Year: 1876

Audacious or paradoxical as the assertion
may seem, it is at least doubtful whether In
strictness we can assigo to Mr.. Ruskin posi-
tion in the very highest rank of writer's II we
are to adopt style as criterion. The objection
to his manner of writing is an obvious one, and
one, which he might very likely take as a COM
pliment. 1t is TOO spontaneous in the first
place, and too entirely subordinate to the SUBJ
ject in the second. hope that 1t may be very
clearly understood that can see passages in
"Modern Painters and in "The Stones of
Venice" (for 1 must be permitted to neglect
the legiops of little books with parody-provok-
ing titles which have appeared In the last three
lustres) which, for splendor of imaginative eff.
feet, for appropriateness of diction, for novelty
and grandeur of conception, stand beyond all
chance of successful rivalry, almost beyond all
hope OF decent parallel among the writings of
ancient and modern masters. But in every
case this marvellous effect will, when carefully
examined, be found to depend on something
wholly or partially extrinsic to the style. Mr..
Ruskin writes beautifully, because he thinks
beautifully, because his thoughts spring, like
Pallas, ready armed, and the fashion Of the ar
NOR costs him nothing. Everybody has heard
of the unlucky critic whose comment on Scott's
fertility was that "the invention was not to be
counted. for that came to him Of its own ac-





ties of style come to him of their own accord"
and then he writes as the very gods might
dream of writing But in the moments when
he is off the tripod, or is upon some casual and
uE-Delphic tripod of his own construction or
selection, how is his style alteredl The strange
touches of unforeseen color become splashed
and gaudy, the sonorous roll of the prophetic
sentence-paragraphs drags and wriggles
like wounded snake, the cunning in
terweaving of scriptural or poetic phrase Is
patched and seamy. A Balaam on the Lords
side, he cannot curse or bless, but as it is re-
vealed to him, whereas the possessor OF q great
style can use 1t at will. He can shine on the
Just and on the unjust; eau clothe bis argu-
meut for tyranny or for liberty, for virtue CT
for vice, with the same splendor of diction and
the same unperturbed perfection of manner;
can convince us, carry us with him, or leave us
uuconvinced but admiring, with the same un.
questioned supremacy and the same unrufied
calm. Swift can write a jeM ReSpTit and a
libel on the human race, political pam phlet
and personal larnpoon with the same felicity
and the same yigor, Berkeley can present tar
water and the Trinity, the theory of vision aud
the fol!ies oil contemporary free thinking, with
the same perfect lucidity and the same color
less fairness. But with Mr.. Ruskin all de-
pends on the subject and the manner in which
the subject is to be treated He cannot even
blame as be can praise; and there must be
many VINO are ready to accept everything no
can say OF Tintoret or Tarner, and who feel no
call to object to any of his structures on Cana
letto or on Claude, who yet perceive painfully
the difference of style IN the panegyrist and
the detractor, and who would demand the
stricter If less obvious justice, and the more
artistic If apparently perverted sensitlvenees.
of the thorough master OF style.-Fortnightly
Revieas