Who was Ruskin? Ruskin's Reception in the Victorian Periodical Press

(1)

NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Humanities Department of Language and Literature

Master ’s thesis

Who was Ruskin?

Ruskin's Reception in the Victorian Periodical Press

Master’s thesis in Lektorutdanning i Engelsk Supervisor: Yuri Cowan

November 2020

(2)

(3)

Who was Ruskin?

Ruskin's Reception in the Victorian Periodical Press

Master’s thesis in Lektorutdanning i Engelsk Supervisor: Yuri Cowan

November 2020

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Humanities

Department of Language and Literature

(4)

(5)

Who was Ruskin ?

Ruskin’s reception in the Victorian periodical press

Alexandru Podasca Trondheim, November 2020

Master Thesis in English Literature Department of English Language and Literature

Lektorutdanning I Engelsk Faculty of Humanities

NTNU

(6)

(7)

Supervisor: Yuri Cowan

(8)

Acknowledgements

After reading the “Nature of the Gothic” I was captivated by Ruskin’s prose and continued to explore other writings in which I saw deep principles, beneficial to every

department of life that made me wonder how his works were received by his contemporaries and found that research was lacking in the area of original reception. I personally consider the

original reception of a work to be the most interesting. Moreover, only such a reception can define who Ruskin truly was, and only this can account for his career as a prolific writer.

Any errors of reasoning or wild leaps of imagination in this thesis can only be blamed on me. I have tried to write myself into the paper because I believe that employing a detached approached to writing is superficial and mechanical. By writing myself into the paper, I mean that I have attempted to write in my own feeble style. I would like to extend my thanks to the skilled professor who supervised the early part of the writing process and encouraged me to persevere in times of great difficulty. I would also like to thank my family and especially my mother who always encouraged me and prayed for me, and a warm thank you to my lovely fiancé who displayed an impeccable patience with a frustrated MA student. Finally, I thank the Norwegian University of Science and Technology for giving me this opportunity of writing a thesis that has taught me how to write a more comprehensive work in an academic manner.

Alexandru Podasca, Trondheim, 2020

I thank God for all that he has given me!

(9)

(10)

(Maidment 1982, p. 29). The word implies spaciousness, and in this case, it refers to the production of many volumes. Therefore, any consideration of Ruskin’s works will produce an impression of greatness, influence, and importance due to the volume of his production. Such is the attitude of many scholars toward Ruskin’s importance and influence in, and over Victorian society. In one article from the 55^th volume of Victorian Studies, Ruskin is presented as

“arguably the most celebrated art critic of the nineteenth century” (Pascu-Tulbure, 2012, p. 158).

Another scholar acknowledges that Ruskin was “a critic who became an undisputed opinion leader in matter of art and architecture in his time”, and “[…] the most prominent art and architecture critic in England” (Dominiczak 2012, p. 1502). Yet another scholar asserts that “In his day, he was lionized for his many writings and lectures on art and architecture, taste and culture, social change and technological innovation and the environment” (Stuart 2016, 1). This is just a very brief selection of examples where scholars assert that Ruskin was an important influence in his time. However, many Victorian critics prove through periodical publications that Ruskin, though popular and widely read, was not as influential at the time as it is asserted today.

In fact, Victorian critics strongly criticized him for his alien way of thinking.

Ruskin has received a great deal of attention from modern scholars. A search on the MLA International Bibliography provides the amount of attention given to this prolific writer. Inserting his surname in the search field provides almost eighteen thousand scholarly articles alone. If the researcher desires to narrow down the search by inserting the whole name, then a total of almost ten thousand results appear on the screen. These results include only scholarly journals, however.

If the search would be expanded to theses and dissertations, newspapers, and magazines, then the amount of results would jump to over thirty thousand. Although, the newspapers and magazines possess a significant cultural importance, these do not constitute a part of my research material.

(12)

Nevertheless, they contribute with their witness concerning the amount of attention that has been given to this Victorian writer.

Moreover, the Reading Experience Database UK is a website that captured the reading habits and tastes of ordinary and famous people, young and old, men and women throughout the centuries since the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century

(http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/reading/UK/search.php). A basic search for ‘Ruskin’ provides a total of seven hundred and seven recorded reading experiences between 1800 and 1945. This amount is equal to the captured reading experiences of Dicken’s works, and nearly equal to those of Wordsworth. In other words, the results assert that Ruskin, as previously stated was among the most popular writers of his time. With regard to this connection between Ruskin and Dickens, Jeremy Tambling writes in his article “Ruskin and Dickens: John Ruskin’s Bicentenary”

published by The Dickensian, that Ruskin and Dickens are “two giants of the nineteenth century and formative influences beyond that period”(Tambling 2019, p. 53), and he emphasizes that whereas Dickens impact requires no underlining, Ruskin’s influence has often been under- estimated. With his aim stated, Tambling endeavors to prove that Ruskin’s influence beyond his time is also highly significant. Just as Ruskin’s influence over the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is, as Tambling emphasizes, under-estimated, so is Ruskin’s influence over his Victorian contemporaries over-estimated.

Finally, Richard D. Altick’s book Victorian People and Ideas places Ruskin on par with Charles Dickens, William Wordsworth, Thomas Carlyle, Matthew Arnold, Jeremy Bentham, and Stuart Mill concerning his involvement in the matters of society. Its contents include art, politics, economics, social class, the development of society intellectually and technologically,

ideologies, religion, and science. Ruskin is among the most prominent characters presented throughout the pages of this book. His involvement with each area of society is made obvious in each chapter. Thus, Ruskin can be found in every strata of society. In every Victorian aspect of life, from the social standing to the spirit and the mind of the age, to economics, and politics, religion and art, Ruskin is found as an ever-present voice. But though his voice was heard throughout the decades of his life, his influence was not fully manifested until the close of the age. Therefore, some of his critics called him a prophet. He was a man ahead of his time with a mind that in various ways had a natural bent of thinking outside the box in a future perspective.

As I will show, Ruskin’s expansiveness cannot be equated with importance or influence. In fact,

(13)

the greater part of his career included a decline in both popularity and acceptance due to his passionate occupation with stern social criticism.

The scholarly work on the topic is scant

While it is generally accepted that Ruskin is an important influence on Victorian people and ideas, there have so far been scarcely any critical attempts to confirm or refute this common belief by providing evidence from the periodical press. J. D. Jump is among the very few who published an article on the matter, entitled “Ruskin’s Reputation in the Eighteen-Fifties: The Evidence of the Three Principal Weeklies”. His scope is narrowed to one decade and his work aims at providing evidence that Ruskin was not as influential as it is believed. Building on R. H.

Wilenski’s protest against the common belief that Ruskin was some kind of Victorian art-

dictator, Jump searches through a variety of periodical articles to provide empirical evidence that points to Ruskin’s true reputation among his contemporaries. Apart from J. D. Jump’s work, there are no real attempts at uncovering the reality of Ruskin’s influence over his contemporaries as it is provided in Victorian journals. Because there have been few attempts to present Ruskin as he was perceived by his contemporaries rather than as he is perceived by our contemporaries, this paper will endeavor to build a platform on which such research might further be developed.

What is this platform and what does it consist of? This work does not aim at a general expression of Victorian reception, nor does it have as goal to take a deep dive into the detailed mass of Victorian periodicals of a specifically narrowed period. Its aim is to provide enough detailed evidence from the epochs of two written works to show that his contemporaries were not as fond and as welcoming of his ideas as it is believed. Thus, the periodical reception of Ruskin’s Seven Lamps of Architecture¸ and Unto This Last is the groundwork on which I build my argument.

However, it must be mentioned that these works are not part of the primary source of research.

These two books are mostly used as temporal points of reference that allow for an organized extraction of review articles, as well as their systematic analysis. If successful, this work will make a good terminus a quo for further and deeper research.

The paper takes an approach of meta-reception where the original reception of Ruskin is the focus. The evidence that supports the main argument is provided by a number of Victorian periodicals that include the Examiner, Fraser’s Magazine for Town and Country, Athenaeum¸

Critic¸ Rambler, Westminster Review, Eclectic Review, Saturday Review, Quarterly Review,

(14)

The British Architect, The Speaker, The Bookman, and Blackwood’s Edinburgh Review. These, together with others, have criticized Ruskin for his otherness among theorist, critics, and writers.

His manner of thinking, style of writing, and attitude are among the most common areas of criticism. To avoid being too general, this paper will narrow its scope to three specific areas of criticism: his moral holism, his prejudices, and his tendency to be emotional, unsystematic, and unscientific.

The greater part of the discussion in this dissertation involves close reading of periodical articles which deal with interpretation and exposition. The process of interpretation as it is present in these pages is divided into two paths. The one is historical, and the other is contemporary. The historical interpretation includes the reception of Ruskin in Victorian periodicals, whereas the contemporary interpretation is my exposition of the original reception.

Consequently, the methodological approach of hermeneutics will be present in one form or another but only as part of the literary theory of reception. Hans Robert Jauss, the leading figure of reception theory was influenced by Gadamer’s hermeneutics which moved him into the direction of a holistic interpretation of texts. He attempted to merge the historical approach with the formalistic approach, thus aiming at a process of interpretation that included the author, the text, and the reader as equally essential components. According to Jauss, “literary texts are inadequately understood if one focuses only on how they were produced without taking any account of their original reception” (Newton 1988, p. 219). Though text’s contents are essential, its meaning is incomplete without an active involvement of the context it was created in. This combination of formalism and historical dimension is closely related to Gadamer’s concept of the fusion of horizons that Jauss incorporated into his theory. “The horizon of past reading experiences embodied in the text, are fused with how the text is received in its present-day to achieve a dialogue between the original reception and how the text is perceived at various stages in history up until the present” (Newton 1988, p. 219). Hence, the original reception and the various interpretations that follow establish a relation in co-operation. Though many different interpretations of the same work are produced, the relation between original reception and future receptions provides a foundation for interpreting the text. This foundation is built on the

connection between the three pillars author, text, and reader where the reader is the only factor that plays an active role of interaction with the immutable author and his similarly immutable work.

(15)

Ruskin’s reputation is grounded on the reputation of his works. Unless an original reception is established, any contemporary reception of Ruskin, especially regarding his

authority and influence over the variety of subjects he dealt with, will be confined to the specific time of that contemporary reception. Steven Mailloux quotes Jauss in his book Interpretive Conventions¸ writing that “A literary work is not an object which stands by itself and which offers the same face to each reader in each period” (Mailloux 1982, p. 167). If Ruskin’s harsh criticism of political economy in Unto This Last is reviewed by a literary critic of the twentieth century, many of his ideas would be heartily accepted. This is due to a mentality change that took place at the turn of the century when many of Ruskin’s principles and theories were

increasingly accepted as sound. However, such a reception would not correspond to the original, nor will it reflect how Ruskin’s contemporaries perceived him. Hence, if one desires to establish John Ruskin’s importance and influence during his time, one must therefore go to his

contemporaries and research their opinions regarding this special writer.

I will now discuss the contents of periodical reviews and emphasize three main aspects of Ruskin’s writings that have been heavily criticized. I will be dealing with the reception of Seven Lamps of Architecture and of Unto This Last. The discussion will build the argumentation by following the three aspects of Ruskin’s writings that constitute the three chapters of the thesis.

Although the chapters are co-operating to establish the thesis statement as being true, they are not closely connected to each other in content but in context. Moreover, the chapter stand as three separate pillars that support the argument. Thus, in my undertaking I have followed this progression: first, the specific aspect of writing is defined and expounded, second, the periodical reviews is presented, and thirdly, the periodical reviews will be closely read and discussed.

However, chapter one will have a slight variation due to the insertion of a brief summary of Ruskin’s two books.

(16)

Chapter I: Moral Holism, a philosophy rejected by Victorians

Holism is a philosophical idea that implies an interconnectivity between individual part that form a whole. In his article, Richard A. Healey affirms that “Holism claims that a whole has features that cannot be reduced to features of its parts” (Healey 1991, p.397). This

interconnection is necessary to achieve an understanding of each part. Each part of a whole can be understood only when it is seen in connection and in unity with the rest. As a result, every aspect of life is connected to another, and one cannot be understood without the other. Ruskin developed such a mentality early on due to his education. From early infancy he was taught to read, memorize and meditate on the Holy Scriptures which gradually were imprinted on his mind (Ruskin 1885, pp. 25,26). The message of the Bible proclaims that God is holy, and that he demands a perfect morality from humanity. This morality is a recurrent theme throughout the book. Moreover, through a diligent reading of the book, Ruskin developed a holistic view of life where this aspect of God permeated his entire existence. Believing that everything was created by God and that all things are upheld by his power led him to adopt a theological holistic view of life because of passages such as: “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible […] He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together”

(NASB Zondervan Ed. 1999, p.1125, Colossians 1:16-17), and thus, all affairs of life were fundamentally theological due to their one common source, God. Consequently, his manner of thinking was formed into a moral holism where the absolute morality of the Scriptures was combined with the interconnected perspective of the world, resulting in a mixture that brought every aspect of human life, as well as every department of the natural world under the total submission of God’s moral law. Thus, Ruskin’s world was morally interconnected. Any painting, any building, any theory reflected man’s moral condition. Such a philosophy of life is present throughout the Seven Lamps of Architecture and Unto This Last.

Seven Lamps of Architecture

Seven Lamps of Architecture is a treatise of the architectural art. It is divided in seven chapters called lamps which bear a symbolism of light and a force of enlightening, of giving clarity and of providing vision and perception in darkness. Moreover, the seven lamps consist of

(17)

seven moral elements of architectural artwork and are presented as safeguards against any form of error. According to Ruskin, the lamps are sources of measure for success, and guides for attaining true accomplishments in this craft and in any other craft (Ruskin 1989, p. 4).

Consequently, the seven lamps: sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory, and obedience are moral principles for the art of architecture. His moral holism is expounded early on through the aphorism, “all practical laws are exponents of moral ones” (p. 4). In other words, all practical laws are advocates that approve moral laws, hence there is no practical law without a moral foundation. These lamps were meant to stand as practical laws of architecture in a time when Victorian society was experiencing significant technological advances that brought drastic changes to social and political life. Rising industrialism facilitated the establishment of the British bourgeoisie who marked by selfishness and greed, carelessly lavished all income into domestic life’s luxuries to the expense of national needs.

Ruskin addresses the problem by positioning national architecture into a theological context and asserting that “The question is not between God’s house and His poor: it is not between God’s house and His Gospel. It is between God’s house and ours” (p. 16). The modern attitude of careless living displeased him because of a lazy compliance with low national conditions. The modern worker, Ruskin asserts, stops short wherever and whenever he can, producing works that bears the look of money’s worth (p. 21). Hence, “the solution to this problem is not how much we do, but how we do it; it is not a question of doing more, but of doing better” (p. 21). He expresses his moral holism in addressing the modern attitude of industrialist who sought ways of working less and earning more. Consequently, his first lamp is the lamp of sacrifice and it is presented as the principle of hard and noble work. Hence, by working hard and employing the best affordable materials, one brings a sacrifice which leads to the building of noble architectural work.

Furthermore, Ruskin elaborates thus, “This principle is the opposite of prevalent feelings of modern times which desires to produce the largest results at the least cost” (p. 11). At first sight, this principle seems impractical and even illogical. But placed in its historical context, and alongside Ruskin’s moral holism, the lamp brings to light the moral tendency of Victorian workers who sought to achieve the highest possible profits for the lowest possible costs. Such a tendency was founded on financial greed which produced cheap, low quality, and short-lasting works of architecture. This brings us back to Ruskin’s holistic statement that all works of men

(18)

are reflections of their moral condition, and that man, being a moral creature, can only act morally or immorally. Consequently, every thought, word, and act in any human endeavor bears that mark of morality in a holistic connectivity.

Moral Holism in Victorian Reception of the Seven Lamps of Architecture

How was this philosophy of life perceived by Victorian critics? Its preeminence in all Ruskin’s writings is indisputable. Morality in a holistic perspective is clearly expounded in every area of thought which he endeavored to explore. Therefore, it occupies an important element in the contemporary reception, and it has a significant say to Ruskin’s reputation among the Victorian periodicals.

The reality of Ruskin’s moral holism is expressed in various ways through a variety of articles. The Examiner, a highbrow weekly periodical portrays Ruskin as a thinker that belongs to a rare class, and describe his attempt to provide a set of principles for architectural work thus:

"Possessed of a rich vein of imagination, and with a somewhat discursive turn of mind, he here pursues with eagerness all the analogies suggested by his favorite pursuit, and takes pleasure in pointing out how the maxims useful to the architect may be made available in every other department of human exertion. Combining with his other qualities, strong devotional tendencies, and that instinct of self-control which is the basis for a puritanical character, he has aimed at moralizing everything—at elevating the art of architectural construction into the discharge of a moral duty; and at making the works of architecture enduring moral lessons" (Examiner 1849, p.

373).

This short passage provides a wealth of ideas and descriptions that concern Ruskin’s moral holism. Driven by a fertile imagination and a meandering mind, Ruskin is described as a man who eagerly pursues every method of providing teachings to the benefit of his fellow men.

The maxims to which the Examiner refers are described as being, or rather intended to be “useful to the architect” and more specially how these also “may be made available in every other

department of human exertion” (p. 373). Although the architect is Ruskin’s main audience, his mind does not fail to think holistically. The maxims are the expressions of his thought and are described as useful for architecture and every other department of human exertion. The

specification ‘every other department of human exertion’ is all inclusive. Every work, product, and thing related to the human being is included in Ruskin’s maxims. In other words, the

(19)

Examiner points how Ruskin fails to limit himself simply to the field of architecture by, unintentionally including the entire existence of the human in his theories. This unintentional inclusion is caused by his mind and character, as the Examiner points out. Furthermore, Ruskin’s holistic view of the world is placed together with his character that possesses certain qualities and characteristics according to the Examiner: “Combining with his other qualities, strong devotional tendencies, and that instinct of self-control which is the basis for a puritanical character, he has aimed at moralizing everything” (p. 373). The other qualities can simply refer to his uprightness and honesty which would have facilitated his manner of thinking and the production of such writings. Moreover, the expression of holism is combined with strong devotional tendencies, an instinct of self-control and an aim to moralize everything.

There is a progression in this description. First, the devotional tendencies refer to religious practices of worship that are often habitual in manner. In other words, Ruskin’s

writings express tendencies to devotion, regardless of area of research. Moreover, the devotional tendencies are strong, not merely passing and superficial, but weighty and enduring. The

Examiner engages to develop the element of morality that is prevalent in Ruskin’s writing. This idea is further developed in his second progressive statement, that Ruskin possesses an “instinct of self-control which is the basis for a puritanical character” (p.373). The words employed are meaningful because instinct is the natural tendency that a person or animal must behave or react in a particular way. Self-control is part of the religious life and it constitutes an important element in achieving a moral life. It means denying the passions, desires and lust of the self that lead to impurity and immorality. This instinct is emphasized when connected to the puritanical character which refers to the puritans, English protestants from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who sought to conform their life to the word of God. Their aim was to bring every department of life with its endeavors, attitudes, and thoughts to conformity with the morality of the Bible. In other words, the puritanical character involves a pursuit after complete morality, that is holistic morality. This characteristic is attributed to Ruskin because of his writings that express the exact tendency of placing everything in the context of a Christian morality.

Consequently, the Examiner establishes the moral attribute and combines it with Ruskin’s holistic perspective which results in the philosophy of moral holism. This result is plainly stated at the close of the paragraph where Ruskin is accused of aiming: “at moralizing everything”

(Examiner, p. 373). The aim involves the already finished work. Hence, it is not a dream or a

(20)

hopeful ambition that the Examiner refers to. Rather, it is a materialized achievement. Finally, the reality of Ruskin’s moral holism is established by two words, ‘moralizing everything’. It is all inclusive and it is wholly moral. Nothing is excluded from the uncompromising morality expressed through this phrase. The reader must however keep in mind that Examiner is not referring to Ruskin’s writings on religious matter. His critique is directed to a theory of art.

Ruskin’s theory of monumental art is perceived as a philosophy of moral arts, as the latter part of the concluding sentence expresses this very idea, “he has aimed […] at elevating the art of architectural construction into the discharge of a moral duty; making the works of architecture enduring moral lessons” (p. 373).

Unto This Last

His moral holism, however, was not limited to art and architecture. Eleven years after the publication of Seven Lamps of Architecture, Ruskin produced four essays on political economy.

In our present day, society develops so called ethics of work in every department of life. These ethics stand as guidelines for a morality that can be achieved through the practical application of certain principles. Similarly, the Victorian’s sought to establish ethical guidelines for labor especially due to the transitional phase into the modern type of work, industrialism.

Nevertheless, these guidelines had very little influence over the conditions of Victorian labor partly due to the rapid growth of industrialism that came as an uncontrollable force of havoc.

Increased industrial work accelerated urbanization which led to insufficient provisions for law and order, sewage systems, and garbage disposal (Palmer 2014, p. 455). The new urban

agglomerations, blackened by soot, grew rapidly in numbers due to the establishment of various industries and their dependency on an ever-growing number of workers. Houses were hastily built and tightly packed to such extents that entire families lived in single rooms. Additionally, due to low wages and awful living conditions, many children were abandoned and grouped together with many others who only had first names. These filled whole blocks of tenements (p.

456). However, one of the worst consequences of the rise of industrial factories was the

increasing demand for unskilled labor that led to the degradation of skilled workers through the availability of cheaper workforce. The standard wages of unskilled workers were too low for a man to support his family (p. 456) and caused the inclusion of child labor. Workers in these

(21)

factories, whether men, women, or children, often worked so much as fourteen hours a day in terrifying, mechanical, and unhealthy conditions (Palmer, p. 457).

Ruskin became deeply concerned about society’s deplorable condition, and especially about the awful work-life of its people. It angered him that while these were suffering in poor conditions, the unrestrained capitalists were greedily drawing out as much profit as possible through exploitation. Therefore, he sought to influence and reform the social, political and economic system through the might of his pen which resulted in several works that dealt with social criticism among which Unto this Last is found.

One of the main themes with which he deals involves the relationship between master and servant. He denounces the established view of the economists as a delusion and dishonorable absurdity. The argument presents the main fault in the economists’ belief that humans have no need of affections in matters of work, and therefore every man can regard his servants simply as

“covetous machines” (Ruskin 1860, p. 13). This belief led to inequality, exploitation and lack of morality rooted in the masters who forced their servants to achieve as much work as possible while being poorly fed, and ill lodged to the exact extent that would not make them quit.

Consequently, according to economists, the greatest benefit for the master, the community, and by reversion, for the servants will be achieved (p. 17). However, Ruskin strongly disagreed with such views affirming that this particular type of relationship would indeed bring great benefit, and would be proper if it was established between a master and a servant who is merely an engine that runs on steam as his motive power (p. 17). According to Ruskin, when the servants are human, their motive power, which is the soul must be taken into consideration due to its nature and role as a “force of unknown quantity” (p. 18). This force, Ruskin asserts, enters the economist’s equations, and falsifies all his results, without him knowing. Ruskin concludes his exposition of this economical view by saying that the largest quantity of work will be achieved when the servants’ motive force is brought to its greatest strength through right affections; that is the proper fuel (p. 18).

Although all four essays are of great importance, the first one presents a proposition that particularly was a stumbling block for economists due to its accentuated moral character.

Therefore, the paper will briefly extract a principle to secure a higher degree of clarity in reception and argumentation. Following the exposition, Ruskin proceeds to describe three types of relationship between master and servant. The first master is a man of sense and intense energy

(22)

who enforces large quantities of material work through mechanical pressure and guides his servants with strong will and wise methods. The second master is indolent and weak, leaving his servants in negligence and contemptuous gratitude without guiding them. According to Ruskin, both types of relationships are wrong due to their neglect of the element of affections, which is an essential key to achieving the greatest material result entirely unattainable through antagonism between master and servants (p. 18). Hence, the right type of relationship consists of a master who, although he is a man of sense and energy, in trying to achieve the highest material results is seeking the benefit of his servants too. Such a relationship would allow the master to achieve his goals and develop his business, and it will encourage his servants to render good work and protection, with much watchfulness for his master’s interest and credit, as a result of right affections between them. An unselfish treatment will thus produce the most effective results (p.

19). Ruskin concludes this illustration by aiming his pen at the hearts of masters, admonishing them to seek such a relationship because only in this manner they will ultimately achieve the highest efficiency, that is, if the motive that supports it is right and just. Hence, if the master treats his servants kindly with the motive to make them show gratitude by providing more and better work, that master will receive little or no gratitude at all. However, if the master treats his servants kindly without any economic purpose, their servants will show much gratitude and provide everything needed for the accomplishment of all economic purposes (p. 19). In other words, Ruskin, in providing a principle of relationship between master and servant, establishes the second greatest commandment given to men and women, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’.

The second essay is entitled “The Veins of Wealth” and it deals with the definition of wealth and the concept of political economy. Reflecting on the economists’ statements, Ruskin presents political economy as a method of getting rich at the expense of others. The economist, he says, affirms that “Our science is simply the science of getting rich” (p. 34). Ruskin replies by saying that, “The art of making yourself rich, in the ordinary mercantile economist’s sense, is therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your neighbor poor” (p. 34). He proceeds with various illustrations that prove how the accumulation of riches by a small number of people always was to the detriment of the majority resulting in a decrease of real wealth in society.

The third essay expounds the concept of justice, particularly in the matter of economy.

Every economic transaction is either just or unjust. According to Ruskin (p. 60), “The universal

(23)

and constant action of justice in this matter is therefore to diminish the power of wealth, in the hands of one individual, over masses of men, and to distribute it through a chain of men.” Thus, similarly to the distribution of wealth, justice's implementation protects society from significant social and economic imbalances, whereas injustice creates a gap between the few in power and the many in helplessness. A just economic and political system is foundational for a healthy society and for a healthy political economy where men are paid and treated justly. The result is a move from the prevailing status quo where the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, to a condition where everyone has the possibility of growth, socially and economically. Lastly, “Ad Valorem” is an attempt to define wealth, value, price, and produce authentically and correctly.

By defining these terms in a way that is contradictory and unacceptable to his

contemporary economists, Ruskin brings much criticism upon himself. Whereas the economist would say that wealth, value, price, and produce are all revolving around money, Ruskin affirms that there is no wealth but life, no value but in life, no price but through life, and no produce except that which leads to, and supports life. Thus, his definitions of such terms revolve around the human being who must be the ultimate producer and beneficiary. Each chapter deals with moral attributes in this human endeavor. Love for one’s neighbor, equality, justice in all financial and social matters, and honesty are recurrent themes that permeate the text. Like Seven Lamps of Architecture, this book aims at bringing the theme it deals with under the authority of Ruskin’s moral holism. But his aim of ‘moralizing everything’ was even less accepted in the matters of political economy as we shall see in the following paragraphs.

Moral Holism in Victorian Reception of Unto This Last

After the publication of Unto This Last, Westminster Review responded with an article to what they called: “The attack made by Ruskin on the principles of political economy” (Westminster Review 1852, p. 530). Writing about the book and its author, Westminster Review states,

“Accustomed to contending only with popular notions, he thinks it sufficient if he attacks equally vulgar conclusions drawn from a misunderstood science. He is so far from having taken the trouble to understand the real doctrines of his adversaries and is so utterly ignorant of the scope and limitations of their science […]” (p. 531). The accusation of ignorance and superficiality are directed to Ruskin’s main argument that constitutes the foundation of his work. His attack is put forth in this manner: “The social affections, ‘says the economist’, are accidental and disturbing

(24)

elements in human nature; but avarice and the desire of progress are constant elements. Let us eliminate the inconstant, and, considering the human being merely as a covetous machine, examine by what laws of labour, purchase, and sale, the greatest accumulative result in wealth is obtainable” (Ruskin 1849, p. 13). The economist’s principles were founded on the idea that the human being can work as a machine without tending to the need of his soul. Social affections, which are elements of the inner life in the soul of man, were considered disturbing elements which caused fluctuations in the labor procured by servants. Consequently, such elements were eliminated to achieve constant work and production. Nevertheless, Ruskin endeavored to provide a right and just theory of political economy that included the most critical element, the human being. Herein his moral holism finds expression in that labor and political economy cannot be separated from it. Political economy is placed in a holistic perspective where man is not a factor in the equation but the creator and driving force behind everything. According to Ruskin, without a holistic approach to labor there is no possibility of achieving the aim of the economists.

Secondly, the morality of his philosophy intrudes upon political economy by exposing inequality, injustice, and a lack of moral perception. The inequality and the injustice are

presented by Ruskin through his exposition of the economists’ theory in which man is a machine that ought to be treated as such. The lack of moral perception comes forth through his

denunciation of the economists’ incapability of recognizing the necessity of a holistic approach that includes the entire human being in their equations. Finally, his moral holism brought a conviction that any political economy which neglects its crucial constituent—the moral and social aspect of labor—cannot be right and proper. Thus, for a political economy to bring prosperity and wealth to society, and to life—with all its facets—must be placed in the center of its endeavors; morality must be its guideline, and the totality of the human being must be both its means and its goal.

However, the Westminster Review criticizes Ruskin’s moral holism through various assertions. In trying to defend the beliefs of the economists, the Westminster Review states that:

“Economists have no direct concern with what ought to regulate either consumption or production. They are as well aware as Mr. Ruskin that the second great commandment is as little regarded by mankind as when it was first spoken; ethical enquiries form no part of their science, except in that important sense in which economists show the only ground on which ethical progress can be hoped for. It is quite useless and beside the mark to

(25)

indulge in rhetorical descriptions of the high majesty of man’s moral nature, or to expatiate on his lofty prerogatives and spiritual possibilities; these things are only attainable when lower requisitions have been complied with. Our animal wants must be supplied before our peculiarly human ones can make themselves regarded; the stomach will always take precedence of the head and heart; our material existence must be first secured before our spiritual needs can be felt, much less attended to” (p. 531).

Ruskin stated that “all practical laws are exponents of moral ones” (Ruskin 1989, p. 4).

Therefore, laws that regulate production apart from any moral consideration are not practical laws. Moreover, the economists, according to Westminster Review, have no direct concern with

“what ought to regulate either consumption or production” (p. 531), referring to Ruskin’s holistic idea of man. Furthermore, the second great commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself”

(NASB Zondervan 1999, p.965, Mark 12:31) which in its essence is the ultimate way of establishing a holistic morality, is discarded because “ethical enquiries form no part of”

(Westminster Review, p. 531) the economists’ science. Ruskin’s moral holism is described through these indirect statements which involve the economists’ science that discards any consideration of the ‘high majesty of man’s moral nature’ and separates the ‘lower requisitions’

of the stomach from lofty prerogatives and spiritual necessities of the soul (p. 531).

The science of political economy tried to separate the laws of labor from the nature of man by considering him a machine. Ruskin could not accept this incomplete view due to his perspective of life that weaved every department in which the human being was included, in a moral way. In this area of thought also, Ruskin is criticized and rejected by a great number of periodical journals as his father, John James Ruskin noted in a letter: “I see that you consider my son may now number his foes—Edinburgh, Quarterly, Blackwood, Athenaeum—with smaller fry, Art Journal and Illustrated News” (The Bookman, 1900, 169). It must be noted that his

‘enemies’ are those who consistently oppose him and his ideas, which does not include the occasional opposition that he received from several other journals such as Critic, Examiner, Fraser, English Review, Rambler, and Saturday Review. Although the criticism that fell on him was not entirely due to his philosophy of moral holism, it nevertheless played an important part in his separation from the common, mainstream mentality.

In November 1889, the Saturday Review published a review article of J. A. Hobson’s book “John Ruskin, Social Reformer” where they declare: “We are particularly glad Mr.

(26)

Hobson’s vindication of Ruskin as a stable thinker has not been accompanied by an attempt to endow him with a cheap hard-and-fast consistency which less acute critics take as an evidence of sincerity. […] His thought, in whatever department it worked, seems to have been dominated by a life-giving sense of the organic unity in things pertaining to humanity, by a conviction of the impossibility of separating the part from the whole to any useful end. Such an attitude, once his attention was turned to social matters and the authoritative statements of current “Political Economy”, would inevitably bring him into collision with the economists” (Saturday Review 1898, pp. 708,709). Note that there are three moments in this quotation which carry great importance to the argument of this paper. The first is the reviewer’s assertion about Ruskin’s thought that was “dominated by a life-giving sense of the organic unity in things pertaining to humanity” (p.708). The philosophy of holism is nowhere else more clearly defined as in this sentence. ‘In whatever department’ his thought worked, was “dominated by a sense of the organic unity” (p. 708). The phrase ‘whatever department’ is all-inclusive and expresses the influence of holism. Furthermore, ‘organic unity’ emphasizes the second aspect of holism which brings every department of life in a unbreakable connection to each other as it is expressed by the reviewer, “[…] a conviction of the impossibility of separating the part from the whole […]”

(p. 709). Secondly, he was brought into collision with the economists due to the contrast between his attitude and the authoritative statements of current ‘Political Economy’.

Ruskin’s moral holism is established before his readers and before his critics also in his writings on social matters. However, at no time of his life were any of his ideas or statements presented as ‘authoritative’, whereas the statements of the economists were both ‘authoritative’

and ‘current’. On the one hand, the political economy of Ruskin’s contemporaries had authority and influence. In other words, their theories and principles were representing the mainstream belief regarding this department of life. On the other hand, the statements of the economists were current, that is contemporary. Consequently, the economists against which Ruskin fought were the representatives of Victorian thought in social and economic matters. His theories were not accepted, and his ideas were discarded, which takes us to the third moment of the quotation. The Saturday Review was particularly glad that Mr. Hobson vindicated Ruskin as a stable thinker.

Many of his critics accused him of illogical thinking, unscientific reasoning, and vain

argumentation. To them, he was a mad critic and an unstable thinker who constantly produced peculiar writings. The fact that Ruskin was vindicated has no importance for the argument of this

(27)

paper. However, the fact that Ruskin had to be vindicated is relevant evidence that attest the contents of the presented periodical articles because the need of vindication proves that he was rejected and disapproved by his contemporaries. Moreover, the vindication is not general but specific in that he was vindicated as a ‘stable thinker’. This phrase bears a depth of meaning that includes his thought processes, ideas, works, principles, and values. What Ruskin thought was considered unstable and improper for the age he lived in. This sense of organic unity, the moral holism, was unusual and it contrasted the popular beliefs of Victorian time.

According to The Speaker (1900, p. 16), Ruskin developed and sought to enforce the morality of his art criticism which he afterwards extended to criticism of life. His philosophy of moral holism—the organic unity that held his world together—became the foundation on which every written work was placed. Its value is indisputable due to the position it occupied, and the role it played in Ruskin’s mind. This organic unity shaped every thought and idea that ever sprung out of his head. Yet, as it is presented above, Victorian periodicals did not accept the philosophy of moral holism. They disagreed with his thinking and criticized his strong

tendencies of connecting the multitude of departments pertaining to life in a moral way. Obvious evidence that his manner of thinking was not mainstream nor popular during the Victorian age is provided by the Examiner. In one article, Ruskin is attributed with the aim of “moralizing

everything—at elevating the art of architectural construction in the discharge of a moral duty;

and at making the works of architecture enduring moral lessons” (Examiner, p. 373). This utterance conveys that before Ruskin, there was no one who attempted to theorize monumental art in the context of moral holism. ‘He has aimed at moralizing everything’ is the expression of moral holism. Furthermore, “he has aimed […] at elevating the art of architectural construction in the discharge of moral duty; and at making the works of architecture enduring moral lessons”

(p. 373) is the expression of novelty in the monumental art. In other words, the art of

architecture, as it was taught and accepted in the Victorian age has not been engaged from a moral perspective by anyone except Ruskin. It was his aim to make architectural works enduring moral lessons because they were not. His manner of thinking monumental art was peculiar to his time. It was alien and novel in many ways due to his pervading philosophy of life which he wore as a set of permanent lenses that affected everything his eyes set on.

Due to this philosophy, his theories were considered vague and unrealistic by several periodicals. The Examiner describes Ruskin as a writer who possesses ‘a rich vein of

(28)

imagination, and […] a somewhat discursive turn of mind’ (p.373). He had a mind that was very

“constituted, and acting in obedience to such impulses that necessarily generates a peculiar character in the individual and in the results of his meditations. There is a dreaminess about his theories, the result of the freedom with which he habitually gives the reins to imagination; and there is a quaintness, the result of his disposition to moralize art and play with analogies. There is an occasional tendency to generalize precipitately; to allow imagination to usurp the throne of reason; and unduly to indulge individual sympathies and antipathies” (p. 373).

The result of his overly constituted mind that acted in obedience to the impulses of his moral holism is a peculiar character and meditations. His meditations constituted his writings which possess a dreaminess due to the habit of letting imagination run wild. Imagination is repeated in this short passage because of its importance regarding the acceptance of Ruskin’s theories. His theories are marked by a dreaminess that springs forth from his imagination, a power that usurps

‘the throne of reason’. Keeping in mind that this second quotation immediately follows the first, and that it is written as an exposition of the first, it is therefore clear that Ruskin’s writing is criticized due to his moral holism. His dreamy theories, reigning imagination and exaggerated sympathies and antipathies are caused by his overly constituted mind that acts in obedience to the impulses of moral holism. In other words, the Examiner criticizes Ruskin’s work because of its peculiar character. This character bears a ‘quaintness’, which is “the result of his disposition to moralise art” (p. 373). Its quaintness points back to the puritanical manner of thinking, which also is true of the mind of Ruskin. It also refers to the fact that Ruskin’s thinking was not contemporary, but rather old in some peculiar way due to his disposition to moralize art.

As a result, his writings were criticized and rejected because they confronted the morality of his contemporaries. The characteristics of his books were different from the established beliefs, often contrary to what composed the mainstream of Victorian frame of mind. His moral holism, therefore, made him less influential in these two areas, monumental art and political economy.

With this said, we shall now proceed to expound the second characteristic of his writings which proves that he was not a representative of Victorian mentality, nor even a major influence among his contemporaries.

(29)

Chapter II: Ruskin’s Prejudice

The second characteristic of Ruskin’s writings that makes him stand out from the authoritative opinions of his contemporaries, is his prejudice. His personal opinions often stood in opposition to the established principles of art, architecture, and society. Consequently, this element of distinction provides significant proof of the fact that Ruskin was not a great influence as it is commonly affirmed. The Victorian periodicals are nearly unanimous in their opinion that Ruskin was prejudiced. Whether it is the monumental art or political economy, the reviewers accuse him of “vehement denunciation” (Eclectic Review, p. 67) of established beliefs, and of arrogant proclamation of his personal theories. Unlike Ruskin’s moral holism, his prejudice in writing does not require a terminological explanation, but a semantic definition. According to Oxford English Dictionary, a prejudice is “a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience” (OED online). His prejudice finds several expressions in the periodical reviews among which unmingled admiration, wire-drawn affinities, and an undull indulgence in individual sympathies and antipathies are all attributed to him.

Throughout his career as a prolific writer, Ruskin was accused of an unbalanced thinking that harbors biases which were entirely unreasonable to the thinkers of his time. Being

independently minded, he produced his own likes and dislikes based on personal studies and meditations that were separated from the current stream of thought. The Athenaeum, also called London Literary and Critical Journal was a cultural weekly that found Ruskin’s laws of

monumental art lacking in many aspects. “Clever and brilliant the author of the Modern Painters must be:--but his “lamps” shine most brightly when they illuminate any other subject that

Architecture. On Nature and her laws—Man and his affections, his responsibilities and his shortcomings—Mr. Ruskin is uniformly luminous:--but on points of architecture his prejudices are so strong, his affinities so wire-drawn, his antipathies so unsupported by even common sense, that we have starred equally at the conclusions at which he has in many cases arrived and at the extraordinary mental processes by which he appears to have reached them” (Athenaeum 1849, p.

889).

In this short quotation, the Athenaeum emphasizes that although Ruskin proved himself brilliant in matters of pictorial art, he, however, fails to achieve similar accomplishments in the field of monumental art. “[…] his lamps”, said Athenaeum, “shine most brightly when they

(30)

illuminate any other subject than Architecture” (p. 889). His endeavors to provide beneficial principles for architects is described as a failure due to prejudice: “[…] but on points of

architecture his prejudices are so strong” (p. 889). In other words, his principles of architecture are based on unfavorable opinions that are grounded on inadequate facts. Moreover, his affinities are ‘wire-drawn’ and his antipathies unsupported even by common sense. This word, ‘wire- drawn’, is used as a characteristic of Ruskin’s ideas which are described as excessively refined to the point of becoming strained and dull. His affinities are, thus presented in a forced manner.

Lastly, his antipathies are ‘unsupported by even common sense’. This entire description of prejudice possesses a characteristic of progression that starts with the classification of his writings as prejudiced. Hereafter the prejudices are divided into two categories, affinities, and antipathies. Secondly, his affinities are wire-drawn, that is forcibly brought into existence with no regard to the established beliefs. Thirdly, his antipathies are criticized due to their detachment from common sense. The critic did not accuse Ruskin of having certain antipathies but judged him because his antipathies were not founded on common sense. The inclusion of common sense excludes Ruskin’s principles of architecture from the common beliefs due to the nature of the word ‘common’. The word implies that something belongs to everyone and that includes all fellow humans. Therefore, by pronouncing that his antipathies are unsupported by even common sense, the Athenaeum excludes part of Ruskin’s principles from the common beliefs of Victorian architecture.

But Athenaeum is not the only periodical that emphasizes these two facets of prejudice.

Fraser’s magazine for town and country writes in their review from February nineteen fifty that Ruskin’s “condemnation falls especially upon the ornaments used by English architects. Italian mode of ornamentation, on the other had find especial favor in his eyes, and sometimes his principles appear to be a little hard pressed in order that they may agree with this feeling”

(Fraser, p.154). Herein we find the best definition for wire-drawn affinities which is uttered thus: “his principles appear to be a little hard pressed in order that they may agree with this feeling” (p. 154). In comparison with the Athenaeum, Fraser employs a mild language to convey the exact same message. His hard-pressed affinities are bearing ‘especial favor’ for the Italian mode of ornamentation, while the condemnation against his antipathies falls upon English mode of ornamentation. The chapter on ornamentation, that is the ‘Lamp of Beauty’, has received criticism equal to its praise. Part of its criticism includes Athenaeum’s description of a portion of

(31)

the chapter that deals with color, as a “piece of dogmatic heterodoxy” (Athenaeum, p. 889).

Dogmatism was one of Ruskin’s tendencies. It was also one of the most criticized characteristics of his writings. His inclination of presenting principles as undeniably true was strongly criticized due to the nature of his dogmatism, namely heterodox. In other words, his dogmas where

different from established principles in an active, unconforming way. As Ruskin says in the introduction to his first chapter of Seven Lamps of Architecture¸ “know what you have to do, and do it” (Ruskin 1989, p. 1) is the great principle of success in every human endeavor. He

emphasizes that this literary work is molded according to the guideline of this principle.

Consequently, he proceeds to “extricate from the confused mass of partial traditions and dogmata with which it has become encumbered during imperfect or restricted practice, those large

principles of right which are applicable to every stage and style of it” (Ruskin 1989, p. 3). These large principles which he attempted to extricate are boldly presented as immutable, general, and indisputable laws based upon the nature of man, which in a sense is immutable, rather than on the foundation of ever-changing human knowledge (Ruskin 1989, p. 4). These bold assertions were perceived as the expressions of arrogant confidence, and their contents were soon deemed as prejudiced.

This fact is supported by Fraser in their article where it is stated that “Mr. Ruskin has taken a great number of his examples of architectural excellence of all kinds from Italian edifices, and evidently looks upon those works with a tone of unmingled admiration, in which we believe that he will not be quite at one with those among us whose architectural views have been systematically formed by a comprehensive study of English, French, and German medieval architecture. Such persons have always, on turning their attention to Italian buildings, found something incomplete (as to style), and inconsistent in their scheme” (Fraser 1850, p.155).

Again, his prejudiced sympathies are expressed in a new form as ‘unmingled admiration’ for the Italian architecture. Nevertheless, the most important message of the quotation is that Ruskin, who had a bias for Italian edifices, was ‘not quite at one with those among us’, referring to the authoritative architects of the society. These have developed their architectural views by

systematically studying English, French and German medieval architecture. This enumeration of architectural styles does not entirely exclude Ruskin from the sphere, nor does it set him as an opposer to the authoritative views of the British architects. But the final portion of the quotation causes a division nevertheless. ‘Such persons’, that is the architects, “have always […] found

(32)

something incomplete (as to style), and inconsistent” (p. 155) in the schemes of Italian buildings.

In other words, the style which Ruskin appreciates with ‘unmingled admiration’ is considered incomplete and inconsistent by his contemporaries. Consequently, his writings on architecture were considered incomplete and inconsistent due to his ‘strong prejudice’, ‘unmingled

admiration, wiredrawn affinities’ for his favorite architectural style, and the antipathies for the British architecture that were not supported even by common sense.

Finally, the Examiner has also referred to Ruskin’s tendency of being prejudiced. While describing some of his shortcomings, they assert that “there is an occasional tendency to […]

unduly indulge individual sympathies and antipathies” (Examiner 1849, p.373). The adverb describes the characteristic of excessiveness in the indulgence of individual likes and dislikes.

Furthermore, the word individual carries a nuance of separation from the common, that is a differentiation from the common sympathies and antipathies. Therefore, this description is provided as another way of pointing out that Ruskin wrote his prejudices in his literary works.

As expounded above, his thoughts were not conformed to the Victorian stream of ideas due to his peculiar philosophy of moral holism. However, Ruskin was not accepted by his

contemporaries on more than just the grounds of his quaint way of seeing the world. This ‘strong prejudice’ which he inserted in his writings differentiated him from his contemporaries and produced collisions with the established authorities. In conclusion, Ruskin was not in line with his contemporaries in the matters of monumental art and political economy. His writings were against the established statements of his fellow countrymen. Therefore, he was neither a major influence nor a representative among his contemporaries, but rather a contrarian who sought to change the established beliefs.

(33)

Chapter III: Ruskin’s unscientific and unsystematic reasoning

We have seen so far how certain aspects of Ruskin’s writings were reviewed in the periodical press which showed that his influence among his contemporaries does not correspond with modern opinions. The first chapter provided evidence regarding the reality of his moral holism among his contemporaries, and its separation from the Victorian stream of thought. The second chapter provided evidence of his rejection from his contemporaries due to prejudices in the various subjects. This was especially true in the matters of monumental art where Ruskin preferred Italian architecture, a style that was generally disapproved by the British architects of his time. Through this, I have showed how his theories were contrary to mainstream Victorian ideas. And thus, in attempting to show that Ruskin was not a representative nor a major influence among his fellowmen, I come now to the last chapter which deals with his unscientific manner of thinking and the vagueness of his expression.

His contemporaries have accused him of possessing many weaknesses of intellect which were expressed in his thought processes, his manner of argumentation, the knowledge on which his principles were founded, and his tendency of allowing his heart to take over the mind.

Various periodicals have denounced the author and his works due to his vagueness in expression and unsystematic emotional reasoning. If we take one more look at the first quotation in the first chapter, we will notice that the emphasis of the Examiner also falls on this characteristic of his writings. Referring to Ruskin’s mind the reviewer asserts: “Possessed of a rich vein of

imagination, and with a somewhat discursive turn of mind […] (Examiner, p. 373). That ‘rich vein of imagination’ is presented as the impetus of his thought processes. Imagination is also a constituent in the creating mechanism that produced maxims useful to the architect. Moreover, the ‘discursive mind’ refers to the characteristic of his thought processes. In other words, Ruskin’s mind is portrayed as containing meandering thoughts that produce works

unsystematically. Furthermore, his works contain theories that are marked by ‘a dreaminess’

directly caused by the selfsame imagination to which he ‘habitually gives the reins'. The employment of the word ‘dreaminess’ signifies that Ruskin’s theories are somewhat detached from reality, belonging to the world of fantasy.

Regarding his unscientific approach, the Examiner points out a tendency to allow imagination to be the foundation of his reasoning. Instead of factual knowledge, he introduces

(34)

peculiar meditations as authoritative in his writings. This is plainly asserted in the second paragraph where imagination is repeated twice in the same context. First, Ruskin habitually allows his imagination to reign, which produces a dreaminess in his theories. Secondly, he allows imagination to “usurp the throne of reason” (Examiner, p. 373). This second effect of imagination brings a significant degree of force to this argument because reason must precede emotions in any work that involves a science. Objective truth must be achieved, and that can only be achieved through systematic, scientific reasoning. However, the Examiner accuses Ruskin of faulty reasoning. His error lies at the very foundation where the throne is placed. The very core of his reasoning is denounced as unscientific because of a manner of thought founded on imagination

The Athenaeum is not of a different opinion. Expressing their experience of Ruskin’s work on monumental art, the Athenaeum asserts that they have “starred equally at the

conclusions at which he has in many cases arrived and at the extraordinary mental processes by which he appears to have reached them” (Athenaeum 1849, p. 889). Why are Ruskin’s mental processes extraordinary, and in what way are they extraordinary? By placing this quotation back into its context, we observe that the Athenaeum has been “starring” at Ruskin’s mental processes for an entirely other reason than admiration. The former part of the quotation criticizes Ruskin for being strongly prejudiced and for harboring unreasonable affinities and antipathies. This has led the Athenaeum into a state of amazement that was mingled with the feelings of confusion and disappointment expressed through the ‘starring’. However, the important portion of the quotation is the “extraordinary mental processes” (p. 889) which the reviewer elaborates thus: “Let it be premised that the course of Ruskin’s reasoning is by no means conducted on the ordinary principle of progression from the know to the unknown:--it may, on the contrary be said to start generally from the latter point, and its probable course may be calculated only by the more abstruse formula of the doctrine of chances” (Athenaeum, p. 890). The extraordinary mental processes are plainly labeled as unscientific and unsystematic. The reviewer emphasizes the ordinary course of research where information is systematically collected and thereafter just as systematically interpreted and evaluated. Moreover, the ordinary principle of progression can be explained in the form of deductive reasoning which implies a point of departure in factual data that leads to a point of arrival where new facts are produced. In other words, a progression from

‘the known to the unknown’. This is not, however, Ruskin’s approach according to the

(35)

Athenaeum. His mental processes are characterized by a progression that starts generally from the unknown and “its probable course may be calculated only by the more abstruse formula of the doctrine of chances” (p. 889). This accusation is twofold. First, that Ruskin’s reasoning is unscientific and unsystematic. Second, that his reasoning is grounded on ignorance and intuition.

The latter is in accord with the statement made by the Examiner that Ruskin’s imagination dethroned proper reasoning. Consequently, his imagination produced a dreaminess in his writings that is detached from the ordinary mental process of scientific progression.

According to the Athenaeum, this progression of thought led on a course that can only be calculated “by the more abstruse formula of the doctrine of chances” (p. 899). This formula of the doctrine of chances is abstruse, that is difficult to understand simply because the doctrine of chances has no rational progression. But the Athenaeum is not the only journal that points out his ignorance and its consequence. Rambler, A Weekly Magazine of Home and Foreign Literature, Politics, Science, and Art states in one of their publications that Ruskin possesses a limited range of studies. “He is a man”, they say, “who is ever busied in working out his own ideas by his own unaided powers, in the way of solitary reflection, rather than in contest with other minds of equal caliber with his own. He is not well read in philosophy, classical literature, history, or science. In theological matters his ignorance is literally astonishing; and, like all ignorant men, he writes with an assumption of infallibility which is simply absurd” (Rambler 1849, p. 193). Ignorance as presented in this quotation is linked to the accusation of unsystematic and unscientific reasoning.

Ruskin’s progression in mental processes is described as beginning with the unknown and arriving at some random unknown, and the Rambler points out that such a method is caused by limited range of studies. Therefore, ignorance produces that attitude of arrogance which carries the absurd assumption that everything said or written is infallible.

This same accusation is thrown at him several years later after the publication of Unto This Last. In their review written in October 1862, Westminster Review counteracts Ruskin’s criticism of political economy thus, “The attack made by Ruskin on the principles of political economy at once displays not only the weaknesses of his intellect and the utterly unscientific turn of his mind […] He is so far from having taken the trouble to understand the real doctrines of his adversaries, and is so utterly ignorant of the scope and limitations of their science […]”

(Westminster Revie p. 530,531). It must be noted that Westminster Review specifically criticizes Ruskin’s mental processes. He is accused of displaying weaknesses of intellect and an utterly

Who was Ruskin? Ruskin's Reception in the Victorian Periodical Press

Master ’s thesis

Who was Ruskin?

Ruskin's Reception in the Victorian Periodical Press

Who was Ruskin?

Ruskin's Reception in the Victorian Periodical Press

Who was Ruskin ?

Ruskin’s reception in the Victorian periodical press

Acknowledgements

Contents

Introduction

Chapter I: Moral Holism, a philosophy rejected by Victorians

Chapter II: Ruskin’s Prejudice

Chapter III: Ruskin’s unscientific and unsystematic reasoning