Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T22:26:43.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ruskin and His Father

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

John Tyree Fain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Students of Ruskin have often wondered why Ruskin waited until mid-life before developing his political economy, the subject which engrossed his later life. Saintsbury will have it that the idea merely occurred to Ruskin, and he started writing books, thus exemplifying his “knack of succumbing to any tempting current theory.“ Hobson attributes Ruskin's tardy development to the fact that his early interests excluded definite contact with the inquiry which later became his chief concern. Many commentators have emphasized the influence of Carlyle in causing Ruskin's change of interest from art to social problems, since that change occurred during a period of close association with Carlyle.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 1944 , pp. 236 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Note 1 in page 236 George Saintsbury, Corrected Impressions (London: William Heineman, 1895), p. 205.

Note 2 in page 236 John A. Hobson, John Ruskin, Social Reformer (Boston: Dana Estes, 1898), pp. 32–33.

Note 3 in page 236 The Works of John Ruskin (London: George Allen, 1903–12), xn, pp. lxxx–lxxxv; xvii, pp. xxvi, lxix, lxxiii; xxxvi, pp. xvii–xix.

Note 4 in page 236 Works, xxxv, 429.

Note 5 in page 236 The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Works, viii, 218.

Note 6 in page 237 Ibid., pp. 264–265.

Note 7 in page 237 I use here Ruskin's own name for his kind of inquiry. It is instructive to recall his rage at the orthodox political economists for attempting a more abstract and less normative terminology.

Note 8 in page 237 The Stones of Venice, Works, x, p. 196. Cf. Frank Daniel Curtin, “Aesthetics in English Social Reform,” Nineteenth-Century Studies, eds. Davis, Bald, and DeVane (Ithaca, 1940).

Note 9 in page 237 Works, xi, 258–263; xii, 593–603.

Note 10 in page 238 Works, xi, 258, note 1.

Note 11 in page 238 Ibid., p. 263.

Note 12 in page 238 Works, xxxvi, xviii.

Note 13 in page 239 Works, xii, Ixxx–lxxxi.

Note 14 in page 239 Ibid., p. Ixxxi.

Note 15 in page 239 Ibid., p. lxxxii.

Note 16 in page 240 Idem.

Note 17 in page 240 Ibid., p. lxxxiii.

Note 18 in page 240 Ibid., p. lxxxiv.

Note 19 in page 240 Works, xvi, 12.

Note 20 in page 240 Works, xvii, xxvii.

Note 21 in page 240 Ibid., p. xxvi.

Note 22 in page 241 Ibid., p. xxvii.

Note 23 in page 241 Works, xxxvi, 345.

Note 24 in page 241 Chapter two of the Essays on Political Economy for Fraser's Magazine, later collected as Munera Pulveris.

Note 25 in page 241 Works, xxxvi, 415.

Note 26 in page 241 Ibid., p. 414.

Note 27 in page 241 Ibid., p. 458.

Note 28 in page 241 Works, xvii, lxix.

Note 29 in page 241 The reply was first published from manuscript in Works, xvii, 491–497.

Note 30 in page 241 Works, xviii, xxvii.

Note 31 in page 242 Works, xxxvi, 471.

Note 32 in page 242 Ibid., p. 555.