Table Of Content'
JOHN RUSKIN S LABOUR
JOHN RUSKIN'S
LABOUR
study of Ruskin's social theory
A
P. D. ANTHONY
University College, Cardiff
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge
London New York New Rochelle
Melbourne Sydney
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521252331
© Cambridge University Press 1983
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1983
This digitally printed version 2008
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 83-8803
ISBN 978-0-521-25233-1 hardback
ISBN 978-0-521-08926-5 paperback
FOR DANIEL
Contents
Acknowledgements
Vlll
Note on references
Vlll
Introduction
The laws of right 9
2 Justice and authority 29
3 The nature of gothic 45
4 Economics, 'the damned lie' 72
5 The division of society 96
6 Education 125
7 Work 148
8 Revolution 173
9 The legacy 189
Bibliography 212
Index 216
Vll
Acknowledgements
I must thank my colleagues who have, wittingly or otherwise, helped
to develop the ideas I have expressed. Foremost among them are
George Thomason, Tom Keenoy, David Simpson, Mike Reed, john
Whitehouse and Haroon Saad. Others, whom I have not named, will
detect their own influence and deserve my gratitude. Anton
Zijderveld made helpful and stimulating suggestions about the
importance of the comic and the grotesque. I owe a particular debt to
Richard Read who, under no particular obligation as friend or
colleague, read a draft of this work and sent me a detailed and
informed commentary which repaired many errors, omissions and
misunderstandings. Those that remain are the result of my own
incapacity and my gratitude to him and to the others implies no
shared responsibility on their part. Finally, I must thank Mrs Mair
Price who patiently typed several versions of what follows.
REFERENCES
All the references to Ruskin's work are to the Library Edition: E. T.
Cook and A. Wedderburn (eds.), The works of John Ruskin (39 vols.,
London, George Allen, 1903-12 ). Specific references are given to the
name of the work followed by the volume number and page number,
thus: Ruskin, Sesame and Lilies, 18, p. 146.
Vlll
Introduction
Ruskin has suffered lately from a superfluity of writers and a
deficiency of readers so that, although Ruskin needs no apology,
another book about him requires at least an explanation. The
popular desertion of a good writer always produces a measure of
attention from acolytes who would win back the lost flock. Although
interest in Ruskin is not quite as low as it was when Sir Kenneth Clark
wrote of booksellers who told him that, when they bought job lots,
Ruskin was thrown out like dog-fish from the catch, he is still not
widely read. One of the reasons often given for their foolhardiness by
writers upon him is a worthy desire to restore him to wider public
knowledge and attention. The same ambition explains a well-known
tendency among them (which I share) to quote from him too
extensively. It stems from a wish to show off his astonishing style and
is, at the same time, an acknowledgement by the writer of his
inescapable addiction to it.
Like the readership, the number of writers upon Ruskin has
considerably diminished. There were once shoals of them, following
the current of his vast and popular reputation and paying their own
earnest homage to 'the master'. There may be more interest now in
the United States, in France (possibly the legacy of Proust) and in
Japan, than there is in England. The nature of the interest has
changed from time to time as different aspects of Ruskin have
attracted attention. His work has always appeared to present two
sides and the interest shown in each has alternated with the other. His
contemporary Victorian reputation lay largely in his art criticism, in
the author of Modern Painters, The Stones of Venice, and The Seven Lamps
ofA rchitecture. This was also the Ruskin whose prose style was so loved,
the prose poet and master of the English language. The work of social
criticism to which he turned as he escaped from his parents' influence
was an embarrassment to much of this audience. As the fortunes of
Victorian aesthetics declined and as Victorian taste came to be
2 INTRODUCTION
derided Ruskin's art work diminished in standing, quite unfairly
because he was the severest critic of contemporary artistic judgment.
After 1918, when social reform, radicalism, socialism, communism all
became respectable and fashionable, Ruskin's social criticism began
to be taken seriously while his other work was consigned to the musty
vaults of the Victorian heritage. By now both Ruskin and Victorian
art are restored to favour, the contemporary interest in him is largely
in his aesthetics. Socialism and communism are now, if not discre
dited, intellectually unfashionable, and Ruskin's social work is not
much read. This also is an unfair association because he was one of the
severest critics of socialism. Those who now comment on his social
criticism often have to apologise for it, acknowledging that some of it
is quite unsuitable for a modern audience.
So, when one Ruskin is in the other seems to be out. One particular
reason for the current decline in the fortunes of the social Ruskin is
that, paradoxically, while communism is no longer fashionable,
Marxism has come to be almost synonymous with a radical criticism
of capitalism; it has come to be believed that any consistent attack
upon it must be launched from a Marxist base. One illustration of this
view is the strange tale (which we must postpone) of the rehabilitation
of William Morris. Not so long ago, Morris was often regarded as a
good designer whose political theory was, to put it at its kindest,
unsound. Now Morris is regarded as unique among British critics of
capitalism. His canonisation coincides with the argument that he is a
Marxist, the claim is made that 'with Morris the final step was
taken . . . The final step involved the discovery and absorption of
Marx, and the realisation of the proletariat as the sole revolutionary
force capable of breaking through all the existing contradictions. '1
Until Morris could be claimed for Marxism he could not be treated
seriously or saved from political oblivion. Once the claim has been
made, Morris is admitted to the pantheon of serious social critics.
But no one could make this claim for Ruskin. Ruskin was not a
socialist, not a Marxist, not even a democrat. So, Ruskin's social
theory remains a subject for apology, not to be taken very seriously, or
the subject of considerable condescension, since seriousness and
significance have come to be equated with Marxism.
One reason for returniQ.g to Ruskin's views about society and work
entails a criticism of this assumption and a challenge tow hat might be
described as Marxist intellectual imperialism. Another reason for
1 Jack Lindsay, William Morris, his life and work (London, Constable, 1975), p. 381
