes a l l other influences while i t i s operating on him, then he c l e a r l y has no l i f e outside an exclusive sphere of a c t i o n " (pp. 46-47, 49, 64, 356, n.61). On a l e s s Neo-Platonic l e v e l , Fletcher sees a l l e g o r i c a l agents as "intended e i t h e r to represent abstract ideas or to represent a c t u a l , h i s t o r i c a l persons." P e r s o n i f i c a t i o n , and i t s "reverse t y P e . " figuva or typology, are therefore the bases of a l l e g o r i c a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . In o v e r t l y propagandist works, however, these devices may be combined with A r i s t o t e l i a n mimesis, to e l i c i t empathy f o r embodiments of recommended behaviour or a t t i t u d e s (see pp. 67-68). And, while acceding to the t r a d i t i o n a l view that most a l l e g o r i c a l agents are " p e r s o n i f i e d abstractions," Fletcher emphasizes "the dynamic meaning of abstraction" i n allegory, which i s much more profoundly abstract than i n the mere use of animated philosophic terms. I t i s abstract i n Whitehead's sense, when he says that abstraction i s "the omission of part of the t r u t h . " It i s abstract i n the sense of sup-pressing part of the conditions relevant to i t s subjects and objects. An allegory of J u s t i c e , for example, w i l l omit the contingencies that make a nonrepressive, tolerant j u s t i c e so 38 d i f f i c u l t to achieve. I t omits the human d e t a i l , which the mimetic mode, and i t s highly condensed form, the mythical mode, do not omit. (p. 29, n.8) Associated with the "abstract" hero i s the a l l e g o r i c a l ornament, or "kosmos," s i g n i f y i n g both "a universe" and "a symbol that implies a rank i n a hierarchy" "of more and less powerful agents and images." The paradigmatic "status symbol," such an image exerts "emotive pressure" on the reader "to accept given h i e r -archies," while engaging him, through i t s "calculated obscurity," i n an " i n t e r p r e t a t i v e a c t i v i t y , " "The old saws of r e l i g i o n and morality," argues Fletcher, "need far more than mere i l l u s t r a t i o n to bring them to l i f e . They need t h e i r own proper ornaments, the signs that go with them systematically, as the i n s i g n i a of his uniform go with the m i l i t a r y d i c t a t o r or the f i v e - s t a r general," (pp. 109, 113, 120, 128, 130, 234). This i s e s s e n t i a l l y a plea f o r .retaining the t r a d i t i o n a l " a t t r i b u t e s " (Jove's thunderbolt, Minerva's s h i e l d , etc.) which Gombrich i d e n t i f i e s as "residues of i l l u s t r a t i o n . " ^ 0 But Fletcher subsequently concedes that "there i s no absolute necessity for the author of an allegory to choose his cosmic language from one perfect sacred vocabulary—many such vocabularies are a v a i l a b l e " (p. 353). Indeed, he emphasizes the usefulness of "the t r a d i t i o n a l point of reference" of an image i n creating "a c e r t a i n enriching confusion," and thus i n increasing "the enigma, and not always decipherable enigma," which "appears to be allegory's most cherished function" (p. 73). However, t h i s e f f e c t i s only possible when the imagery retains i t s "icono-graphic" d i s t i n c t n e s s and i s associated with an agent who i s himself gradually transmuted by predominantly metonymic devices "into imagery": "a verbal icon." Such a process accords with the result'sbf daemonic possession: "a manie de perfection, an impossible desire to become one with an image of unchanging pu r i t y . The agent seeks to become i s o l a t e d within himself, frozen i n t o an e t e r n a l l y f i x e d form, an 'idea' i n the Pl a t o n i c sense of the term" (pp. 65,66). Fletcher's emphasis on i s o l a t e d , v i s u a l imagery re l a t e s to h i s b e l i e f that allegory i s l o g i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d , employing a " t e l e o l o g i c a l l y ordered speech" that governs the part by the inte n t i o n of the whole (pp. 85-86). Consequently, he wishes to confine the t r a d i t i o n a l view of-the mode as "extended metaphor" to Northrop Frye's "naive a l l e g o r y " — u n l e s s "metaphor i s the general name f o r any and a l l 'transfers' of meaning" (pp. 71, 21 342). To Fletcher, " t h e f f u l l range of a l l e g o r i c a l part-whole r e l a t i o n s h i p s " i s contained i n synecdoche ("letting us understand the p l u r a l from the singular, the whole from a part, a genus from the species, something following from something pre-ceding; and vice versa") and metonymy ("the s u b s t i t u t i o n of one name f o r a n o t h e r : . . . to i n d i c a t e an invention by s u b s t i t u t i n g the name of the inventor, or a possession by substi t u t i n g , the name of the possessor"). Synecdoche, a "genus-species r e l a t i o n s h i p " equated by Q u l n t i l i a n with e l l i p s i s , permits the l a b e l l i n g of "static r e l a t i o n s f c o i ^ . c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (the sail i s a q u a l i t a t i v e subclass of the ship, i n that i t i s a part thereof)." Metonymy, "a cause-effect r e l a t i o n s h i p " associated with p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n , permits the l a b e l l i n g of "dynamic i n t e r a c t i o n s between part and whole (the sword causes violent death)" (pp. 85-87). Aspects of synechdoche roughly correspond to the f i r s t two types of A r i s t o t e l i a n metaphor; but Fletcher, l i k e many c r i t i c s , prefers to associate "metaphor" with the fourth type: the proportional or a n a l o g i c a l , which can both "convey r e a l transfers of meaning from a standard prose sense to an unusual poetic sense," and set up "a p a r a l l e l i s m of partes as w e l l as of the whole" (p. 75). The c l a s s i c example i s A r i s t o t l e ' s " s h i e l d of Bacchus"—"a cup i s to Bacchus what a s h i e l d i s to Ares." Fletcher notes that A r i s t o t l e , though valuing metaphor f o r i t s " l i v e l i n e s s , " regarded i t as "normally a momentary dramatic device, not an organizing thematic p r i n c i p l e . " Indeed, Fletcher himself maintains that, when metaphors are " d e l i b e r a t e l y t i e d i n t o each other," surprise "diminishes . . . for the reader, and the whole i s i n c r e a s i n g l y abstracted from sense experience" (p. 77). Fletcher considers this "diminishing of metaphorical surprise fundamental to allegory, which replaces A r i s t o t e l i a n " p l a u s i b i l i t y with i n t e r a c t i o n s based on "a c e r t a i n l o g i c a l necessity." In Some Versions of Pastoral, William Empson associates t h i s deter-m i n i s t i c e f f e c t with " d o u b l i n g " — p a r a l l e l p l o t s , characters, or images within a s i n g l e work that "magically" i n t e r a c t . As Fletcher explains, two kinds of magic are involved: homeopathic or i m i t a t i v e , and contagious or metonymic. The f i r s t , i n which " r e a l events which the magician wants to c o n t r o l " are brought "in t o p a r a l l e l with symbolic events," i s based on "the occult b e l i e f that things which look a l i k e must be somehow magically r e l a t e d to each other" (pp. 188, 190). In l i t e r a t u r e , i m i t a t i v e magic corresponds to symmetrical p a r a l l e l s , e s p e c i a l l y between 41 p l o t s , which w i l l both "appear to be magically joined," and suggest, i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n , "the-'.double meaning which i s the chief defining a t t r i b u t e of al l e g o r y . " Often, t h i s thematic "mirroring" derives from a h o r i z o n t a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Great Chain of Being, "which allows a cross r e l a t i o n between d i f f e r e n t creatures that are at equal l e v e l s of d i g n i t y , d i f f e r i n g only i n that they belong to d i f f e r e n t species" (pp. 193, 195). If im i t a t i v e magic i s associated with symmetry, contagious magic i s appropriate to r i t u a l , which implies "a continuous unfolding, a 22 moving sequence" (p. 159). Here, "whatever 'goes with' the object of the s p e l l w i l l s u f f i c e to bring that object under magic c o n t r o l " (p. 196), and t h i s emphasis on contiguity, rather than s i m i l a r i t y , leads to an increasing use of metonymy. Both symmetrical p a r a l l e l s , i n v o l v i n g "an exact, t o t a l , unswerving correspondence between tenor and v e h i c l e , " and metonymy, which employs "the n o n c l a s s i f y i n g p r i n c i p l e of contiguity" and gives things "new l a b e l s , " must be distinguished from "true metaphor": an " i n t u i t i v e perception" which "employs correspondences that cannot be c a r r i e d out a n a l o g i c a l l y to any great length," and which "puts things into classes" through a " s o r t i n g process" by "suggesting t h e i r e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t i e s " (pp. 191, 197). C l e a r l y , "true" metaphor cannot produce Fletcher's " e s s e n t i a l type of a l l e g o r i c a l image." He i d e n t i f i e s t h i s type as "an i s o l a t e d emblem," which here means " v i s u a l symbol"; Panofsky defines emblems as "images which refuse^to be accepted as representa-tions of mere things but demand to be interpreted as vehicles of 23 concepts." However, Fletcher's emphasis on magical causation leads him to expand t h i s d e f i n i t i o n : the Tarot cards of the fortune-42 t e l l e r "are a perfect instance of true emblems; they have a dynamic as w e l l as i d e a l meaning" (p. 45, n. 35). This almost occult conception of a l l e g o r i c a l imagery ignores the " r e a l i s t i c " q u a l i t i e s of such works as Rubens' :. The Horrors of War. To Fletcher, dramatic v e r i s i m i l i t u d e and continuity imply A r i s t o t e l i a n mimesis; and allegory i s manifestly P l a t o n i c : not only i s Plato's "tendency toward all e g o r y . . . too w e l l known to require commentary," but "with himrthings are an a l l e g o r i c a l i m i t a t i o n of ideas, or, i n another formulation, appearances are the a l l e g o r i c a l equivalence of a higher r e a l i t y " (pp. 99, 232). Doubtless a "major need" arose " i n the P l a t o n i c system for permanent images to convey the f i x e d ideas with which the d i a l e c t i c i s going to operate"; and, "to support the stress of vigorous d i a l e c t i c argumentation, the 'ideas' must be given a qu a s i - v i s u a l c l a r i t y of o u t l i n e " (p.99). Fletcher i s here describing a kind of prototype of the medieval " a r t of memory" chronicled by Frances A. Yates; but Plato exempts hieroglyphs from h i s s t r i c t u r e s on v i s u a l i m i t a -t i o n , and some of the q u a l i t i e s Fletcher ascribes to a l l e g o r i c a l p ainting also characterize the art of ancient Egypt. "Bits and pieces of a l l e g o r i c a l 'machinery,' scales of j u s t i c e , magic mirrors, c r y s t a l b a l l s , signet rings, and the l i k e , " "placed on the p i c t u r e plane without any clear l o c a t i o n i n depth," and preserving " t h e i r i d e n t i t i e s by being drawn with extremely sharp-etched o u t l i n e s — such, to Fletcher, are the p r i n c i p a l constituents of " a l l e g o r i c a l p a i nting." Unlike "the t y p i c a l representational p a i n t i n g , " which seeks to render "the r e a l world," and i n which " d i s t o r t i o n s of perspective" normally "exaggerate what we might c a l l ' r e a l i s t i c 43 e r r o r s ' of p e r c e p t i o n , " a l l e g o r i c a l a r t employs images whose " r e l a t i v e s i z e s o f t e n v i o l a t e p e r s p e c t i v e , " since they are " a l l l i n e d up, as i t were, on the f r o n t a l plane of a mosaic, each w i t h i t s own 'true,' unchanging s i z e and shape." Thus, the " r e a l i t y " "that operates i n our perceptions of the p h y s i -c a l world" i s replaced by "an i d e a l i z i n g consistency of thema-t i c content, because, i n s p i t e of the v i s u a l a b s u r d i t y of much a l l e g o r y imagery, the r e l a t i o n s between ideas are under strong l o g i c a l c o n t r o l " (pp. 87, 104-05). This process conforms to what F l e t c h e r sees as a l l e g o r y ' s l a c k of Kantian " d i s i n t e r e s t " : e t e r n a l l y " b a t t l i n g w i t h doubt," a l l e g o r y a l s o r e j e c t s "the world of experience and the senses; i t t h r i v e s on t h e i r overthrow, r e p l a c i n g them w i t h i d e a s " (pp. 322-23). The r e s u l t , i n p a i n t i n g , i s a " d i s c o n t i n u i t y " i n the r e l a t i o n s of a l l e g o r i c a l images, producing an "enigma" that the spectator t r i e s to decipher (p. 369). In h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n to the reproductions of a l l e g o r i c a l p a i n t i n g s that conclude h i s study, F l e t c h e r declares that each of these works d i s p l a y s "that element of a l l e g o r y which subsumes a l l the other, namely i s o l a t i o n of p a r t s — t h e use of encapsulated v i s u a l u n i t s w i t h i n a l a r g e r frame so as to produce a s t u d i e d d i s c o n t i n u i t y w i t h i n the whole" (p. 369). L i k e Panofsky and Gombrich, F l e t c h e r maintains that " p a i n t i n g need not employ t r a d i t i o n a l arcane emblems to be iconographic"; u n l i k e them, he b e l i e v e s that he can account f o r the a l l e g o r i c a l aspects of works z d i s p a r a t e as Max Ernst's Napoleon -in the Wilderness, Gerome's Pygmalion and Galatea,.dai L i b r i ' s Madonna and Child with Saints, 44 and Rembrandt's Bellona by r e f e r r i n g to c e r t a i n "formal elements," with only "occasional notes on iconographic content." "The form and placement of emblems matters more than t h e i r s p e c i f i c proven-ance," declares Fletcher, who p o s i t s a kind of " s i g n i f i c a n t form" that w i l l e l i c i t c e r t a i n reactions from the viewer (p. 370). Besides "an a n a l y t i c frame of mind," a l l e g o r i c a l imagery also induces an " i l l u s t r a t i v e " reading, "because i t s discontinuous nature does not allow a normal sense world to be created" (pp. 103, 107). But t h i s i s equally true of the components of cubist works, which are often the reverse of " i l l u s t r a t i v e . " The same misplaced formalism characterizes Fletcher's discussion of trompe-Z' oeil, through which the a r t i s t draws "attention to himself, or to an imagined spectator," from whose point of view the scene i s interpreted; "the double view amounts to an a l l e g o r i z i n g of an i m i t a t i o n " (p. 102, n.51). However, Fletcher cannot mean genuine trompe-l''oeil painting, which by d e f i n i t i o n excludes the very " d i s c o n t i n u i t y " he has e x t o l l e d as inherently " a l l e g o r i c a l . " As his discussion of Peter Blume's The Eternal City confirms, he i s r e f e r r i n g to the combination ascribed by Mario Praz to the I t a l i a n mannerist$;. "the vividness of painstakingly reproduced d e t a i l s and an unreal, a r b i t r a r i l y constructed space" ( c i t e d p. 102, n.50). This i s c e r t a i n l y an important s t y l i s t i c method of "encapsulating" imagery, and Fletcher's comments can also apply to works containing so much v i s u a l "information" that "the l i m i t a t i o n s of the medium," and hence the a r t i s t ' s manipulation of i t , take precedence over representational i l l u s i o n . Gombrich, following Nietzche, notes that " a l l claims 2 to copy nature must lead to the demand of representing the i n f i n i t e , " 45 and Fletcher regards the sublime as an e f f o r t to render the i n f i n i t e l y large; the picturesque, the i n f i n i t e l y small (see p. 253). Con-fronted with works of both categories, the viewer experiences the Kantian "absolute overstraining of the f a c u l t i e s , " and the process that Paul Goodman describes: " i t i s j u s t by dwelling on the unity of what i s presented, with i t s embarrassment of ri c h e s , that we are forced to f e e l and think beyond what i s presented" (cited p. 245, n. 39). Whether "sublime o u t l i n e " and "picturesque texture" are combined i n a si n g l e p i c t u r e , or function independently, they often have what Fletcher terms "a strong underlying a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e n t i o n , " and "tend to e l i c i t i d e a l conceptions i n the beholder's mind" (p. 314). The f a c t that these i d e a l conceptions are evoked by a p i c t o r i a l "unity" that challenges the spectator's perceptual capacity, rather than by a "discontinuous" arrangement of l o g i c a l l y connected: images demonstrates that Fletcher's formal c r i t e r i a f o r v i s u a l allegory are too l i m i t e d . I t i s i n the excusiveness of h i s catalogue of a l l e g o r i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that he c h i e f l y e r r s ; not i n h i s recognition of what Panofsky terms the "almost paradoxical contrast between a ' n a t u r a l i s t i c ' rendering of v i s i b l e things and a non-26 n a t u r a l i s t i c mode of presentation." However, Panofsky both gives a clearer account than Fletcher of t h i s combination, and shows i t s value i n representing the visi o n a r y states which are fundamental to both allegory and myth. In h i s study of Durer, Panofsky defines a v i s i o n as a supernatural event, or rather a sequence of supernatural events, experienced by a person "being i n the S p i r i t " or, as one would say today, i n a trance. I t s content i s thus both miracu-46 lous and imaginary. I t i s miraculous i n so far as the laws of ordinary phy s i c a l l i f e are temporarily suspended; i t i s imaginary i n so f a r as t h i s suspension i s not supposed to take place i n a c t u a l i t y as i s the case, for instance, of the miracles accepted by the Church, but only within the consciousness of the v i s i o n a r y . To " r e a l i z e " a v i s i o n i n a work of a r t — t h a t i s , to make i t convincing without the a i d of conventional signs or i n s c r i p t i o n s — the a r t i s t has to f u l f i l l two seemingly con-t r a d i c t o r y requirements. On the one hand, he must be an accomplished master of "naturalism*," fo r only where X:we behold a world evidently controlled by what i s known as the laws of nature can we become aware of that temporary suspension of these laws which i s the essenceoof a "."miracle"; on the other hand, he must be capable of trans-planting the miraculous event from the l e v e l of f a c t u a l i t y to that of an imaginary ex-perience. Both these conditions are met i n Durer's Apocalypse s e r i e s , i n which n a t u r a l i s t i c techniques are combined with an u n r e a l i s t i c woodcut" s t y l e that replaces i l l u s i o n i s m with "powerful chiaroscuro values" capable of producing "a strong and instantaneous psychological reaction." In such compositions as tfhe "Vision of the Seven Candlesticks," "theKthree-dimensionality of space i s stressed and denied at the same time," by the symmetrical d i s p o s i t i o n of n a t u r a l i s t i c forms about the plane surface. The r e s u l t i s "a sense of f a n t a s t i c u n r e a l i t y " that allows Durer to omit the fi g u r e of the v i s i o n a r y , which was indispensable to p r a c t i t i o n e r s of a " n o n - n a t u r a l i s t i c s t y l e " permitting no "clear d i s t i n c t i o n between a miracle and a n a t u r a l event." When St. John does appear, as i n the "Candlesticks" design, "the very f a c t that the E v a n g e l i s t — a mortal l i k e ourselves—appears to be transported bodily into a supernatural realm i n v i t e s us to share and not merely to witness, his v i sionary experience." A mortal like ourselves—this sense of 47 corporeal r e a l i t y , paradoxically conveyed through the "dematerializing" woodcut medium, i s f o r Panofsky the great achievement of the Apocalypse s e r i e s , where "every increase i n verisimilitude and animation strengthens rather than weakens the visionary e f f e c t . " In Durer's "Knight, Death, and D e v i l , " the n a t u r a l i s t i c rendering of both the grotesque enemies of man and t h e i r forbidding n a t u r a l s e t t i n g a c t u a l l y emphasizes the u n r e a l i t y of these f i g u r e s : "they are not foes to be conquered but . . . 'spooks and phantoms' to be ignored." This e f f e c t i s achieved by contrasting them with the "articulateness and p l a s t i c t a n g i b i l i t y " of the Knight, "a moving monument" suggesting "an existence more s o l i d and r e a l than that of Death and the D e v i l who appear as l i t t l e more than shadows of the wilderness." As Panofsky notes, t h i s monumentality r e s u l t s from Durer's fusion of two ideas of p e r f e c t i o n : those of the perfect horseman and the perfect miles Christianus. "The icono-graphy of the C h r i s t i a n Knight took shape according to the formal pattern of a c a r e f u l l y balanced equestrian group, while, conversely, t h i s formal pattern assumed, as such, an expressive or even symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e . " Another Durer engraving of the same period, "Melancholia I," "fuses, and transforms, two great representational and l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n s , that of Melancholy as one of the four humors and that of Geometry as one of the Seven L i b e r a l A r t s . " In the process, the miserly or indolent Melancholia i s i n t e l l e c t u a l i z e d and the abstract, p e r s o n i f i e d Geometry i s humanized -into the embodi- \ ment of "Melancholia a r t i f i c i a l i s , " or A r t i s t ' s Melancholy. The design i s " e s o t e r i c " and "programmatic," replete with conventional emblems; yet Durer both arranges these images i n three-dimensional 48 space and combines t h e i r emblematic s i g n i f i c a n c e with "an expressive, or psychological, meaning." This i s apparent i n the d i s p o s i t i o n of paraphernalia about the "unhappy genius," whose mental " d i s -comfort and stagnation" i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r "bewildering disorder." Like these symbols, the bat and the dog ( " t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated with melancholy") are rendered n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y , and thus are "not merely emblems, but, even more, l i v i n g creatures, one squeaking with evident i l l - w i l l , the other s h r i v e l l e d up with general misery." Melancholia h e r s e l f s i t s i n "gloomy i n a c t i o n , " . her eyes " r a i s e d i n a lowering stare," her f i s t supporting her head i n "an expressive gesture" that combines the t r a d i t i o n a l posture of "brooding thought, fatigue or sorrow" with the "sympto-matic a t t r i b u t e " of Melancholy. She i s a "thinking being i n pe r p l e x i t y , " "dimly illuminated" by the l i g h t of the moon ("as can be i n f e r r e d from the cast-shadow of the hour-glass on the wall") and by "the l u r i d gleam of a comet." By adopting t h i s "uneasy t w i l i g h t , " Durer both devises a natural equivalent of the swarthy complexion a t t r i b u t e d to melancholies, and charges the whole scene with expressive purport. By n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y rendering space as w e l l as l i g h t , he suggests the root cause of " A r t i s t ' s Melancholy": the awareness, through comprehending the physi c a l world, of an 27 unattainable metaphysical sphere. Panofsky's c l a s s i c analyses h i g h l i g h t the dangers of applying p r i n c i p l e s of "abstraction"—however "dynamic" and "profound"— to v i s u a l a r t . Far from omitting "the human d e t a i l " i n his a l l e g o r i e s , Durer often merges i t with conventional schemata; and the e f f e c t of the r e s u l t i n g figures depends on t h e i r context. N a t u r a l i s t i c techniques that make the actors of the Apocalypse s e r i e s v i s i o n a r y , and Death and the D e v i l "phantoms," make Melancholia more substan-t i a l , , her i n t e l l e c t u a l p e r p l e x i t y more immediate. And i t i s p r e c i s e l y t h i s co-existence of the emblematic with the mimetic i n such p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s as Melancholia that fascinates Gombrich. In The Horrors of War, " i t i s a r e a l Venus who pleads with a r e a l Mars," and both are characterized " i n a way that conveys to us with r e a l immediacy what [Rubens] f e e l s about the blessings of peace and the horrors of war." The p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s , daemons, and emblematic objects surrounding them s i m i l a r l y encompass the " r e a l and symbolic." Thus, "poetic" and " d i d a c t i c , " " v i s u a l form" and " i n t e l l e c t u a l message" are united: the p i c t u r e "teaches and preaches the blessings of peace and the horrors of war by p l a c i n g 28 the contrast between the two before our eyes." Gombrich a t t r i b u t e s Rubens's. success i n turning "the thought in t o a human drama" to two c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s . "Steeped . . . i n c l a s s i c l o r e , " Rubens could combine an a l l e g o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n from Lucretius with the parting of Adonis from Venus. He could also draw on the c l a s s i c a l t r a d i t i o n which combined "human drama and even all-too-human d i v i n i t i e s " with " p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s who are f a r from 'bloodless'," and which made "no r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n between the Gods conceived as demonic beings and t h e i r r o l e as 29 p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s and metaphors." Allowing for h i s d i f f e r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n of "demonic," Fletcher also makes the second of these points. But, whereas Gombrich argues that the f l e x i b l e o n t o l o g i c a l status of c l a s s i c a l d e i t i e s j u s t i f i e s " r e a l i s t i c " a l l e g o r y , Fletcher takes the opposite stand: "the c r i t e r i o n of realism i s 50 wasted on the theory of al l e g o r y , " f o r , as long as the characters "take part i n t o t a l forms that are r i t u a l i z e d or symmetrically ordered, the r i t u a l form of the whole w i l l determine the e f f e c t of each agent." However much " n a t u r a l i s t d e t a i l " an allegory contains, continues Fletcher, t h i s w i l l serve "the purposes of magical containment, since the more the a l l e g o r i s t can circumscribe the a t t r i b u t e s , metonymic and synecdochic of h i s personae, the better he can shape t h e i r f i c t i o n a l destiny. N a t u r a l i s t d e t a i l i s 'cosmic, 1 u n i v e r s a l i z i n g , not accidental as i t would be i n st r a i g h t journalism "(pp. 198-99). I r o n i c a l l y , Fletcher's r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of "magical containment" with n a t u r a l i s t i c d e t a i l r e l a t e s to a v i t a l component of the Neo-Pl a t o n i c symbolic theory on which Gombrich bases h i s defence of " r e a l i s t i c " allegory. I t i s a complex doctrine, with i n t r i c a t e h i s t o r i c a l and aesthetic ramifications; and the following summary of Gombrich's argument ne c e s s a r i l y omits many observations p r i m a r i l y relevant to the Renaissance. Nevertheless, a l l h i s s i g n i f i c a n t points are retained; f o r they both j u s t i f y a more f l e x i b l e d e f i n i -t i o n of v i s u a l a l l e g o r y than Fletcher provides, and constitute a meaningful aesthetic context f o r several aspects of Pre-Raphaelite art. i i i In "Icones Symbolicae," Gombrich traces the A r i s t o t e l i a n and Pl a t o n i c t r a d i t i o n s of v i s u a l symbolism—"two fundamental reactions," i n h i s view, "to the problem which the existence of language poses 30 for every r e f l e c t i n g human being." The A r i s t o t e l i a n s tended to accept the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of language and to underrate the capacity 51 of metaphor "to restructure r e a l i t y " ; the P l a t o n i s t s sought to transcend not only " d i s c u r s i v e speech" but language i t s e l f . Both t r a d i t i o n s , combined with the continued impact of mythology, account fo r "the ubiquity of p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s i n Western a r t " — f i g u r e s which fuse the representational, symbolic, and "expressive" func-tions of the image. Of course, the A r i s t o t e l i a n , P l a t o n i c , and mythological often coalesce; e s s e n t i a l l y Neo-Platonic i n concep-t i o n , Rubens's The Horrors of War also exemplifies the "mythopoeic f a c u l t y " through which "concepts could be evoked as presences whose vividness contributed to t h e i r explanation,'/ " j u s t as the explanation i n i i t s turn could a i d the imagination i n a r r i v i n g at a more perfect expression" (p. 129). I t i s t h i s d i d a c t i c t r a d i t i o n that Gombrich i d e n t i f i e s as A r i s t o t e l i a n . Gombrich's primary concern, however, i s with the sometimes mystical symbolism evolved by Neo-Platonism. As Gombrich notes, the P l a t o n i c assumption that the "discursive speech" of the sensible world was i n f e r i o r to the instantaneous apprehension of truth i n the i n t e l l i g i b l e world prompted e f f o r t s to transcend the lower mode of knowledge, with which A r i s t o t l e ' s e s s e n t i a l l y l o g i c a l approach to metaphor, and the methods of p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n based on i t , were associated. Despite Plato's d i s t i n c t i o n between the i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t u i t i o n of suprasensible Ideas and "the deceptive reports of the senses," "seeing becomes by v i r t u e of i t s speed and immediacy a favoured symbol of higher knowledge" (p. 147). The f i r s t stage of t h i s process i s also described by Fletcher: v i s u a l i z i n g P l a t o n i c Ideas " i n terms of those p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s of abstractions which anyhow had been conceived as the companions of 52 the immortals." This was continued by C h r i s t i a n i t y , which i n t e r -preted symbolism as a p r o v i d e n t i a l l i n k between the two w o r l d s — a "form of Revelation that God i n His mercy created to make the Ideas that dwell i n His mind known to man." In the process, symbolism was extended, not only to the Scriptures, but to "the whole of Creation and the whole of History." According to t h i s "doctrine of multiple r e v e l a t i o n , " Nature constitutes a "book" of "the divine language of things," " r i c h e r and more obscure" than the language of words. Instead of being "a s u i t a b l e metaphor f o r C h r i s t , " the P e l i c a n p r o v i d e n t i a l l y "pre-figures C h r i s t and His Charity." Since the "ancients" were near to creation, t h e i r mythological lore was another form of "mysterious" r e v e l a t i o n — a b e l i e f that replaced Plato's anamnese -of former states with "the memory of mankind" enshrined i n t r a d i t i o n a l symbolism (pp. 147-50). These forms of r e v e l a t i o n were, however, subordinate to the Scriptures, i n which such symbols as the dove were not "conventional," but "theophanies i n which God Himself chooses the form i n which He wishes to appear to man." According to Dionysius the Areopagite, these manifestations could be e i t h e r d i g n i f i e d and b e a u t i f u l analogies of s p i r i t u a l e n t i t i e s , or "inappropriate symbols and s i m i l e s " which, i n t h e i r monstrocity, "prevent us from accepting these images as r e a l and stimulate our mind to seek a higher s i g n i f i c a n c e " (pp. 151, 152). The two ways of r e v e l a t i o n corres-pond to two methods of symbolizing the higher world: through ana l o g i c a l symbolism, and throughtthe mysterious image. Analogical symbolism re l a t e s to the Florentine "Neo-Platonists' sytematization of the layered Universe: "a vast symphony of corres-53 pondences i n which each l e v e l of existence points to the l e v e l above." Pico d e l l a Mirandola maintained that "everything i n the higher world can be grasped through i t s lower counterpart i n t h i s world" by studying the t r a d i t i o n a l symbolism embodying "the occult a f f i n i t i e s and harmonies of the Universe." In p r a c t i c e , however, the ancient image was often neglected for the earthly beauty which Plato himself had seen as "the lowest rung of the ladder that leads the soul upwards to the contemplation of Beauty as such." The b e a u t i f u l image of a Virtue could thus contribute to i t s cognition, and though the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s of Baroque art were not representations of these e n t i t i e s , "such images at l e a s t i l l u s t r a t e the h i e r a r c h i c a l structure of the world which i s s t i l l akin to the layered world of P l a t o . " Indeed, i n many Baroque c e i l i n g paintings, "the r a t i o n a l d i s t i n c -t i o n between symbol and r e a l i t y , between subjective v i s i o n and objective f a c t , appears almost d e l i b e r a t e l y to be b l u r r e d . " Con-temporary descriptions of " e c s t a t i c visionary states" induced by such works accord with the a r t i s t s ' claims to "see beyond the dross of matter and to apprehend that Beauty that dwells i n the i n t e l l i g i b l e world" (pp. 152-156). "Everything expressed" i n the i n t e l l i g i b l e world, declares Pl o t i n u s , " i s a b e a u t i f u l image." Though applicable to ana l o g i c a l symbolism, t h i s statement d i r e c t l y r e f e r s to such mysterious images as the four symbols of the Evangelists, which e x h i b i t no likeness but "rouse the mind to contemplation." During the Renaissance, Plotinus'.- commendation of the Egyptian hieroglyph as "a kind of understanding and wisdom and substance, given a l l at once, and not discur s i v e reasoning and d e l i b e r a t i o n " was elaborated by M a r s i l i o F i c i n o , who lauded these symbols as "whole images" s i g n i f y i n g "divine mysteries"; f o r "God has knowledge of things not by way of mult i p l e thought but l i k e the pure and f i r m shape of the thing i t s e l f . " Speaking of the "archetypal symbol of mystery'," the serpent b i t i n g i t s own t a i l , Gombrich observes that "the very experience of meaning a f t e r meaning which i s suggested to our mind as we contemplate the enigmatic image, becomes an analogue of the mode of apprehension i n which the higher i n t e l l i g e n c e s may not only see one p a r t i c u l a r proposition as i n a f l a s h , but a l l the t r u t h t h e i r minds can encompass— i n the case of the Divine Mind the t o t a l i t y of a l l propositions." Thus, "the d i s t i n c t i o n between the representational and the symbolizing function of the image becomes b l u r r e d . " Though F i c i n o associates time with the serpent image, he did not see i t as "a mere sign which 'stands f o r ' an abstract concept," but as 'a mysterious shape i n which "the essence of time i s somehow 'embodied'" (pp. 158-60). Turning to e s o t e r i c mysticism and magic, Gombrich finds further j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r both the analo g i c a l and the mystical image. For "the e s o t e r i c conception of the v i s u a l symbol" eschews " r a t i o n a l categories of representation and characterization": the magic sign, giving "not only i n s i g h t but power," "represents i n the l i t e r a l sense of the word." Since Neo-Platonic theory i n t e r -preted the v i s u a l symbol, not as a "conventional s i g n , " but as "lin k e d through the network of correspondence and sympathies with the supra-c e l e s t i a l essence which i t embodies, i t i s only consistent to expect i t to partake not only of the 'meaning' and 'e f f e c t ' of what i t represents but to become interchangeable with i t " (p. 172). In the Renaissance, the "representational," "symbolizing," and 55 "expressive" functions of the image coalesced into " p o t e n t i a l magic," through which the ancient "true images" of concepts could be re-created. To Gombrich, B o t t i c e l l i ' s Venus i s such an image; " i t both hides and proclaims her s p i r i t u a l essence": The e f f e c t s which such an image exerts on our senses i n every meaning of the term would not have been considered incompatible with any s p i r i t u a l or a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . On the c o n t r a r y — t h i s e f f e c t of the image on our passions and emotions would have been accepted as a proof of i t s true correspondence to the heavenly idea, a natural outcome of i t s magic e f f i c a c y . The patron who had i t i n h i s room for contemplation would surrender to i t s influence and would f i n d i n i t a true guide to the supra-sensible p r i n c i p l e of love or Beauty, of which Venus i s but the v i s i b l e embodiment and revelation.; (p. 175) The Neo-Platonic mysticism underlying such, at t i t u d e s was discounted during the Age of Reason, which reduced the symbol to an i l l u s t r a t e d metaphor of "unmysterious" beauty. In the Academies, P l a t o n i c doctrine was " o v e r l a i d with A r i s t o t e l i a n r ationalism": the student could f i n d "a repertory of Pl a t o n i c ideas not i n the i n t e l l i g i b l e world but i n c l a s s i c a l statues or t h e i r p l a s t e r casts." This dogma r e c a l l s the Renaissance cult of ancient symbolism; but by the eighteenth century, the Pl a t o n i c idea was i n c r e a s i n g l y i d e n t i f i e d with the A r i s t o t e l i a n universal concept. Ancient sculptures were seen as products of the "g e n e r a l i z a t i o n " from p a r t i c u l a r to " u n i v e r s a l " through which Zeuxis had supposedly evolved h i s i d e a l Helen. Gombrich, whose Art and Illusion diametri-c a l l y opposes t h i s theory, here provides a r e f u t a t i o n of i t that must be quoted i n f u l l : 56 The idea of an inductive process through which we can r i s e from the p a r t i c u l a r to the general by leaving out i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s has been challenged i n l o g i c — i n the realm of the image i t c e r t a i n l y rests on no foundations. A moment's r e f l e c t i o n w i l l show that the most schematic or rudimentary image can be intended as a representation of an i n d i v i d u a l while the most d e t a i l e d p o r t r a i t can stand for the con-cept or type. I t i s not the degree of natur-alism which determines the question whether the image of a horse i s to serve as a symbol for the u n i v e r s a l concept 'horse' or as a p o r t r a i t of.a p a r t i c u l a r horse. A photograph i n a textbook or on a poster may represent the type or serve as a symbol—a mere p r i m i t i v e scrawl may be intended as a representation of the i n d i v i d u a l . Only the context can determine this d i s t i n c t i o n between symbol and representation. (p. 183) Influenced by the "Academic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the abstract and the generalized," continues Gombrich, " a r t i s t s began to think that the more generalized was the concept they had to symbolize the p a l e r and more e t i o l a t e d should be the image." Indeed, he te n t a t i v e l y blames t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o r having " f i n i s h e d a l l e g o r i c a l imagery as a branch of a r t . " The b e l i e f that v i s u a l allegory permanently degenerated during the eighteenth century i s shared by many leading a r t h i s t o r i a n s ; yet i t i s s u r p r i s i n g that Gombrich, whose conception of t h i s symbolic mode i s exceptionally f l e x i b l e , would endorse t h i s p o s i t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , though, he at t r i b u t e s the desuetude of allegory to growing generalization; 31 not to increased dramatic " a c t u a l i t y . " This accords with h i s emphasis on the common o r i g i n of analogical and mystical symbolism— a dual t r a d i t i o n that, as he himself demonstrates, retains i t s influence i n the age of Freud and Jung. " A l l e g o r i e s " i n the most r e s t r i c t e d sense may have become "purely cerebral pictographs i n the i n the shape of i n s i p i d women i n white dresses parading some con-ventional a t t r i b u t e " ; but a n t i - r a t i o n a l i s t theories of symbolism r e v i t a l i z e d many fundamental a l l e g o r i c a l techniques (p. 183). As Gombrich suggests, the d e c l i n i n g prestige of al l e g o r y l e d to an in c r e a s i n g l y mystical approach to the symbol. Kant i d e n t i f i e s the symbolic with i n t u i t i v e , not d i s c u r s i v e , thought, and G. B. Vico reconciles A r i s t o t e l i a n metaphor with Neo-Platonism.. Vico commends metaphor as the o r i g i n of knowledge, myths and symbols as forms of r e v e l a t i o n , and the poet as "the votes, the seer:" His doctrine of "the temporal primacy of the imagination" was elaborated by successive wr i t e r s : "What ageing reason had only found a f t e r thousands of years had elapsed," declares S c h i l l e r , "was pre-revealed i n the symbol of the Great and B e a u t i f u l to D c h i l d l i k e understanding." This P l a t o n i c view of symbolism l e d German c l a s s i c i s m on "the upward path on the ladder of analogy through the image of harmonious forms to the idea of harmony," while "Romanticism re-discovered the Areopagite's a l t e r n a t i v e , the power of the mysterious and the shocking to rouse the mind to higher forms of thought." In h i s Symbolik (1810), F r i e d r i c h Creuzer contrasts the "clouding darkness" and " s i g n i f i c a n t d i g n i t y " of the "enigmatic," "mystical" symbol with the " c l a r i t y " of a mere emblem or sign. This d i s t i n c t i o n was endorsed by Goethe and by Hegel, who adapted i t to h i s conception of h i s t o r y . To Hegel, Dionysius' "two ways" of symbolism were l i n k s i n a chain of development, with the "inadequate" "unconscious symbolism" of the hieroglyphs succeeded by the "adequate" c l a s s i c a l image of beauty: "a true but l i m i t e d analogue of the d i v i n e " i n which "the 58 manifesting and the manifested i s resolved into a concrete unity." By portraying Greek "adequacy" as the predecessor of "more s p i r i t u a l " medieval C h r i s t i a n symbolism, Hegel encouraged "the conception of art as an instrument of s p i r i t u a l r e v e l a t i o n , " which "became part and p a r c e l of the German t r a d i t i o n " (pp. 186-88). i v In "icones Symbolicae," Gombrich i s o l a t e s and p a r t i a l l y r e c onciles two branches of Neo-Platonic symbolism. He convincingly demonstrates that, under appropriate conditions, " r e a l i s t i c " imagery can symbolize and even "embody" abstract concepts. Many e s s e n t i a l components of a n a l o g i c a l symbolism are suggested by Angus Fletcher's d e s c r i p t i o n of i m i t a t i v e magic, and of "magical con-tainment" through naturalism; but these observations are not suc c e s s f u l l y linked to the Neo-^Platonism which he i d e n t i f i e s with allegory. Like the s i s t e r arts t h e o r i s t s of the eighteenth century, Fletcher associates the A r i s t o t e l i a n t r a d i t i o n with dramatic mimesis—not with the d i d a c t i c p ersonifications: based on A r i s -t o t l e ' s theory of metaphor:}1'" - He recognizes that mimesis has i t s place i n overtly propagandistic l i t e r a r y a l l e g o r i e s , i n which the r e a l i s t i c p o r t r a y a l of daemonically possessed characters can e l i c i t audience empathy; and he i s aware that naturalism i n painting can transform the viewer of a two-dimensional surface into the spectator of an action. But, unable to r e c o n c i l e h i s Neo-Platonic conception of allegory with the expressive realism of such works as The Horrors of War, he resorts to a s i m p l i f i e d theory of v i s u a l symbolism that w i l l not even accommodate the s p a t i a l i l l u s i o n i s m of Durer's "Melancholia I . " Gombrich's account of 59 analogical symbolism enlarges the d e f i n i t i o n of v i s u a l allegory to include a naturalism of the whole work as w e l l as i t s parts. Yet such a d e f i n i t i o n has i t s dangers. Unwarranted f i g u r a -t i v e readings of n a t u r a l i s t i c works can only be prevented through a constant! awareness of context', both of the t o t a l work i n which imagery appears, and of the h i s t o r i c a l , c u l t u r a l , and biographical conditions under which i t originated. Angus Fletcher r i g h t l y emphasizes the need i n allegory f o r evidence i n the secondary l e v e l of a primary l e v e l of meaning; but a work that was patently symbolic to a Renaissance Humanist may seem "merely" i l l u s t r a t i v e to h i s modern counterpart. Even more complex'problems are ra i s e d by " p r i v a t e " symbolic systems, such as those evolved by Blake and F r i e d r i c h , i n which imagery acquires i t s primary s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the context of several works, which may be verbal as well as v i s u a l . Here, i t i s e s p e c i a l l y important not to assume that c e r t a i n images are the vehicles of unvarying tenors. In a passage already c i t e d , Gombrich guards against t h i s assumption by i n s i s t i n g that a v i s u a l symbol "always functions as a metaphor which only acquires i t s s p e c i f i c meaning i n a given context." To a l i t e r a r y c r i t i c , t h i s statement may be confusing. Though t h e i r precise d e f i n i t i o n s of the two terms d i f f e r widely, most l i t e r a r y t h e o r i s t s attempt to keep "metaphor" and "symbol" d i s t i n c t , e i t h e r by l a b e l l i n g the former a trope, or by a t t r i b u t i n g superior "resonance" to the l a t t e r . Furthermore, Gombrich's emphasis on the dependance of a symbol on i t s context may seem unnecessarily i n s i s t e n t . Though Northrop Frye observes that " c e r t a i n secondary associations" of an image "can become 60 ha b i t u a l , " he maintains that "any symbol at a l l takes i t s meaning primarily from i t s context: a dragon may be s i n i s t e r i n a medieval romance or f r i e n d l y i n a Chinese one: an i s l a n d may be Prospero's i s l a n d or C i r c e ' s . " Indeed, many l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s share George Whalley's conviction that "the symbol . . . i s more s e n s i t i v e to i t s 32 context than any other kind of image or word." However, while such a u t h o r i t i e s as Whalley endorse the Romantic view of the symbol as the supremely resonant v e h i c l e of transcendent i n s i g h t , modern a r t h i s t o r i a n s often equate "symbols" with the emblems or a t t r i b u t e s t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated with d e i t i e s 33 or p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s . They also i d e n t i f y the term with Ernst Cassirer's theory of "symbolic forms," which profoundly influenced Panofsky and i s r e c a l l e d by some of Gombrich's observations on perception and representation. Like Cassirer, Gombrich holds that "the world of man . . . i s a world of symbols," and he c l e a r l y shares h i s b e l i e f that a l l art i s fundamentally "symbolic"—he even speaks of the "symbolism of photography." Such statements emphasize Gombrich's opposition to the " t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n . . . between spoken words which are conventional signs and painting which uses 'natural' signs to 'imitate' r e a l i t y . " As Gombrich demonstrates i n Art and Illusion, a representation of " r e a l i t y " presupposes two conditions: an a r t i s t with a s u i t a b l e system of schemata, or v i s u a l "vocabulary"; and a viewer of h i s work with an appropriate "mental s e t " — a l e v e l of expectation receptive to "a c e r t a i n notation, a ce r t a i n sign s i t u a t i o n . " Regarding art as e s s e n t i a l l y a form of communication, Gombrich i s exceptionally conscious of "the beholder's share" i n responding to imagery and 61 i n t e g r a t i n g the components of a p i c t u r e . " A l l a r t i s t i c d i s c o v e r i e s , " he asserts, "are discoveries not of likenesses but of equivalences which enable us to see r e a l i t y i n terms of an image and an image i n terms of r e a l i t y . And t h i s equivalence never r e s t s on the likeness of elements so much as the i d e n t i t y of responses to c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n -ships.""^ To Gombrich, t h i s i d e n t i t y of response i s the essence of metaphor, which "springs from the i n f i n i t e e l a s t i c i t y .of the human mind; i t t e s t i f i e s to i t s capacity to perceive and assimilate new experiences as modifications of e a r l i e r ones, of f i n d i n g equivalences i n the most disparate phenomena and of s u b s t i t u t i n g one for another. Without t h i s constant process of s u b s t i t u t i o n neigher language nor 35 a r t , nor indeed c i v i l i z e d l i f e would be p o s s i b l e . " In v i s u a l a r t , the "extension of a c l a s s " often proceeds from "ambiguities i n the v i s u a l f i e l d " : the p r i m i t i v e who saw a rock as a b u l l a n t icipated such modern innovators as Picasso, whose bronze Baboon and Young has a head composed of a toy car. Seeing "the hood and windshield of the car as a face" constitutes "a fresh act of c l a s s i f i -c ation," "a new metaphor" which Picasso M"put to the t e s t " i n h i s sculpture. Gombrich also comments perceptively on a modelled s k u l l from Jericho, i n which cowrie s h e l l s — u s e d i n other contexts "as sexual symbols betokening f e r t i l i t y " — s e r v e for eyes. This exemplifies the fact that "the representation . . . i s not a r e p l i c a " : "the craftsman of Jericho did not think eyes i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from cowriey s h e l l s any more than Picasso thinks baboons i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from motorcars, but i n c e r t a i n contexts the one can represent the other. 36 They belong to the same ,.class because they release a s i m i l a r response." 62 This conception of representation underlies Rudolf Wittkower's observation that "the likeness or s i m i l a r i t y " between an i l l u s i o n i s t 37 image and an object "can be no more than a metaphorical one." According to Albert E. Elsen, metaphor even characterizes non-figura-t i v e sculpture. In such works as Brancusi's The Prodigal Son, disparate elements are fused into "the modern s c u l p t u r a l metaphor," which achieves an "open ended i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y " through "the absence of p u b l i c or l i t e r a r y sources to circumscribe or substantiate i t s meaning." Whether the most "modern" theory of metaphor could accommodate such heterocosmic autonomy i s questionable; but i n renouncing what Elsen c a l l s the "ambitious footnoting of the past," modern sculptors c l e a r l y rejected t r a d i t i o n a l methods of symbolizing abstract concepts. Elsen c i t e s a l a t e product of such "footnoting": Epstein&s Tomb of Oscar Wilde (1912), adorned with "a f l y i n g demon-angel" " i n s p i r e d by the great Assyrian winged b u l l s i n the B r i t i s h Museum and Wilde's own exotic symbolism," and with "such accessories 38 as p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s of i n t e l l e c t u a l pride and luxury." Here, the process of metaphoric synthesis i s apparent on a l l three Panofskian " l e v e l s . " Yet there are equally metaphoric monuments i n which no p h y s i c a l fusion of heterogeneous elements i s found. When Thorwaldsen sculpted the f i g u r e of a l i o n to commemorate the Swiss guards k i l l e d i n the French Revolution, he depended more than Epstein on "public or l i t e r a r y sources" to f a c i l i t a t e the transference of appropriate concepts to p a r t i c u l a r men. Gombrich c a l l s the t r a d i t i o n a l associations defined by these sources "the area of metaphor," and emphasizes that "the image of a l i o n can be used i n d i f f e r e n t contexts, p r e c i s e l y as can any l i n g u i s t i c or v i s u a l image, to convey very d i f f e r e n t i d e a s . " F o r one thing," observes St. Thomas Aquinas, "may have s i m i l i t u d e to many"; "the l i o n may mean the Lord because of one s i m i l i t u d e and the D e v i l because of another." 4^ As Gombrich notes, the " r a t i o n a l conventionalism" that establishes f i x e d r e -l a t i o n s h i p s between symbol and reference was impossible f o r both medieval exegetes and Renaissance Humanists, who believed that meaning was embodied " i n " the symbol. 4 1 Appropriately, metaphor i s both "the mother of the 42 emblem" and "the basis of the device." The popularity of these objects of contemplation t e s t i f i e s to the Renaissance delight i n the metaphoric extension of classes, i n detecting what A r i s t o t l e terms "the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n d i s s i m i l a r s . 1 1 In t h e i r e f f o r t s to l i n k a symbol with a desired s i g n i f i c a n c e , such "exegetic a l l e g o r i s t s " as F i c i n o can f i n d a tevtium aomparationis i n "a 4 3 colour, a number, or any other a t t r i b u t e . They rjiustify t h i s procedure with references to the "areas of metaphor" which s t i l l adhere to v i s u a l , auditory, and other sensuous q u a l i t i e s . Red, for example, "being the colour of flames and of blood, o f f e r s i t s e l f as a metaphor for anything 44 that i s s t r i d e n t or v i o l e n t . " I t can therefore serve as one of those metaphors which Gombrich describes as "so widespread that one may c a l l them unive r s a l or natural metaphors"; he even proposes to c a l l them "physiognomic," since we respond to these expressive resources of shapes and colours "with that same immediacy with which we react to expressive features i n the world around us." "The co-ordinates of light-dark, high-low, . . . frequently joined by p h y s i c a l beauty versus ugliness' 1 are obvious examples. In a paper of 1952 on " V i s u a l Metaphors of Value i n A r t , " Gombrich finds the "unsophisticated" associations that produced the radiant hero and the dusky v i l l a i n "too obvious to be p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g " ; a decade l a t e r , i n an analysis of "The 64 Cartoonist's Armoury," he concedes such combinations s i g n i f i c a n t d i d a c t i c influence. Perhaps they are a l l the more e f f e c t i v e for being "so n a t u r a l to a l l of us that we are hardly aware of t h e i r metaphoric or symbolic character." The cartoonist who employs them appeals to "a myth-making f a c u l t y . . . latent i n a l l of us," through which we "categorize the world . . . i n . . . 45 basic emotional metaphors." Of these n a t u r a l metaphors, the contrast between l i g h t and dark i s perhaps the most expressive. One of Northrop Frye's "universal symbols" of " p o t e n t i a l l y unlimited" "communicable power, i t i s Dionysius' p r i n c i p a l example of analogical sym-bolism. I f Aquinas regards phy s i c a l objects as "corporeal metaphors of things s p i r i t u a l , " the Pseudo-Areopagite h a i l s them 4 7 as "material l i g h t s , " "brought into being by the Father of l i g h t s . " As one transcends the p h y s i c a l world by "absorbing" i t , awareness increases of the divine radiance that progressively i n t e n s i f i e s at each l e v e l of the hierarchy: thus Dionysius, elaborating e a r l i e r Neo-Platonic doctrine, provides metaphysical j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the a s s o c i a t i o n of l i g h t with the s p i r i t u a l l y elevated. In conjunction with other natural metaphors, the l i g h t / d a r k d u a l i t y can i n t e n s i f y the primary l e v e l of a l l e g o r i c a l p a inting. Gombrich notes that, though the " i n d i v i d u a l meaning" of Lorenzo Lotto's Allegory (1505) i s highly e s o t e r i c , "the basic r e l a t i o n s h i p s on which i t s symbolism i s grounded" are s t i l l obvious. The p i c t u r e i s divided v e r t i c a l l y into a l i g h t h a l f containing a d i l i g e n t putto and a winged creature ascending a mountain; and a dark h a l f with 48 a drunken satyr and scenes of "turmoil and shipwreck." Considering h i s keen awareness of "the b e l i e f that the powers of darkness 49 are forever at war with the powers of l i g h t , " Angus Fletcher i s s u r p r i s i n g l y oblivious to corresponding formal antitheses i n painting. They constitute an e s s e n t i a l method of "encapsulating" imagery, and perform t h i s function i n several pictures reproduced i n h i s book, incl u d i n g Rembrandt's Bellona, Ge'rome's Pygmalion, and Peter Blume's The Eternal City. Of course, contrasts of l i g h t and dark can only function a l l e g o r i c a l l y under c e r t a i n conditions. They can emphasize the daemonic nature of such conventional symbols as Bellona's s h i e l d or a cloud-throned Cupid, and r e i n f o r c e the metaphoric fusion of imagery that produces such o r i g i n a l daemons as Blume's Mussolini jack-in-the-box. In such works as Durer's "Melancholia I," they can provide natural equivalents of t r a d i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t e s of brightness and darkness. But even expressive chiaroscuro cannot infuse a l l e g o r i c a l purport into pictures devoid of symbolic content. What W o l f f l i n terms the " i s o l a t e d tongues of l i g h t " passing "over the shadowed land" i n a Ruysdael landscape lack the symbolic function of what he i n t e r p r e t s as a s i m i l a r approach to i l l u m i n a t i o n i n Rubens' Assumption of the Virgin.^ In s u i t a b l e contexts, however, the image of sunlight i t s e l f can symbolize s p e c i f i c concepts. Thus, Panofsky maintains that the beam f a l l i n g through a church window i n Van Eyck's 'Friedsam' Annunciation i s a symbol of the Immaculate Conception. He bases t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on the s i t u a t i o n portrayed and on the contrasting a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e s of the church i t s e l f , i n which the Romanesque denotes the Old; the Gothic, the New, Dispensation. Both l i g h t and b u i l d i n g exemplify what Panofsky c a l l s concealed or disguised symbolism: "the use of . . . apparently n a t u r a l i s t i c a r t i f a c t s , " i n c l u d i n g n a t u r a l phenomena, " f o r purposes of a l l e g o r i c a l s i g n i f i -c ation." Such symbolism characterizes the t r a n s i t i o n from St. Bonaventure's d e f i n i t i o n of a p i c t u r e : that which " i n s t r u c t s , arouses pious emotions and awakens memories"; to Zola's: "un coin de l a nature vu a travers un temperament." Except f o r re-presentations of " s p i r i t u a l events" and of "those supernatural phenomena which defy the laws of nature by d e f i n i t i o n , " the un-na t u r a l juxtaposition of conventionally symbolic and ostensibly r e a l i s t i c images, and hence the l i t e r a l i l l u s t r a t i o n of f i g u r e s of speech, was renounced i n post-medieval r e l i g i o u s p ainting. T r a d i t i o n a l metaphoric techniques were eit h e r s a c r i f i c e d or adapted to the s t y l i s t i c requirements of perspective and naturalism, both of which imply that " p i c t o r i a l space i s subject to the rules that govern empirical space." For the f a n t a s t i c pseudo-Oriental architecture with which t h e i r predecessors had symbolized the Old Dispensation, Van Eyck and h i s Northern contemporaries substituted a pre-Gothic s t y l e "from t h e i r actual environment." They transformed such conventional symbols as the Pe l i c a n i n Her Piety into h i s t o r i a t e d c a p i t a l s , stained-glass windows, carvings on f u r n i t u r e , embroidery on accoutrements. And, when a symbol t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated with a r e l i g i o u s subject could be i n t r o -duced as a " s t i l l - l i f e feature" into a n a t u r a l i s t i c rendering of the same themey. Van Eyck, i n p a r t i c u l a r , seldom missed the opportunity.^"'" Through these innovations, Van Eyck and h i s colleagues reconciled the a l l e g o r i c a l objectives of medieval a r t i s t s with what Panofsky memorably c a l l s a "worshipful respect f o r the p a r t i c u l a r . " They achieved t h i s p r e c i s e l y because t h e i r paradoxical nominalism was "worshipful"; because they continued to view the p h y s i c a l objects comprising the Book of Nature as corporeal metaphors of things s p i r i t u a l . For them, "the method of disguised symbolism" and "the method of naturalism" were "genuine co r r e l a t e s " : The more the painters r e j o i c e d i n the discovery and reproduction of the v i s i b l e world, the more intensely did they f e e l the need to saturate a l l of i t s elements with meaning. Conversely, the harder they strove to express new s u b t l e t i e s and complexities of thought and imagination, the more eagerly did they explore new areas of reality.52 I f Panofsky's reconstruction of the impulses behind such works as the Ghent Altanpieoe i s correct, the gulf between the prevalent conceptions of v i s u a l a r t i n the f i f t e e n t h and twentieth centuries i s s u f f i c i e n t l y wide to be l a b e l l e d a genuine " d i s s o c i a t i o n 53 of s e n s i b i l i t y . " For Panofsky maintains that the " t o t a l . . . s a n c t i f i c a t i o n of the p h y s i c a l world" experienced by early Nether-landish a r t i s t s was shared by the o r i g i n a l viewers of t h e i r works, who i d e n t i f i e d every image i n t h e i r pictures as a "natural" sign. Thus, i n Van Eyck, " a l l meaning has assumed the shape of r e a l i t y ; or, to put i t the other way, a l l r e a l i t y i s saturated with meaning." His canvasses partake of "a general, 'metaphorical' t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n of nature" that greatly extends the conventional conception of 54 v i s u a l metaphor normally endorsed by Panofsky. Panofsky concedes that "the use of h i s t o r i c a l methods tempered, i f p ossible, by common sense" i s needed to d i s t i n g u i s h t h i s "trans-68 55 f i g u r a t i o n " of imagery from "actual s p e c i f i c symbolism." Perhaps t h i s approach demands a q u a l i t y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that only a Panofsky could sustain; and even h i s conclusions have provoked Gombrich's comment: "one might wislv f or more evidence that these symbols and metaphors were commissioned to be painted. ""^ Yet "disguised symbolism" i s e s s e n t i a l l y an extreme instance of that interpenetration between the representational, symbolic, and expressive functions of imagery described i n Gombrich's "Icones Symbolicae," In another essay, Gombrich notes that the a l l e g o r i c a l power of Raphael's "ravishing drawing" of Poetry transcends "the sign l i m i t s " of the emblems within i t . Though "from one point of view . . . a p i c t o r i a l sign with . . . obvious and enumerable a t t r i b u t e s , " t h i s figure succeds through it's beauty not only i n s i g n i f y i n g nwrrine afflatwc, but i n displaying or expressing it."""^ To both Gombrich and Panofsky, even the aesthetic appreciation of such works demands recognition not only of Kant's "pure," formal beauty, but of h i s "adherent," r i c h e r beauty u n i t i n g form and "moral" content. This b e l i e f i s anathema to advocates of a " d i s i n t e r e s t " excluding a l l concern with iconographic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Harold Osborne, f o r example, i n s i s t s that a C r u c i f i x i o n by the greatest Renaissance master must be judged " a e s t h e t i c a l l y " by rigorously formal c r i t e r i a ; conversely, a "photograph . . . with suitable actors" of the same subject would have equal e f f i c a c y as a " u t i l i t y -58 object" symbolizing ce r t a i n emotions and concepts. Or, to take an example from "Icones Symbolicae": the Neo-Platonist who contemplated B o t t i c e l l i ' s Venus as a guide to supra-sensible love or Beauty would have fared equally w e l l with the flea-market nude that Picasso set on h i s easel for a celebrated comic photograph. Such a proposition i s not only contrary to the whole concept of an a l o g i c a l symbolism: i t i s repugnant i n i t s pseudo-analytic disdain for what Wittkower c a l l s the " p o t e n t i a l l y magical" e f f e c t of a r t . Nor does Osborne comprehend the complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between aesthetic and magical function; the f a c t that, as Wittkower observes: Often the two are so intimately intertwined that no analysis can tear them asunder. When the whole Sienese population c a r r i e d Duccio's Majesty. i n triumph to the Cathedral, i t was the grandeur and aesthetic p e r f e c t i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r image that magically evoked the V i r g i n ' s protection of t h e i r c i t y . - ^ The dangers of a r b i t r a r i l y divorcing a work of art from i t s h i s t o r i c a l context are apparent i n the f a c t that a contemporary of Van Eyck's who painted an a l t a r p i e c e i n the manner of Duccio would have won no accolade f o r " p e r f e c t i o n . " Even a casual comparison between the Majesty and the Ghent Altarpiece reveals not only the greater naturalism of the l a t t e r , but iconographic differencesoof a kind that fascinated Aby Warburg and h i s successors. "The working of symbols—the signs and images created by ancient, and employed by modern generations, as instruments both of enlightenment and of s u p e r s t i t i o n " : ^ t h i s has been one of the p r i n c i p a l concerns of the s o - c a l l e d "Warburg School" of art h i s t o r y , of which Panofsky, Gombrich, and Wittkower are outstanding representatives. "Each generation," declares Wittkower, "not only projects i t s own meaning into those older symbols to which i t i s drawn by a f f i n i t y , but also creates new symbols by using, modifying and transforming those of the past. Simultaneously, t r a d i t i o n a l symbols survive, emptied of t h e i r content." To Wittkower, a symbol i s "emptied" or " d e v i t a l i z e d " when i t has been "turned i n t o decoration"; when, i n Gombrich's terms, i t loses i t s area of metaphor. As long as an image remains associated with valued concepts, i t i s capable of metaphoric a p p l i c a t i o n . Often, i n d i v i d u a l works of the past are given a new meaning through what, s t r i c t l y speaking, constitutes mis-i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , but to which "we owe . . . not only the p e r s i s -tent i n t e r e s t i n a great many images of the past, but also decisive s t i m u l i f or the creation df new symbols." An example of the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e transformation of symbols as they appear i n s p e c i f i c works i s the Renaissance " c u l t " of the hieroglyphs, which simultaneously d i s t o r t e d Egyptian a r t and profoundly i n -fluenced Neo-Platonic doctrine and the a r t i s t s a f f e c t e d by i t . Besides the generation and degeneration of symbols, Wittkower also acknowledges t h e i r regeneration, through the "spontaneous re-discovery or remembrance of [ t h e i r ] o r i g i n a l meaning." On the most universal l e v e l , this process consists of responses to archetypes: "the re-discovery of the power of symbols which have long receded into subconsciousness." But, i n the f u l l e s t sense, the regeneration of symbols, which "occurs frequently," "seems to be a prerogative of a r t i s t s and poets. While the a r t i s t or poet may integrate spontaneously regen-erated symbols into a personal "mythology," the art h i s t o r i a n reconstructs the areas of metaphor of images to c l a r i f y a r t i s t i c i n tentions. I t may be inadequate s c h o l a r l y knowledge, rather than creative subterfuge, that has "disguised" the symbolic meaning of Van Eyck's imagery. Indeed, iconographic analysis has re-vealed how the a r t i s t t r i e d to prevent h i s " r e a l i s t i c " sacred figures and emblems from being misinterpreted. The more n a t u r a l i s t i c h i s settings were, the more c a r e f u l l y he revealed, "by ancient devices d e l i b e r a t e l y retained and new devices s k i l l f u l l y invented, that they s t i l l meant more than r e a l s t r u c -tures." A presumably early Van Eyck, Madonna in a Chzaioh, conveys the same message through a s t r i k i n g disproportion i n scale between the n a t u r a l i s t i c V i r g i n and the accurately rendered i n t e r i o r . To Panofsky, t h i s disproportion i s i t s e l f "a symbol: a deviation from nature which, d e l i b e r a t e l y retained within the framewoEku of a n a t u r a l i s t i c s t y l e , makes us aware of the f a c t that this wealth of p h y s i c a l d e t a i l , so c a r e f u l l y observed-:and reconstructed, i s dominated by a metaphysical idea." This idea transforms the p i c t u r e from "a V i r g i n Mary i n a church" to "the V i r g i n Mary as the Church": "not so much a human being, scaled to a r e a l structure, as an embodiment i n human form of the same s p i r i t u a l force or e n t i t y that i s expressed, i n a r c h i -t e c t u r a l terms, i n the b a s i l i c a enshrining her." Appropriately, the sunlight streaming through the cathedral window shines from the North: a f a c t revealing that t h i s l i g h t , v i o l a t i n g natural 62 law, i s "subject to the laws of symbolism." As these examples suggest, natural law i s more frequently bypassed i n Van Eyck than the p r i n c i p l e s of n a t u r a l metaphor. The richly-ornamented architecture with which he s i g n i f i e s the Church or a n t i c i p a t e s the Heavenly Jerusalem would have pleased Suger of St.-Denis, the twelfth-century Abbot who e x p l i c i t l y 72 r e l a t e s Pseudo-Monysius' s philosophy of l i g h t to mystical exper-63 iences induced by gleaming gems. In h i s use of l i g h t and ornament, as i n h i s retention of a t o t a l l y s a n c t i f i e d view of nature, Van Eyck i s e s s e n t i a l l y a t r a n s i t i o n a l f i g u r e . Pro-gressive I t a l i a n a r t i s t s soon adopted new metaphors of value, based on the negation of t r a d i t i o n a l associations between sensuous and moral q u a l i t i e s . When A l b e r t ! recommends decorating church walls with p l a i n white instead of gold because of the " p u r i t y " of the former, he i