Commonplace 116 George & The Influence of John Ruskin. PART TWO: Lilies part one.
Of the two Ruskin lectures 'Sesame and Lilies', it's the latter that sought to have the most influence. It is a massive work, covering enough ground for a whole book, and touches many of the concepts and ideas George took to heart, and so it must have been part of his early adult reading experience. It name-drops many of his influences and may have even lead to his interest in his first wife, Marianne aka Nell, as well as going some way to explaining one or two of his more bizarre home-related tyrannical tendencies.
First, the lecture's background, which sheds light on the content and purpose of the piece. Ruskin dedicated this lecture to one of his child pupils, Rose La Touche click. Rose was nine when Ruskin came into her life. This was ten years after his marriage to Effie Gray, and four years after that unconsummated marriage was annulled. There are many theories about why this marriage failed, ranging from Ruskin's reluctance to bankroll her family - he was legally and morally committed to marry her but discovered it was a marriage of convenience on her part, designed to advance her family. By marrying her he kept his own virtue, fully knowing he would give her ample room to leave him after the event. A darker theory is an accusation of latent paedophilia. As he was 'engaged' to Effie when she was a child, and then, as we shall see, obsessed (to the point of insanity) over Rose La Touche, you can see why the charge of paedophilia is made.
George mentions the cause of this marital rift in the Diaries (p375). The entry of June 1895 (written by the man who claims not to approve of gossip but who gives us the goss as he knows it whenever he can - here, oddly, in a place where one is traditionally talking to oneself - though we can assume he is writing a diary for posterity to read, that's why it has to be redacted from time to time) - By the bye (who says that to themself??) Holman Hunt's account of Ruskin's divorce is this. Ruskin married merely to please other people, and after the wedding told his bride they were merely to be brother and sister. Impotency may or may not have anything to do with it. Wife sued for nullity.
George writes this in the same entry where he tells us the strange episode when Ruskin wrote to George's friend, Edward Clodd who made contentious remarks about Christianity and Ruskin said he found it as offensive to him as if someone had come round and peed on his hearth-rug, If the Dude aka Jeffrey Lebowski has taught us anything, it is that a really good rug can truly tie a room together, so Ruskin was surely saying a mouthful.
And, so back to 'Lilies'. Ruskin's reaction to meeting Rose was this:
"...presently the drawing room door opened, and Rosie came in, quietly taking stock of me with her blue eyes as she walked across the room; gave me her hand, as a good dog gives its paw, and then stood a little back. Nine years old, on 3 January 1858, thus now rising towards ten; neither tall nor short for her age; a little stiff in her way of standing. The eyes rather deep blue at that time, and fuller and softer than afterwards. Lips perfectly lovely in profile;--a little too wide, and hard in edge, seen in front; the rest of the features what a fair, well-bred Irish girl's usually are; the hair, perhaps, more graceful in short curl around the forehead, and softer than one sees often, in the close-bound tresses above the neck"
Philip Hoare's article click (based on his book about John Ruskin, 'England's Lost Eden', 2005), suggests Rose was mentally ill for most of her life, and eventually died in her twenties in an asylum. Despite the thirty-ish years age gap between them, Ruskin and Rose did have a very strong bond that almost transcended any that might have arisen from marriage, and, odd and unfulfilled as it was, it was this love that eventually Ruskin's downfall, too.
'Lilies', then, was dedicated to Rose maybe to prepare her for marriage to her teacher when she was of age (it is supposed Ruskin formally proposed when she was about 16). Echoes here of the painting George commented on that repulsed him so much - Titian's Venus of Urbino (see Commonplace 87).
This lecture can be divided into two basic parts: the first addresses what women are, which is wonderful, but the responsibility of civilization is on their shoulders; the second, what they need from education in order to achieve this fabulous place in the scheme of things, and not ruin their heads with notions of self-determination and independence. It might be argued that George's problems with women started here, with these two sides of the coin. And it can also be argued that women are the eternal scapegoats forever held responsible for the inadequacies and sins of men - which started before Ruskin as we will will see, but which endures till this day.
Here, Ruskin is still focused on reading as a civilizing force for good, and the foundation of all education. He puts forward the notion that there is a morally upright and decent way of living for a man and that is what being a noble soul is all about. The world can be divided between the aristocrats (as George would term it) who are cultured and read for enlightenment, and those drones who do not - or cannot, through their own deficits, benefit from learning. Aristos are self-reliant and exude natural grace. There is a sort of noblesse oblige to being an aristocrat, and it behoves the civilized to tame the others, leading by example. Education must focus on developing these higher inner qualities in a man. It won;t be an easy job, but the masses can be turned to the good path, if they get to appreciate reading. What then, Ruskin asks, about education for women?
Women, generally, he claims, underestimate their place in the scheme of things - they could be Queens in their little realms (or 'Queens' Gardens', as he terms it), if only they are guided along the right path. But, before considering what type of education would achieve this end, we have to think what is the ordinary role that women fulfil. Opinion on this is divided, he suggests, with no consensus on what are a woman's virtues, intellect, and capabilities in a man's world. Talk of a separate mission for men and women is as futile, Ruskin says, as the argument that a woman is a simply man's helper, or that she can aspire to no more than a role of an inferior who needs a man to support her. To place women in this inferior role is to underestimate the unique gifts of womanhood, and its parity with maleness.
Ruskin argues that we must accept women and men complement each other in specific ways, and each needs the other equally in order to maximise what they bring to the world. As education is the means by which we are all civilised, and as reading brings us this special knowledge, what can women take form the geniuses who have been writers and poets? For Ruskin, this starts with Shakespeare.
He claims Shakespeare has no real heroes, only heroines. In his plays, Shakespeare writes the male leads as feeble, unreliable and selfish, undone by their weaknesses and inadequacies. With the possible exception of Henry V, none of them are up the task of whatever the drama asks of them. But, the women are magnificent, and stand behind their men shoring them up and urging them on - strong, morally courageous and self-sacrificing, all but encumbered with useless men. That is, all except for Ophelia who lets the side down by being mad, and even more pathetic than Hamlet. In fact, Ruskin goes as far as to blame Ophelia for Hamlet's lack of vital force to act. She should have backed him, guided him, supported him, and not just moped about toying with weeds and ditties. She fails him as she is unable to motivate him to sort himself out - for Ruskin, drowning is too good for her.
Next, Ruskin brings up the heroines Sir Walter Scott gives us: all of them gracious, kind-hearted and intelligent - far brainier than their menfolk, who are all weaklings, only in their exalted positions because they are backed with money and the good luck to have married a good woman. And Scott's women are the most patient, most loyal and supportive of mates. In these tales, it is the woman who teaches her male friend to be a man, and to appreciate what it fully means to be a lord.
Ruskin then touches on Dante and the Divine Comedy, then the Greeks and the Romans and how their great ladies were the manifestation of devotion, grace and loyalty, often 'the power behind the throne'. He mentions Chaucer's 'Legend of Good Women', but reminds us he did not give us a 'Legend of Good Men' because it couldn't be written. This brings us to Edmund Spencer's Faerie Queen and the tale of Una and the Lion, the Lady who went in search of her Lost Love. Despite a series of challenges and adversity, Una never sinks below her noble status and her soul remains pure.
Ruskin then reminds us that women have always been the inspiration behind the best of literature - and suggests disbelievers in his theory should ask themselves: can all these great literary minds be wrong to elevate women to such an exalted status? In all times, men have been conscious of and benefited from the superior qualities of women's moral and modest hearts, and so being devoted to a noble woman is a state of grace, and an obedient devotion is a chivalrous stance, worthy of any true knight.
Ruskin then reminds us that all these notions of woman as goddess of good are straightforwardly evident in the first flush of Romantic Love, but how can they be sustained into a life-long marriage? He says that men often withdraw their devoted affection when they have gotten used to living with their wives - and this is monstrously cruel. Familiarity has bred contempt, and that is a sin and ungallant. A man should be aware that marriage, itself, affirms its spiritual and ethical rightness of his choice of wife and he should work at maintaining the devotion he has for her by always behaving chivalrously and protecting her from harm.
Ruskin then explains the differences in the genders. Men are doers, leaders, creators, inventors, discoverers, protectors, progressive and with a natural bent for war. Women are not warlike, and they do not like to lead. They are made for (I am not making this up!) tidying, arranging, making cushions, er decisions; she can judge quality, is aware of the rights in a situation, and where stuff goes. She lives to give praise. She is not competitive but she says what life's rewards should be for the winners. She is kept from dangers and temptations of life by being at Home. Whereas man is subject to failure and mistakes in a hostile world, and is often wounded and beaten down, he protects his woman from these forces of adversity and she provides the safe haven of Home for him to return to - a place where he can feel loved and at peace. Home is the stronghold they share against an uncertain and cruel world. And, the concept of Home is that it is a sacred place, a domestic temple guarded by the household gods (Her and Him) and only shared with those they love.
To read all of 'Sesame and Lilies' click
JOIN ME IN PART THREE TO ANSWER THAT!
Of the two Ruskin lectures 'Sesame and Lilies', it's the latter that sought to have the most influence. It is a massive work, covering enough ground for a whole book, and touches many of the concepts and ideas George took to heart, and so it must have been part of his early adult reading experience. It name-drops many of his influences and may have even lead to his interest in his first wife, Marianne aka Nell, as well as going some way to explaining one or two of his more bizarre home-related tyrannical tendencies.
 |
| Rose by John Ruskin 1861 |
First, the lecture's background, which sheds light on the content and purpose of the piece. Ruskin dedicated this lecture to one of his child pupils, Rose La Touche click. Rose was nine when Ruskin came into her life. This was ten years after his marriage to Effie Gray, and four years after that unconsummated marriage was annulled. There are many theories about why this marriage failed, ranging from Ruskin's reluctance to bankroll her family - he was legally and morally committed to marry her but discovered it was a marriage of convenience on her part, designed to advance her family. By marrying her he kept his own virtue, fully knowing he would give her ample room to leave him after the event. A darker theory is an accusation of latent paedophilia. As he was 'engaged' to Effie when she was a child, and then, as we shall see, obsessed (to the point of insanity) over Rose La Touche, you can see why the charge of paedophilia is made.
George mentions the cause of this marital rift in the Diaries (p375). The entry of June 1895 (written by the man who claims not to approve of gossip but who gives us the goss as he knows it whenever he can - here, oddly, in a place where one is traditionally talking to oneself - though we can assume he is writing a diary for posterity to read, that's why it has to be redacted from time to time) - By the bye (who says that to themself??) Holman Hunt's account of Ruskin's divorce is this. Ruskin married merely to please other people, and after the wedding told his bride they were merely to be brother and sister. Impotency may or may not have anything to do with it. Wife sued for nullity.
 |
| The Order Of Release, 1746 by John Everett Millais 1852 - modelled by Effie Gray |
George writes this in the same entry where he tells us the strange episode when Ruskin wrote to George's friend, Edward Clodd who made contentious remarks about Christianity and Ruskin said he found it as offensive to him as if someone had come round and peed on his hearth-rug, If the Dude aka Jeffrey Lebowski has taught us anything, it is that a really good rug can truly tie a room together, so Ruskin was surely saying a mouthful.
And, so back to 'Lilies'. Ruskin's reaction to meeting Rose was this:
"...presently the drawing room door opened, and Rosie came in, quietly taking stock of me with her blue eyes as she walked across the room; gave me her hand, as a good dog gives its paw, and then stood a little back. Nine years old, on 3 January 1858, thus now rising towards ten; neither tall nor short for her age; a little stiff in her way of standing. The eyes rather deep blue at that time, and fuller and softer than afterwards. Lips perfectly lovely in profile;--a little too wide, and hard in edge, seen in front; the rest of the features what a fair, well-bred Irish girl's usually are; the hair, perhaps, more graceful in short curl around the forehead, and softer than one sees often, in the close-bound tresses above the neck"
Philip Hoare's article click (based on his book about John Ruskin, 'England's Lost Eden', 2005), suggests Rose was mentally ill for most of her life, and eventually died in her twenties in an asylum. Despite the thirty-ish years age gap between them, Ruskin and Rose did have a very strong bond that almost transcended any that might have arisen from marriage, and, odd and unfulfilled as it was, it was this love that eventually Ruskin's downfall, too.
 |
| La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Sir Frank Dicksee 1901 |
This lecture can be divided into two basic parts: the first addresses what women are, which is wonderful, but the responsibility of civilization is on their shoulders; the second, what they need from education in order to achieve this fabulous place in the scheme of things, and not ruin their heads with notions of self-determination and independence. It might be argued that George's problems with women started here, with these two sides of the coin. And it can also be argued that women are the eternal scapegoats forever held responsible for the inadequacies and sins of men - which started before Ruskin as we will will see, but which endures till this day.
Here, Ruskin is still focused on reading as a civilizing force for good, and the foundation of all education. He puts forward the notion that there is a morally upright and decent way of living for a man and that is what being a noble soul is all about. The world can be divided between the aristocrats (as George would term it) who are cultured and read for enlightenment, and those drones who do not - or cannot, through their own deficits, benefit from learning. Aristos are self-reliant and exude natural grace. There is a sort of noblesse oblige to being an aristocrat, and it behoves the civilized to tame the others, leading by example. Education must focus on developing these higher inner qualities in a man. It won;t be an easy job, but the masses can be turned to the good path, if they get to appreciate reading. What then, Ruskin asks, about education for women?
Women, generally, he claims, underestimate their place in the scheme of things - they could be Queens in their little realms (or 'Queens' Gardens', as he terms it), if only they are guided along the right path. But, before considering what type of education would achieve this end, we have to think what is the ordinary role that women fulfil. Opinion on this is divided, he suggests, with no consensus on what are a woman's virtues, intellect, and capabilities in a man's world. Talk of a separate mission for men and women is as futile, Ruskin says, as the argument that a woman is a simply man's helper, or that she can aspire to no more than a role of an inferior who needs a man to support her. To place women in this inferior role is to underestimate the unique gifts of womanhood, and its parity with maleness.
Ruskin argues that we must accept women and men complement each other in specific ways, and each needs the other equally in order to maximise what they bring to the world. As education is the means by which we are all civilised, and as reading brings us this special knowledge, what can women take form the geniuses who have been writers and poets? For Ruskin, this starts with Shakespeare.
 |
Una And The Lion by Briton Riviere 1888. Edmund Spencer's Faerie Queen, Una was a virtuous Super-heroine who travels the land looking for her lost True Love. click to read it.
|
He claims Shakespeare has no real heroes, only heroines. In his plays, Shakespeare writes the male leads as feeble, unreliable and selfish, undone by their weaknesses and inadequacies. With the possible exception of Henry V, none of them are up the task of whatever the drama asks of them. But, the women are magnificent, and stand behind their men shoring them up and urging them on - strong, morally courageous and self-sacrificing, all but encumbered with useless men. That is, all except for Ophelia who lets the side down by being mad, and even more pathetic than Hamlet. In fact, Ruskin goes as far as to blame Ophelia for Hamlet's lack of vital force to act. She should have backed him, guided him, supported him, and not just moped about toying with weeds and ditties. She fails him as she is unable to motivate him to sort himself out - for Ruskin, drowning is too good for her.
Next, Ruskin brings up the heroines Sir Walter Scott gives us: all of them gracious, kind-hearted and intelligent - far brainier than their menfolk, who are all weaklings, only in their exalted positions because they are backed with money and the good luck to have married a good woman. And Scott's women are the most patient, most loyal and supportive of mates. In these tales, it is the woman who teaches her male friend to be a man, and to appreciate what it fully means to be a lord.
Ruskin then touches on Dante and the Divine Comedy, then the Greeks and the Romans and how their great ladies were the manifestation of devotion, grace and loyalty, often 'the power behind the throne'. He mentions Chaucer's 'Legend of Good Women', but reminds us he did not give us a 'Legend of Good Men' because it couldn't be written. This brings us to Edmund Spencer's Faerie Queen and the tale of Una and the Lion, the Lady who went in search of her Lost Love. Despite a series of challenges and adversity, Una never sinks below her noble status and her soul remains pure.
 |
| The Red Cross Knight (from Spencer's The Fairie Queen) by John Singleton Copely 1761. |
Next, he invokes the spirit of Coventry Patmore click, whose most famous poetic work 'Angel In The House' was first serialised in 1854:
How wasteful woman is! She could have set any
price she chose on her sweet self, knowing that man would pay whatever she
asked to have her. But she has cheapened paradise and given away her gift for
nothing. Now the bread is spoiled and the wine is spilled; if it had been
properly used, it would have turned brutes into men--and not just men,
but divine men!
 |
| Mrs Coventry Patmore by John Brett 1856 |
Ruskin then explains the differences in the genders. Men are doers, leaders, creators, inventors, discoverers, protectors, progressive and with a natural bent for war. Women are not warlike, and they do not like to lead. They are made for (I am not making this up!) tidying, arranging, making cushions, er decisions; she can judge quality, is aware of the rights in a situation, and where stuff goes. She lives to give praise. She is not competitive but she says what life's rewards should be for the winners. She is kept from dangers and temptations of life by being at Home. Whereas man is subject to failure and mistakes in a hostile world, and is often wounded and beaten down, he protects his woman from these forces of adversity and she provides the safe haven of Home for him to return to - a place where he can feel loved and at peace. Home is the stronghold they share against an uncertain and cruel world. And, the concept of Home is that it is a sacred place, a domestic temple guarded by the household gods (Her and Him) and only shared with those they love.
When a woman is truly a worthy wife, she can transfer these Home-making qualities to any location. She doesn't need a house with a roof - she can create a home even under the stars. If she is this truly noble ideal woman, she can bring light into any darkness, and make any situation a place of light and love. But, this is an important job and when it goes wrong, then everything is wrong. She has to be above reproach and her behaviour must never sink below the excellent standard expected of a noblewoman. Therefore, she must be incorruptible, never further her own aims but live for others, and indulge in self-denial to sacrifice herself for her man and Home. She must not be petty and prideful, and haughty. She must be mutable and flexible, able to offer service whenever it is required, and this is why women are innately changeable; not in a flippant, dilettante way, but in order to be resourceful. She must be wise, but her wisdom must be used for support of her man and for the betterment of others.
How can she be prepared for this important work? What then, Ruskin asks, do women need from education?
To read all of 'Sesame and Lilies' click
JOIN ME IN PART THREE TO ANSWER THAT!
No comments:
Post a Comment