painting," being the first of a series on Decorative Color delivered
at the Architectural Museum, Cannon Street, Westminster, Mr. Ruskin is
reported (_Builder_, Nov. 25, 1854) to have said, "The line which is
given by Cary, 'which they of Paris call the limner's skill,' is not
properly translated. The word, which in the original is _'alluminare_,'
does not mean the limner's art, but the art of the illuminator--the
writer and illuminator of books." In criticism of this remark, "M. A.,"
writing to the _Builder_ from Cambridge, defended Cary's translation by
referring to Johnson's dictionary to show that "limner" was after all
corrupted from "enlumineur," _i.e._, "a decorator of books with initial
pictures." His letter concluded by remarking upon another of Mr.
Ruskin's statements in the same lecture, namely, that "Black letter is
not really illegible, it is only that we are not accustomed to it....
The fact is, _no_ kind of character is really illegible. If you wish to
see real illegibility, go to the Houses of Parliament and look at the
inscriptions there!"
The present letter was written in reply to "M. A.," from whom the
latter portion of it elicited a further letter, together with one from
"Vindex," in defence of Sir Charles Barry and the Houses of Parliament
(see the _Builder_, Dec. 16, 1854).
[160] "It is generally better to read ten lines of any poet in the
original language, however painfully, than ten cantos of a translation.
But an exception may be made in favor of Cary's 'Dante.' If no poet
ever was liable to lose more in translation, none was ever so carefully
translated; and I hardly know whether most to admire the rigid
fidelity, or the sweet and solemn harmony, of Cary's verse," etc. See
the note to the "Stones of Venice," at the above-named page.
[From the "Transactions of the New Shakspere Society" for 1878-9, pp.
409-12.]
_NOTES ON A WORD IN SHAKESPEARE._[161]
"And yon gray lines
That _fret_ the clouds are messengers of day."
JULIUS CÆSAR, II. i. 103-4.
I.
BRANTWOOD, CONISTON, LANCASHIRE.
MY DEAR FURNIVALL: Of course, in any great writer's word, the question
is far less what the word came from, than where it has come to. _Fret_
means all manner of things in that place; primarily, the rippling
of clouds--as sea by wind; secondarily, the breaking it asunder for
light to come through. It implies a certain degree of vexation--some
dissolution--much _order_, and extreme beauty. I have myself used this
word substantively, to express the rippled edge of a wing-feather. In
architecture and jewellery it means simply roughening in a decorative
manner.[162]
Ever affectionately yours,
J. RUSKIN.
FOOTNOTES:
[161] This and the next letter were written in answer to Mr. Furnivall,
who, upon being questioned what appearance in the clouds was intended
by the word "fret" in the above passage, referred the point to Mr.
Ruskin, whose answers were subsequently read at the forty-fifth meeting
of the Society, Oct. 11, 1878.
[162] In modern English "chasing" has got confused with it, but it
should be separated again.
_NOTES ON A WORD IN SHAKESPEARE._
II.
EDINBURGH, _29th Sept._, 1878.
DEAR FURNIVALL: Your kind letter comes to me here, and I must answer on
this paper, for, if that bit of note is really of any use to you, you
must please add this word or two more in printing, as it wouldn't do
to let it be such a mere fret on the vault of its subject. You say not
one man in 150 knows what the line means: my dear Furnivall, not one
man in 15,000, in the 19th century, knows, or ever can know, what _any_
line--or any _word_ means, used by a great writer. For most words stand
for things that are seen, or things that are thought of; and in the
19th century there is certainly not one man in 15,000 who ever looks
at anything, and not one in 15,000,000 capable of a thought. Take the
intelligence of this word in this line for example--the root of the
whole matter is, first, that the reader should have seen what he has
often heard of, but probably not seen twice in his life--"Daybreak."
Next, it is needful he should think what "break" means in that
word--what is broken, namely, and by what. That is to say, the cloud of
night is Broken up, as a city is broken up (Jerusalem, when Zedekiah
fled), as a school breaks up, as a constitution, or a ship, is broken
up; in every case with a not inconsiderable change of idea and addition
to the central word. This breaking up is done by the Day, which
breaks--_out_, as a man breaks, or bursts _out_, from his restraint in
a passion; breaks _down_ in tears; or breaks _in_, as from heaven to
earth--with a breach in the cloud-wall of it; or breaks _out_, with a
sense of _outward_--as the sun--out and out, farther and farther, after
rain. Well; next, the thing that the day breaks up is partly a garment,
_rent_, more than broken; a _mantle_, the day itself "in russet mantle
clad"--the blanket of the dark, _torn_ to be peeped through--whereon
instantly you get into a whole host of new ideas; _fretting_ as a moth
_frets_ a garment; unravelling at the edge, afterwards;--thence you
get into _fringe_, which is an entirely double word, meaning partly a
thing that guards, and partly a thing that is worn away on the ground;
the French _Frange_ has, I believe, a reminiscence of φρασσω in it--our
"fringe" runs partly toward _frico_ and friction--both are essentially
connected with _frango_, and the fringe of "breakers" at the shores of
all seas, and the breaking of the ripples and foam all over them--but
this is wholly different in a northern mind, which has only seen the sea
Break, break, break, on its _cold_ gray stones,--
and a southern, which has seen a hot sea on hot sand break
into lightning of phosphor flame--half a mile of fire in an
instant--following in time, like the flash of minute-guns. Then come
the great new ideas of order and time, and
I did but tell her she mistook her _frets_,
And bowed her hand, etc.,
and so the timely succession of either ball, flower, or dentil, in
architecture: but this, again, going off to a totally different and
still lovely idea, the main one in the word _aurifrigium_--which rooted
once in _aurifex_, went on in Etruscan work, followed in Florence into
a much closer connection with _frigidus_--their style being always in
_frosted_ gold (see the dew on a cabbage-leaf or, better, on a gray
lichen, in early sunshine)--going back, nobody knows how far, but to
the Temple of the Dew of Athens, and gold of Mycenæ, anyhow; and in
Etruria to the Deluge, I suppose. Well, then, the notion of the music
of morning comes in--with strings of lyre (or _frets_ of Katharine's
instrument, whatever it was) and stops of various _quills_; which gets
us into another group beginning with _plectrum_, going aside again into
_plico_ and _plight_, and Milton's
"Play in the plighted clouds"
(the quills on the fretful porcupine are all thought of, first, in
their piped complexity like rushes, _before_ the standing up in
ill-temper), and so on into the _plight_ of folded drapery, and round
again to our blanket. I think that's enough to sketch out the compass
of the word. Of course the real power of it in any place depends on the
writer's grasp of it, and use of the facet he wants to cut with.
[From "The Theatre," March, 1880, p. 169.]
"_THE MERCHANT OF VENICE._"[163]
_6th Feb._, 1880.
I have no doubt that whatever Mr. Irving has stated that I said,
I _did_ say. But in personal address to an artist, to whom one is
introduced for the first time, one does not usually say _all_ that
may be in one's mind. And if expressions, limited, if not even
somewhat exaggerated, by courtesy, be afterwards quoted as a total
and carefully-expressed criticism, the general reader will be--or may
be easily--much misled. I did and _do_ much admire Mr. Irving's own
acting of Shylock. But I entirely dissent (and indignantly as well as
entirely) from his general reading and treatment of the play. And I
think that a modern audience will _invariably_ be not only wrong, but
diametrically and with polar accuracy opposite to the real view of any
great author in the moulding of his work. So far as I could in kindness
venture, I expressed my feelings to that effect, in a letter which I
wrote to Mr. Irving on the day after I saw the play; and I should be
sincerely obliged to him, under the existing circumstances, if he would
publish THE WHOLE of that letter.
FOOTNOTES:
[163] The circumstances connected with the present letter, or rather
extract from one, are as follows: After witnessing the performance
of "The Merchant of Venice" at the Lyceum Theatre, Mr. Ruskin had
some conversation with Mr. Irving on the subject. In the _Theatre_ of
January 1880--p. 63--appeared a paragraph which stated that at the
interview named Mr. Ruskin had declared Mr. Irving's "Shylock" to be
"noble, tender, and true," and it is to that statement that the present
letter, which appeared in the March number of the _Theatre_, relates.
With reference to the letter privately addressed to Mr. Irving, the
_Theatre_ of April (p. 249) had a note to the effect that Mr. Irving
had, for excellent and commendable reasons, preferred it not being made
public. For a full statement of Mr. Ruskin's views of "The Merchant of
Venice," see "Munera Pulveris," p. 102.
_RECITATIONS._
SHEFFIELD, _16th February_, 1880.
MY DEAR SIR:[164] I am most happy to assure you, in reply to your
interesting letter of the 12th, that I heard your daughters'
recitations in London last autumn, with quite unmixed pleasure and
the sincerest admiration--nor merely that, but with grave change in
my opinions of the general value of recitations as a means of popular
instruction. Usually, I like better to hear beautiful poetry read
quietly than recited with action. But I felt, in hearing Shelley's
"Cloud" recited (I think it was by Miss Josephine) that I also was
"one of the people," and understood the poem better than ever before,
though I am by way of knowing something about clouds, too. I also know
the "Jackdaw of Rheims" pretty nearly by heart; but I would gladly come
to London straightway, had I the time, to hear Miss Peggy speak it
again. And--in fine--I have not seen any public entertainment--for many
a long year--at once so sweet, so innocent, and so helpful, as that
which your children can give to all the gentle and simple in mind and
heart.--Believe me, my dear Sir, faithfully, and with all felicitation,
yours,
J. RUSKIN.
FOOTNOTES:
[164] This letter was addressed to Mr. R. T. Webling, by whom it was
afterwards printed as a testimonial of the interest and success of his
daughters' recitations. It was reprinted in the _Daily News_ (Feb. 18,
1880).
APPENDIX.
LETTER TO W. C. BENNETT, LL.D. 1852.
LETTER TO THOMAS GUTHRIE, D.D. 1853.
MR. WINDUS' SALE OF PICTURES. 1859.
AT THE PLAY. 1867.
AN OBJECT OF CHARITY. 1868.
EXCUSES FROM CORRESPONDENCE. 1868.
LETTER TO THE AUTHOR OF A REVIEW. 1872.
AN OXFORD PROTEST. 1875.
MR. RUSKIN AND MR. LOWE. 1877.
THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RUSKIN. 1878.
(Two Letters: September 30, and October 23.)
THE SOCIETY OF THE ROSE. 1879.
APPENDIX.
[From the "Testimonials" of W. C. Bennett, LL.D. 1871; p. 22.]
_LETTER TO W. C. BENNETT, LL.D._[165]
HERNE HILL, DULWICH, _December 28th_, 1852.
DEAR MR. BENNETT: I hope this line will arrive in time to wish you
and yours a happy New Year, and to assure you of the great pleasure I
had in receiving your poems from you, and of the continual pleasure
I shall have in possessing them. I deferred writing to you in order
that I might tell you how I liked those which were new to me, but
Christmas, and certain little "pattering pairs of restless shoes"
which have somehow or another got into the house in his train, have
hitherto prevented me from settling myself for a quiet read. In fact,
I am terribly afraid of being quite turned upside down when I do,
so as to lose my own identity, for you have already _nearly_ made
me like babies, and I see an ode further on to another antipathy of
mine--the only one I have in the kingdom of flowers--the chrysanthemum.
However, I am sure you will be well pleased if you can cure me of all
_dislikes_. I should write to you now more cheerfully, but that I am
anxious for the person who, of all I know, has fewest dislikes and
warmest likings--for Miss Mitford.
I trust she is better, and that she may be spared for many years to
come. I don't know if England has such another warm heart.
I hope I may have the pleasure of seeing you here in case your
occasions should at any time bring you to London, and
I remain, with much respect, most truly yours,
J. RUSKIN.
FOOTNOTES:
[165] The present letter is from the "Testimonials of W. C. Bennett,
LL D., Candidate for the Clerkship of the London School Board." The
pamphlet consists of "letters from distinguished men of the time," and
includes some from Mr. Carlyle, Mr. Tennyson, Mr. Browning, Charles
Dickens, and others. Mr. Ruskin's letter was originally addressed to
Mr. Bennett in thanks for a copy of his "Poems" (Chapman and Hall.
1850). The poems specially alluded to are "Toddling May" (from which
Mr. Ruskin quotes), "Baby May," and another, "To the Chrysanthemum."
The book is dedicated to Miss Mitford.
[From the "Memoir of Thomas Guthrie, D.D." Vol. ii. pp. 321-2 (1875).]
_LETTER TO DR. GUTHRIE._[166]
_Saturday_, _26th_, 1853.
I found a little difficulty in writing the words on the first page,
wondering whether you would think the "affectionate" misused or
insincere. But I made up my mind at last to write what I felt;
believing that you must be accustomed to people's getting very
seriously and truly attached to you, almost at first sight, and
therefore would believe me.
You asked me, the other evening, some kind questions about my father.
He was an Edinburgh boy, and in answer to some account by me of the
pleasure I had had in hearing you, and the privilege of knowing you,
as also of your exertions in the cause of the Edinburgh poor, he
desires to send you the enclosed, to be applied by you in such manner
as you may think fittest for the good of his native city. I have
added slightly to my father's trust. I wish I could have done so more
largely, but my profession of fault-finding with the world in general
is not a lucrative one.
Always respectfully and affectionately yours,
J. RUSKIN.
FOOTNOTES:
[166] This letter accompanied the gift of a copy of "The Stones of
Venice," sent to Dr. Guthrie by Mr. Ruskin, who, while residing in
Edinburgh during the winter of 1853, "was to be found each Sunday
afternoon in St. John's Free Church."
[From "The Times," March 29, 1859.]
_THE SALE OF MR. WINDUS' PICTURES._
_To the Editor of "The Times."_
SIR: Will you oblige me by correcting an error in your account given
this morning of the sale of Mr. Windus' pictures on Saturday,[167] in
which the purchase of Mr. Millais's picture "Pot Pourri" is attributed
to me? I neither purchased Mr. Millais's picture, nor any other picture
at that sale.
I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. RUSKIN.
DENMARK HILL, _March_ 28.
FOOTNOTES:
[167] The collection of pictures belonging to Mr. B. G. Windus was sold
by Messrs. Christie and Manson on March 26, 1859.
[From "The Pall Mall Gazette," March 1, 1867.]
_AT THE PLAY._
_To the Editor of "The Pall Mall Gazette."_
SIR: I am writing a series of private letters on matters of political
economy to a working man in Newcastle, without objecting to his
printing them, but writing just as I should if they were for his eye
only. I necessarily take copies of them for reference, and the one I
sent him last Monday seems to me not unlikely to interest some of your
readers who care about modern drama. So I send you the copy of it to
use if you like.[168]
Truly yours,
J. RUSKIN.
DENMARK HILL, _Feb._ 28, 1867.
FOOTNOTES:
[168] The enclosed letter is "Letter V." of "Time and Tide."
[From "The Daily Telegraph," January 22, 1868.]
_AN OBJECT OF CHARITY._[169]
_To the Editor of "The Daily Telegraph."_
SIR: Except in "Gil Blas," I never read of anything Astræan on the
earth so perfect as the story in your fourth article to-day.
I send you a check for the Chancellor. If 40, in legal terms, means
400, you must explain the further requirements to your impulsive public.
I am, Sir, your faithful servant,
J. RUSKIN.
DENMARK HILL, S., _Jan._ 21, 1868.
FOOTNOTES:
[169] The _Daily Telegraph_ of January 21, 1868, contained a leading
article upon the following facts. It appeared that a girl, named
Matilda Griggs, had been nearly murdered by her seducer, who, after
stabbing her in no less than thirteen different places, had then left
her for dead. She had, however, still strength enough to crawl into a
field close by, and there swooned. The assistance that she met with
in this plight was of a rare kind. Two calves came up to her, and
disposing themselves on either side of her bleeding body, thus kept her
warm and partly sheltered from cold and rain Temporarily preserved,
the girl eventually recovered, and entered into recognizances, under a
sum of forty pounds, to prosecute her murderous lover. But "she loved
much," and, failing to prosecute, forfeited her recognizances, and was
imprisoned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for her debt. "Pity this
poor debtor," wrote the _Daily Telegraph_, and in the next day's issue
appeared the above letter, probably not intended for the publication
accorded to it.
_EXCUSES FROM CORRESPONDENCE._
DENMARK HILL, S.,
_2d February_, 1868.
I am about to enter on some work which cannot be well done or even
approximately well, unless without interruption, and it would be
desirable for me, were it in my power, to leave home for some time,
and carry out my undertaking in seclusion. But as my materials are
partly in London, I cannot do this; so that my only alternative is to
ask you to think of me as if actually absent from England, and not to
be displeased though I must decline all correspondence. And I pray you
to trust my assurance that, whatever reasons I may have for so uncouth
behavior, none of them are inconsistent with the respect and regard in
which I remain,
Faithfully yours,[170]
FOOTNOTES:
[170] The above letter, printed as a circular, was at one time used
by Mr. Ruskin in reply to part of his large correspondence. Some few
copies had the date printed on them as above. The following is a
similar but more recent excuse, printed at the end of the last "list of
works" issued (March, 1880) by Mr. Ruskin's publisher:
Mr. Ruskin has always hitherto found his correspondents under the
impression that, when he is able for average literary work, he can also
answer any quantity of letters. He most respectfully and sorrowfully
must pray them to observe, that it is precisely when he is in most
active general occupation that he can answer fewest private letters;
and this year he proposes to answer--none, except those on St. George's
business. There will be enough news of him, for any who care to get
them, in the occasional numbers of "Fors."
[From "The Liverpool Weekly Albion," November 9, 1872.]
_LETTER TO THE AUTHOR OF A REVIEW._[171]
CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD,
_Wednesday_, _30th Oct._
[MY DEAR] SIR: I was on the point of writing to the Editor of _The
Albion_ to ask the name of the author of that article. Of course,
one likes praise [and I'm so glad of it that I can take a great many
kinds], but I never got any [that] I liked so much before, because, as
far as I [can] remember nobody ever noticed or allowed for the _range_
of work I've had to do, and which really has been dreadfully costly and
painful to me, compelling me to leave things just at the point when
one's work on them has become secure and delightsome, to attack them on
another rough side. It is a most painful manner of life, and I never
got any credit for it before. But the more I see, the more I feel the
necessity of seeing all round, however hastily.
I am entirely grateful for the review and the understanding of me; and
I needed some help just now--for I'm at once single-handed and dead--or
worse--hearted, and as nearly beaten as I've been in my life.
Always therefore I shall be, for the encouragement at a heavy time,
Very gratefully yours,
(Signed) J. RUSKIN.
FOOTNOTES:
[171] The review was the first of three articles entitled "The Disciple
of Art and the Votary of Science," published in the _Liverpool Weekly
Albion_ of November 9, 16, and 23, 1873. The first of them had also
appeared previously in the _Liverpool Daily Albion_, and was reprinted
with the present letter in the weekly issue of Nov. 9. The aim of the
articles was partly to show how the question "what is art?" involved a
second and deeper inquiry, "What is man?" The words bracketed here were
omitted in the _Albion_, but occur in the original letter, for access
to which I have to thank the writer of the articles.
[From "The Globe," October 29, 1874.]
_AN OXFORD PROTEST._[172]
The Slade Professor has tried for five years to please everybody in
Oxford by lecturing at any time that might be conveniently subordinate
to other dates of study in the University. He finds he has pleased
nobody, and must for the future at least make his hour known and
consistent. He cannot alter it this term because people sometimes come
from a distance and have settled their plans by the hours announced in
the _Gazette_, but for many he reasons he thinks it right to change the
place, and will hereafter lecture in the theatre of the museum.[173]
On Friday the 30th he will not begin till half-past twelve to allow
settling time. Afterwards, all his lectures will be at twelve in this
and future terms. He feels that if he cannot be granted so much as
twelve hours of serious audience in working time during the whole
Oxford year, he need not in future prepare public lectures at which his
pupils need not much regret their non-attendance.
FOOTNOTES:
[172] Mr. Ruskin had recently changed the hour of his lectures from two
till twelve, and the latter hour clashing with other lectures, some
complaints had been made. This "protest" was then issued on the morning
of October 29 and reprinted in the _Globe_ of the same day.
[173] Instead of in the drawing schools at the Taylor Gallery.
[From "The Standard," August 28, 1877. Reprinted in the "Notes and
Correspondence" to "Fors Clavigera," Letter 81, September, 1877, p.
268.]
_MR. RUSKIN AND MR. LOWE._
_To the Editor of "The Standard."_
SIR: My attention has been directed to an article in your columns of
the 22d inst., referring to a supposed correspondence between Mr. Lowe
and me.[174] Permit me to state that the letter in question is not Mr.
Lowe's. The general value of your article as a review of my work and
methods of writing will, I trust, rather be enhanced than diminished
by the correction, due to Mr. Lowe, of this original error; and the
more, that your critic in the course of his review expresses his not
unjustifiable conviction that no correspondence between Mr. Lowe and me
is possible on any intellectual subject whatever.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
JOHN RUSKIN.
BRANTWOOD, CONISTON, LANCASHIRE,
_August_ 24.
FOOTNOTES:
[174] The article in question stated that a number of "Fors Clavigera"
had been sent to Mr. Lowe, and commented on by him in a letter to
Mr. Ruskin. The last words of the article, alluded to above, were as
follows: "The world will be made no wiser by any controversy between
Mr. Ruskin and Mr. Lowe, for it would be impossible to reduce their
figures or facts to a common denominator."
[From the List of "Mr. Shepherd's Publications" printed at the end of
his "The Bibliography of Dickens," 1880.]
_THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RUSKIN._
I.
BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,
_Sept._ 30, 1878.
DEAR SIR: So far from being distasteful to me, your perfect reckoning
up of me not only flatters my vanity extremely, but will be in the
highest degree useful to myself. But you know so much more about me
than I now remember about anything, that I can't find a single thing to
correct or add--glancing through at least.
I will not say that you have wasted your time; but I may at least
regret the quantity of trouble the book must have given you, and am,
therefore, somewhat ashamedly, but very gratefully yours,
J. RUSKIN.
R. H. SHEPHERD, Esq.
II.
BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,
_Oct._ 23, 1878.
DEAR MR. SHEPHERD: I am very deeply grateful to you, as I am in all
duty bound, for this very curious record of myself. It will be of
extreme value to me in filling up what gaps I can in this patched
coverlid of my life before it is draped over my coffin--if it may be.
I am especially glad to have note of the letters to newspapers, but
_most_ chiefly to have the good news of so earnest and patient a friend.
Ever gratefully yours,
J. RUSKIN.
[From the "First Annual Report" of the "Ruskin Society" (of the Rose),
Manchester 1880.]
_THE SOCIETY OF THE ROSE._[175]