The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-24
An Analysis of Ruskin.


fessor Salisbury, and "R. L. Stevenson,
by L. Cope Cornford. Others of the serie
deal with Tennyson, George Eliot. Brown
ing, Froude, Huxley, Thackeray. and Dick
ems and other volumes are to follow.
Mrs. Meynell is well known to the Eng
lish literary world as a keen and brillian
essayist, and ii is evident from the yer!
first pages Of this book that she has de
voted much time to the study of Ruskil
and is to a great extent in sympathy witt
him. After an Introduction. in which sh
sketches the life of the author and sum
up the influence of his work. she goes OF
to consider in detail all of his more i'm
portant works. devoting a chapter to each
Her analysis is clever. and shows thor
ough knowledge of the subject, and it vii
be helpful to literary clubs and other anna
teur students who wish to read Ruskir
inteliigently The discussion of Ruskin'!
influence to be found in the introdue-
ton. is one of the cleverest things in the
book:
Ruskin's enormous work has never had stead,
auditors spectators; ii may he likened 10
sideI1al sky heheld IRON an earth upon the wing
Many. imumUable. are the poiuts that seem 4
SHIFT and JOURNEY. TO the shifting eye. Partly II
was he himself who altered his readers; and part
~ they changed with the long change Of nation;
and partly they altered with successive and re-
current moods John Ruskin wrote first for his
contemporaries, young men: fifty years later he
wrote for TIC came readers fifty years older. as
well as for their sons. And hardly has mob
of Shakespeare 5 shown sudden, unanimous,
OF clamorous versions and revcTsions of opinion
than those that have acclaimed and rejected, de
rided and diviGod, his work, once to ban and
bless. and second time 20 bless and ban.
Political economy in 1S60 had but one, ortho-
doxy, which was that OF Manchester" scienti-
fcally. it held competition in production and in
distribution, with the removal las far as was
possible 10 coherent human society OF all inter
yention Of explicit social legislation 10 be favor
able 10 the wealth OF nations; and ethically il
held that if only the world would leave oppos-
ing esosnls absolutely free, aad would give self
interest the opportunity OF perfection, violent,
hostile, mechanical equity and justice would come
TO pass. Only let men resolve never to relax or
cede for the sake of forbearance compassion.
and the Manchester system would be found to
work for good. In 1s60 il much in favour OF
this doctrine that tself and all its workings were
alike unbeautiful to mind and eye. Men might
regret the vanishing beauty of the world, but
they were convinced that il was the ugly thing
that was useful and that, as it did not at
tract, it would not deceive Before the closing
OF the century ali men changed their mind. But
when Ruskin warned them that scientifically their
ORTHODOX economy mace for an into!erable
poverty. that ethically it aimed IT making men
less human, and that practically it could never,
while man was less than man, have the entire
and universal freedom of action upon which its
hope OF ultimate justice depended; when he re-
commended more organic and less mechanical
cquity-he WAS hooted to silence.
Mrs. Meynell is of the opinion. however
that the moving world has ''effectually re-
jected'' the teachings of Ruskin. In this
the cautious reader may disagree with her.
Perhaps it is too soon TO say whether tnis
has happened or not. 1t is hardly TO be
expected that a great world-intuence. a
current of thought, the beginning Of which
Ruskin saw and deplored, should be ar
rested in the comparatively short space of
fifty years. This would be as unlikely as
that the ideas of Thomas Paine would cease
to make his memory kissing and by
word at as early a date as 1850 When
the world is ripe for Emerson's TRANSFER
dentalism and Ruskin's political economy
perhaps we shall see what the influence
of both really was. Grapes cannot be
gathered OF thorns; the thorn bushes must
be uprocted and the ground prepared for
vineyard.
AS to the critics general view of Rus
kin, as expressed in her reviews of his
writings it may be said, paradoxically.
that it is little too just 10 be quite fair
Ruskin embodied in his books one of the
most peculiar and complex personalities
in the history of letters Few understood
him. and it is doubtful whether he ever
thoroughly understood himself. The off,
spring of Scotch Presbyterianism, his
whole idealistic, passionate nature revolt
ed against the narrow conceptions OF that
sect. while clinging with equal strength
TO the essential purity of some Of its ideas
and the grandeur OF some of its dogmas.
He mixed an almost sensuous love of
beauty with one of the most active and
exacting consciences that ever ruled a good
mans life: and the childlike directness ana
truth of his reasoning form most curious
contrast to his attempts to make it square
with the myriad systems Of logic which his
quick mind absorbed. The result is be-
wildering and fascinating labyrinth of con-
tradiction, assertion, argument, and poetry. |
which It is utterly impossible TO compre- |
bend except by iItuition-the intuition OF
one who is in sympathy with the tempera-
ment which created such paradoxes. This |
sympathy Mrs. Meynell does not quite pos
sess, and in her essays, consequently, We !
get a cool dissection of the books, rather
than q living presentation Of the man. The !
hold which Ruskin has over intellectual
readers is due to his personality, which
harmonized all his contradictions. Many
Of his statements viii not stand analysis;
but taken In the light Of their origin, they
are perfectly reasonable. Take, for ex-
ample Mrs Meynell's structures on GER
tain passage in Sesame and Lilies"
lie proposes examples Of heroic nature, AID the
entirely heroic nature 81 the woiaen Of Shakes
peare all worthy young readers viii grant 10
Rnskin's lovely exposition. But they viii as
stifedly boegle at like ascTir.i0n oi honour 10
the women Of Scott. These yoaag creatures Scott
made yirtuous because convention required
yirtuous maid f1r the hero 10 love. and male
faultloss at 4 blow. because he could not be 1t
the pains 10 work upon their Characters.
This is not exactly fair either to Scott
or to Ruskin In the first place. Scott
wrote Of an age in which women were
neither ainaZons nor students. but were
expected to be objects OF chiValrous /
care and the prize Of triumphant man
hoc1, rather than active participants IN !
stirring egents. Moreover, the ideal OF /
the time in which he wrote was that of /
the modest, virtuous maiden, rising to the I
occasion, but never seeking Il; pTeferring (
tranquility 10 action and love to ambl- I
tion. 1t is not at all necessary to assume |
that he made his women what they were |
because there was 4 commercial demand (,
for that kind of heroine. or that he took 4
no interest in their characters. His con- |
ception Of women vas an Cutcrowth OF the /
time in which he lived and the women
whom he knew; and as for the charge |
that his women lacked individuality. II |
seems TO an impartial observer that Amy I
Robsart. Jeanie Deans, Edith Plantagenet. /
and Rebecca Of York present four types !
of considerable variety. Moreover, there
are Meg Merrilios, Rowena, Queen Deren-
garia, the Bride of Lammermoor, besides I
numerous minor characters Of one type
or another, and none OF them is exactly |
lacking IN individuality. The best testi-
mony TO the fact that Scott did take an
interest In drawing his heroine Is the fact
that the character Of Rebecca so capt.
vated him that she has become the heroine
Of "Iyanhce," instead Of the unexception-
able Rowena. the conventional maiden Of
romance. OF course. Scott is not Shakes