Talk:John Ruskin

"Barony House in Edinburgh"

The article tells us:

Barony House in Edinburgh is home to a descendant of John Ruskin who has designed and hand painted various friezes in honour of her ancestor and it is open to the public.

This tells us nothing about John Ruskin. However benevolently intended, it reads like an ad for a B&B. I'm about to delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Degrees

Ruskin was a LL.D and DCL. There's not a word about it in the article. 31.173.82.4 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

In #Oxford it is said: "Back at Oxford, in 1842 Ruskin sat for a pass degree, and was awarded an uncommon honorary double fourth-class degree in recognition of his achievements." This doesn't make sense to me. (1) If he sat for a regular degree at pass level and did extraordinarily well in examinations, he could have been awarded honours in that degree, not an honorary degree. (2) How did sitting for a pass degree come out as a double degree? (3) A fourth-class degree, so far as I'm aware, is/was awarded to a jolly good chap who'd been mucking about in boats. Errantius (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Assume you mean DCL. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"an uncommon honorary double fourth-class degree" makes no sense and it is not referenced, so I am going to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see why you've deleted it but maybe this should be reconsidered. There is a reference to it at p.69 of Hilton's 2002 biography (a conflated version of his two volume work, which I can't access). A double degree would normally now be called a joint honours degree. Sbishop (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• His college think that's what he got. See https://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/blog/john-ruskin - are we quoting them or them us? In general removing things that don't make sense to you is a risky enterprise. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Bradley, Alexander. “Ruskin at Oxford: Pupil and Master.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 32, no. 4 (1992): 747–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/450969. confirms an "honorary fourth" (p 750). Fairly clearly, it was honorary because his health meant he only sat one exam it seems. I will reinstate the sentence & ref it. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Honorary degrees usually require no exams, or even study? Perhaps usage has changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Now they have exams for them, you mean? I expect no one doubted Ruskin's level of studying. You're not confusing an Honorary degree with an Honours degree by any chance? Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not confusing those two. Aren't Honorary degrees bestowed on celebrities and public notables who have never been near the university. let alone opened a book? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Normally, yes (also distinguished academics and other figures who have written lots of books - in fact generally the majority these days), and requiring no exams, or even study. Hence my puzzlement about your query. Perhaps I misunderstood your "?". I imagine most universities can in fact award them to anyone they feel like. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
            • Ah yes, I see. I should not have used the "?". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ruskin's Scottish Ethnicity

Ruskin ought to be listed as Scottish rather than English. His mother and father were Scottish, he identified as Scottish. He is just as Scottish as Thomas Carlyle or Walter Scott, and just as un-English as the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinopecynic (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

For reference, see the appendix to Praeterita in Volume 35 of the Library Edition. The introduction to the same volume says that whether he was Scottish or English "cannot be said"; at the least, he is Scotch-English. Sinopecynic (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have some WP:RS source(s) that he "identified as Scottish"? Is Praeterita available online? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica has "English critic of art, architecture"; Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has "Although the immediate social context of the Ruskin family was Edinburgh during the commercially and intellectually flourishing period at the close of the eighteenth century, and these Scottish roots always remained important, the Ruskins were by origin English."; Tate has "an English writer, philosopher, art critic and polymath, of Scottish heritage... ". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, Grove Art Online has "English writer, draughtsman, painter and collector"; the National Gallery, London has "John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) was an English art critic". Can we change it back to English? Liam2520 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

See the first reference on the main page. From page lx: "His ancestry has not been traced, and whether it was Scottish or English cannot be said." Scotch-English is the best identifier, having the same meaning as yet being more succinct than "English... of Scottish heritage." Sinopecynic (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, change it back. "Scotch-English" is just not a term for people - if anything it should be "Scots-English". Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

From the opening paragraph of Collingwood's authorized biography of Ruskin (link):

If origin, if early training and habits of life, if tastes, and character, and associations, fix a man's nationality, then John Ruskin must be reckoned a Scotsman. He was born in London, but his family was from Scotland. He was brought up in England, but the friends and teachers, the standards and influences of his early life, were chiefly Scottish. The writers who directed him into the main lines of his thought and work were Scotsmen—from Sir Walter and Lord Lindsay and Principal Forbes to the master of his later studies of men and the means of life, Thomas Carlyle. The religious instinct so conspicuous in him was a heritage from Scotland; thence the combination of shrewd common-sense and romantic sentiment; the oscillation between levity and dignity, from caustic jest to tender earnest; the restlessness, the fervour, the impetuosity—all these are the tokens of a Scotsman of parts, and were highly developed in John Ruskin.

You are correct that Scotch-English is not used; the proper term is "Anglo-Scottish," and it is the proper identifier for Ruskin. Keep it as simply "English" if you like, but it's wrong. Sinopecynic (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's "wrong" according to you and Collingwood. It's not wrong according to a number of other high-profile RS sources. And I expect many more could be found. But I see no harm in using some or all of that quote from Collingwood. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ruskin in the Third Reich

In my studies of Carlyle, I have come across several sources that identify Ruskin as having been embraced in the Third Reich. From "Hitler, Adolf" in The Carlyle Encyclopedia (2004), "Carlyle and his student John Ruskin were seen as early British National Socialists." And "In 1941 William McGovern's From Luther to Hitler identified both Carlyle and Ruskin as thinkers who made Nazism possible." From the Carlyle chapter of Victorian Prose: A Guide to Research (1973), "G. I. Morris in 'Divine Hitler' (NS [Die Neueren Sprachen], 1935) cites his own experience ... A headmaster had told his students that 'Ruskin and Carlyle were the first National Socialists.'"

This seems substantial enough to place in the article, perhaps under "Legacy, Politics and critique of political economy". It can hardly belong under "Controversies", as this is rather obscure information. The reason I am creating this new section is to see if more knowledgable editors can show me that this has been addressed elsewhere, perhaps outside of Carlyle Studies, to get a clearer picture of the Nazis' reading of Ruskin. Sinopecynic (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting description of Ruskin's involvement in the Eyre affair

The article reads "In addition to this, Ruskin "threw himself into" personal work for the Committee..."

which makes no sense. The Committee opposed Eyre's suppression of the uprising. Ruskin was a contributor to the Fund, which supported Eyre's action. Does the writer mean the Fund instead of the Committee? Chenopodiaceous (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ruskin and Carlyle referred to the Defence as the "Defence Committee" and also the "Eyre Committee" generally (see Cook & Wedderburn, 18.xlvi). It is understandable that this would create confusion; I will promptly amend it. Sinopecynic (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Physically and emotionally normal

While I respect the desire of admirers of Ruskin not have him labelled a child molester, I find the concluding quotation on Ruskin's sexuality bizarre. This reads: "when it comes to matters of sexual capability and interest, there is every reason to conclude that John Ruskin was physically and emotionally normal". At the very least the article indicates that he was neurotic: Ruskin was repulsed by the idea of intercourse, and preferred the company of pre-pubescent girls, and looking at naked, or scantily clad, pictures of them. The article describes him falling love with Effie Gray when she was 12, but after marrying her, when she was 19, failing to consummate the marriage. There is, however, no indication of criminal behaviour by Ruskin and he would probably be disgusted by the idea of any overt sexual relationship with a child. However, words like 'voyeurism' and 'nympholepsy', do suggest themselves. I recognize that there is a problem in using the word paedophilia, because of the criminal connotations associated with it, but it does seem that Ruskin fits the definition of this psychological disorder, because he was sexually attracted to young girls, even though here's no evidence he molested any child. It is worth remembering that prior to 1875, the age of consent was 12 and only in1885 was it raised to 16. So Ruskin could have legally married Effie Gray when she was 12! I have read the Victorian web article on this topic, which fails to adequately explore the topic. Rwood128 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Age of Consent

User:Ponsonby100. I now better understand you. That is that the histories of the parts of the UK differ. However, the statutes mentioned in the following quotation relate to the whole of United Kingdom: 'In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised it to 16.' Can you plese revert your edit, or fully explain why England is correct. Also I see reference only to children not to females (but I only made a quick scan). Rwood128 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The current article wording is 'The age of consent in the United Kingdom was 12 for females until 1875 and then raised to 16 in 1885.' I suggest this could be made more comprhensive by saying 'The age of consent in the United Kingdom was 12 for females until 1875 and then raised to 16 in 1885, having been 13 in Great Britain between those dates.'

None of this elaboration affects his relations, actual or potential, with Rose La Touche, who died aged 27 just before the 1875 Act gained Royal Assent, or Effie Gray, but does make clear the background. Ponsonby100 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ponsonby100. I like your suggested amendment. Rwood128 (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Wood engraving

So we have an "engraving" "c.1860" by an artist who apparently was 14 years old at the time.

And the clothes, hair and pose are exactly as in the initial photo (taken in 1863), so it's a copy of some other photo taken during the same session. It looks like a standard large-format magazine woodcut of the 1870s/1880s (which is how paintings and photos were reproduced in those days). 2A02:AA1:1049:B8AA:B4A8:5B1F:F9EC:5F89 (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:Portrait of John Ruskin (4671937).jpg, I'd say it shows a totally different pose and clothing to the photo used as the lead image File:John Ruskin 1863.jpg? Can't "c.1860" mean any year 1860-1865? Or are you saying Henry Sigismund Uhlrich was just a copyright criminal? Or maybe the curators at the National Library of Wales just can't do their job properly? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The woodcut was published as a full-page illustration in Harper's Weekly on July 26, 1879. Given that Uhlrich was born in 1846, that makes more sense.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/363668714590

https://archive.org/details/sim_harpers-weekly_1879-07-26_23_1178/page/596/mode/2up 2A02:AA1:1049:B8AA:B4A8:5B1F:F9EC:5F89 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Harper's Weekly don't say how old it was when they published it? I'd be inclined to trust National Library of Wales more than eBay. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't necessarily trust either. In the 19th century the modern clear distinction between a woodcut and a wood engraving had simply not developed, & anybody relying on contemporary sources might get it wrong in modern terms, certainly including librarians or curators who are not print specialists. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. The caption currently just says "engraving". But do you have any advice on the most likely date? I see no clear reason to change from the "c. 1860" used by the National Library of Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)