They will be found developed at greater length in Mr. Ruskin's fourth lecture. Now there is one common error which lies at the very threshold of the subject, and stands in the way of any correct estimation of the merits and position of the artists in question. They are supposed to desire the reduction of art precisely to the state in which it existed previous to the time of Raphael, and to ignore, or rather condemn, all the improvements which it has undergone since that period. And on this hypothesis it is very justly argued that art was never designed to be stationary, any more than science or politics, and that to despise progress in the one, must be just as ridiculous as it is admitted to be in the others. But unfortunately for the point and application of the argument, the Pre-Raphaelites have never denied its truth, and the most casual glance at one of their works would, one might have thought, have convinced any one that its execution evinced an advance on the great painters of early Italy, at least as marked as could be furnished by any of their contemporaries.
Art is made up of principles and practice.
It is in this respect only that the Pre-Raphaelites desire to imitate the early schools. The other is of narrower compass. In all early painters there will be found rigid adherence to the truth of nature. It does not conflict with this assertion, that there is much in nature which they do not represent at all, and much in what they do represent which stops far short of the reality. Their works indeed are imperfect, but they are always true.