Notes on the Royal Academy Exhibition, 1868 — Story, Setting & Ideas

(0 User reviews)   412
Rossetti, William Michael, 1829-1919, Swinburne, Algernon Charles, 1837-1909 Project Gutenberg 2025 Not confirmed
Art -- Exhibitions; Royal Academy of Arts (Great Britain); Rossetti, Dante Gabriel, 1828-1882 -- Criticism and interpretation Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 23,478
Reading time 103 min
Text sections 11

This digital edition of Notes on the Royal Academy Exhibition, 1868 — Story, Setting & Ideas is described by source-level measurements including 23,478 words, 1 hr 43 min estimated reading time, and 11 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 21.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Art -- Exhibitions,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Two Pre-Raphaelite critics, William Michael Rossetti and Algernon Charles Swinburne, offer contrasting appraisals of the 1868 Royal Academy exhibition. Rossetti defends signed criticism and catalogs works matter-of-factly; Swinburne rhapsodizes over Watts's 'Wife of Pygmalion' as a translation of Greek sculpture into paint. The pamphlet reveals divergent critical temperaments within a shared artistic circle.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

Notes on the Royal Academy Exhibition, 1868

_PRICE, ONE SHILLING._

NOTES ON THE ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITION, 1868.

Part I., by Wm. Michael Rossetti.

Part II., by Algernon C. Swinburne.

LONDON: JOHN CAMDEN HOTTEN PICCADILLY.

(ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)

BY HER MAJESTY’S ROYAL LETTERS PATENT.

The “Times” says “Lucifers have risen gradually to be at last a special source of danger, and no careful housekeeper who looked at these returns (_Fire Brigade_) would ever allow any but _Safety Matches_ inside their doors.”

_FRAUD._ Without the precaution of observing closely the address, BRYANT & MAY, and their Trade Mark, the Public may be imposed upon with an article that _does not afford_ Protection from Fire.

LIGHT ONLY ON THE BOX.

NOTES ON THE ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITION, 1868.

PART I. BY WM. MICHAEL ROSSETTI.

PART II. BY ALGERNON C. SWINBURNE.

“Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope.”--SHAKSPEARE.

LONDON: JOHN CAMDEN HOTTEN, PICCADILLY.

(ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)

The reader of this pamphlet will be apt to understand, from its very arrangement, the fact that each of the writers speaks solely for himself. Each chooses his own point of view, and expresses his own opinion, and in his own way. If the opinions happen to diverge, it will be for the reader to select, as he pleases, either or neither.

A person who undertakes to express to the public his opinion of any such Exhibition as that of the Royal Academy is not unreasonably liable to the imputation of presumption. For that imputation I am prepared; I admit it to be, within certain limits, just; and must bear it as I may.

But there are two forms of possible and probable censure which I should respectfully decline to accept as well bestowed.

The first is censure of a signed critical pamphlet, _rather than_ an unsigned newspaper or review article. The pamphlet expresses the opinion of an individual: the article does or ought to do the same. So far they stand on the same ground; anything which may be presumption in the first is presumption in the second also. The difference is that the first does, while the second does not, lay bare the writer to the retorts of any person who may hold himself aggrieved: that may be more open, more equitable, and more bold, but it is not more presumptuous.

The second form of misleading censure is that which makes a point of reprobating omissions. The limits of this pamphlet, as to dimensions and as to the time and facilities available for its preparation and composition, are manifestly narrow. All that the writer professes is to say straightforwardly whatever he does say: he by no means implies that nothing else remains to be noted concerning the works of art commented upon, nor that the works wholly omitted are undeserving of mention. If anybody, therefore, tells me that the picture of A, of which this pamphlet says nothing, merits criticism, or that the picture of B, praised for colour, claims praise on the score of drawing also, I shall have no difficulty in admitting the probable correctness of these remarks; but, if he adds that I am blameable for the omissions, I shall feel entitled to reply that A’s picture and B’s draughtsmanship were not in the bond. What _is_ in the bond is liberty of selection and candour of statement on my part: if my selection is stupid, or my statement unfair or erroneous, be that the charge. Let the censure concern itself with something wrong that _is_ done; not with something right that might have been done.

ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITION, 1868.

This 1868 pamphlet pairs two critics who, as the prefatory note states, 'speak solely for himself.' William Michael Rossetti opens Part I by defending the very act of publishing a signed critical pamphlet against accusations of presumption, arguing it is 'more open, more equitable, and more bold' than unsigned journalism. His portion then proceeds as a brisk, nearly catalog-like enumeration of exhibited works, with titles and artists listed in sequence. In contrast, Algernon Charles Swinburne begins Part II by disclaiming any intent 'to pass judgment or tender counsel,' then immediately delivers an impassioned description of G. F. Watts's 'Wife of Pygmalion,' praising its 'soft severity of perfect beauty.' The two halves thus embody fundamentally different approaches to art criticism—one defensive and documentary, the other lyrical and subjective.

Rossetti's Defensive Preface and Catalog Method

Rossetti opens with a sustained justification of his enterprise. He acknowledges the 'imputation of presumption' that attaches to anyone who 'undertakes to express to the public his opinion of any such Exhibition,' but he counters two specific forms of censure. First, he argues that a signed pamphlet is no more presumptuous than an unsigned newspaper review—indeed, it is 'more open, more equitable, and more bold' because it exposes the writer to retorts. Second, he rejects criticism for omissions, noting that the pamphlet's 'limits, as to dimensions and as to the time and facilities available, are manifestly narrow.' Having cleared this ground, his text becomes a list: a sequence of numbered entries pairing artist and title, such as 'Frith — Scene from “She Stoops to Conquer”' or 'Armitage — Herod’s Birthday Feast.' There is no evaluative commentary; the selection itself implies judgment. This method foregrounds the act of choosing which works to mention rather than elaborating on their merits.

Swinburne's Lyrical Response to Watts and Greek Ideals

Swinburne's contribution is brief but concentrated. He records that 'returning from the Academy I find two pictures impressed on my memory more deeply and distinctly than the rest,' and he devotes his attention to the first: Watts's 'Wife of Pygmalion.' His description dwells on the interplay of sculpture and painting: 'The soft severity of perfect beauty might serve alike for woman or statue, flesh or marble.' He imagines the statue's eyes 'opened already upon love, with a tender and grave wonder,' and her hair 'warm from the touch and the breath of the goddess.' Swinburne explicitly calls the picture a 'translation' of a Greek statue into an English picture, and he invokes the 'supreme Venus of Melos' as a touchstone. His language is sensuous and precise, treating the painting as a fusion of arts—'painting and sculpture may become as sister arts indeed, yet without invasion or confusion.' This passage exemplifies Swinburne's critical method: intense, subjective response grounded in classical reference.

Divergent Critical Temperaments in a Single Pamphlet

The pamphlet's structure dramatizes a split within Pre-Raphaelite criticism. Rossetti's portion is defensive, procedural, and enumerative; he justifies his role as a critic before performing it through selection. Swinburne, by contrast, begins by disclaiming judgment—'To pass judgment or tender counsel is beyond my aim or my desire'—then proceeds to judge with fervor. Rossetti's list of works includes many now-obscure names (e.g., 'Calthrop — The Last Song of the Girondins,' 'Lobley — Fancies in the Fire'), while Swinburne singles out a single painting for extended analysis. The prefatory note acknowledges that 'if the opinions happen to diverge, it will be for the reader to select, as he pleases, either or neither.' This framing turns the pamphlet into a dialogue—or a debate—about the proper voice of art criticism. The reader is left to weigh Rossetti's systematic coverage against Swinburne's passionate focus.

Readers approaching this pamphlet should attend to its dual authorship as a feature, not a flaw. The contrast between Rossetti's defensive catalog and Swinburne's rhapsodic ekphrasis illuminates the range of Victorian critical practice. Neither writer claims completeness; both acknowledge the pamphlet's narrow scope. The work is best read as a document of two critics thinking aloud about the relationship between art and language, each in his own idiom. The appended list of exhibited works, though seemingly dry, rewards attention for what it includes and omits.

I came across that old Pre-Raphaelite pamphlet again, where Rossetti and Swinburne trade their separate ways of seeing the same exhibition. It made me think of Mountain Meditations, and some subjects of the day and the war — A Reader’s Guide. Both carry that feeling of a singular mind settling its own weather, be it over a painting or a peak. Quiet company, those pages.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

How did this book work for you?

Your answers remain private and are stored only in this browser.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Which reading stage best describes you?

2

What was your overall reaction to the book?

3

How likely are you to recommend this book?

4

How much effort did this book require?

Related eBooks