ruskins turner the making of a romantic hero

7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero

1/12

The British Art Journalis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Art Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Ruskin's Turner: The making of a Romantic heroAuthor(s): Marjorie MunsterbergSource: The British Art Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 61-71Published by: The British Art Journal

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41614862Accessed: 14-08-2015 09:44 UTC

F R N S

Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/41614862?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:44:35 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=britishartjhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41614862http://www.jstor.org/stable/41614862?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41614862?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41614862http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=britishartjhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/12

Volume

,

No. The RITISHRT

ournal

Ruskin's Trner

The

making

of a Romantic hero

Marjore Munsterberg

[Himer]

tands

pon

n

minence,

romhiche ooks ack

overhe

niversefGod nd orwardverhe

enerations

f

men. et

very

orkf

is

and

e

history

f he

ne,

nd

lessono he ther.et ach xertion

f is

mighty

indeboth

hymn

nd

rophecy;

doration

o he

eity,

evelationo

mankind.

John

uskin,

odernainters

vol

1843)

[Modern

ainterssaid

verything

bout imerever

elt,

r

even id ot

nowfelt.

Pauline,

adytevelyan1844)2

Art Romantic

(1775-1851)

historians

genius

as

have

an

repeatedly

refuted

embodiment

and

the

in

idea

detail.

of

of

theJMW

An

embattled

immense

Hirner

(1775-1851)

s an embodiment f the embattled

Romantic

enius epeatedly

nd

n

detail.

n mmense

amount f iterature

as

ppeared

ince hebicentennialel-

ebrationof the

painter's

birth,

ncluding atalogues

raisonnsf his

paintings,

atercolours,

nd

engravings,

collection

f his

etters,

nd several

iographies,

s well s

specialized

tudies

f his

ife

nd work.

Major

xhibitions

have

brought

amous

s well s unfamiliarorks efore

wide

public.

n

addition,

ndividual

aintings

ave been

analysed

n

relation

o new

uestions,

specially

nes drawn

fromocial nd economic

istory.3

ll

his

cholarlyctivity

has

placed

Hirner

irmly

ithinhe ontextfhis

period,

nd

chartedhe

development

fhis

rt.

One

aspect

fTurner's

areer, owever,

as notreceived

the ttentiontdeserves: ohn uskin's ole ncreatinghe

modernist

arrativehat

resents

irners a Romanticero.

I will

igue

hat he

mage

fHirners themaker

f

reat

nd

revelatoryictures,

corned

y

his

contemporaries,

inally

recognized

s

a true

enius

fter

nduring

lifetime

fhos-

tility,

as nvented

y

John

uskin

1819-1900). eginning

n

1843

with hefirst olume

f

Modern

ainters

continuing

through

is

publications

f he1840s nd

1850s,

nd culmi-

nating

n

1860

n

he

iftholume fModern ainters

Ruskin

argued

or

very articularnterpretation

fbothHirnernd

his

work.

tudy

fthereviews

uskin's

ritings

eceived t

the ime f heir

ublication

eveals

ust

hownew nd how

objectionable

hese deas eemed. ritics

harply

ontradict-

ed hisvision

fTurner'sife s well s

his

nterpretations

f

the

pictures.

venwhile ther

spects

fRuskin's

orkwon

praise, is deas boutTurneremainedighlyontentious.

WhenWalter

hornbury's

ife f

J.M.W

rner

ppeared

n

1862,

t lso wascriticized

iercelyy

reviewersnd

bypeo-

ple

who

had known

Turner,

n

part

because of its

dependence

n Ruskin's

deas,

but

chiefly

ecause of its

many

naccuracies.

y

the late

1870s,however,

hen

a

reviseddition

f

Thornbury'siographyppeared

nd the

FineArt

ociety

n

London

taged major

xhibition

f

Ruskin'sollection

fworks

y

urner,

emories

f he rtist

had

faded,

ndRuskin's

uthority

s an art riticnd

Hirner's

greatest

efender as mmense.

is

deeply ersonal

dentifi-

cationwith he

rtistdded o that

uthority,

aken s

proof

of he orrectness

fhis

understanding.y

he 0th

entury,

his

advocacy

f Hirner's

enius

had become

one of the

canonical

pisodes

nthe

history

f

modernism.4

LikemostVictorians,uskin irstncountered urner's

work

n

the

form f

ngravings,

henhe received he llus-

trated dition fSamuel

Rogers's

taly

n

1832

s a

present

for is

13th

irthday.

ts

vignette

llustrations

emainedn

importantart

f Ruskin's

onception

fthe rtist

or he

rest f his ife.5t was not until he next

year

hat e saw

TUrner'sil

paintings,

henhe visited he ummer

xhibi-

tion t the

Royal cademy

ith isfather.6

n

1837,

Ruskin

received Urner's atercolourichmond

ill

and

Bridge,

SurreyBritish useum)

s a

birthdayift

rom is

father,

the first f

many

e was to

own,

nd

n 1844he received

Slavers

Throwing

verboard

the Dead and

Dying

-

'typhon oming

On

(Museum

f Fine

Arts, oston;

&

J

385),

thefirst

f

only

wo il

paintingsy

Turner e would

own, lso as a

gift

rom isfather.7uskinmet he rtistn

1840 and visited Urner's

wn

gallery

bout this time.

During

hese

years,

e

developed personal

elationship

with he artist

hat, owever,

nded

abruptly

uring

he

mid-1840s.8

lthoughhey

werenot close

during

he ast

years

f Turner's

ife,

he

will

named

Ruskin ne of the

Executors f Turner's state.Ruskin

esigned

rom

hat

position,

uthe did

catalogue

hemore han

9,000

works

on

paper

hat ntered he

collection f thenation s

part

oftheTurner

equest.9

Ruskin irst rote boutHirner's

rt n

1836,

s a

17-year-

old about o enter hrist

hurch,

xford. ut nto

'black

anger' y

review

n

the

prestigious

lackwood's

agazine

of

Turner's

xhibitionst the

Royal cademy,

e

composed

lengthyetter o the ditor10n t,he defended irners a

meteor,

ashing

n

in

path

f

glory

hich ll

may

dmire,

but

n

which one an follow:nd

his mitators ust

e,

nd

always

ave

been,

moths

luttering

bout

the

ights,

nto

which

f

hey

nter

hey

re

destroyed'3:638).Touching

n

someof the

rguments

hatwere o

appear

n

the

firstol-

ume ofModern aintersRuskin efended he ikeness

f

Turner's

ictures

o

nature nd to their

ubjects,

he

plen-

dor

of

Turner's

olour,

his

imaginativeapacity,

nd his

genius.

he etterndswithmemorable

yperbole

bout he

periodical

ritics s innumerable

ogs... baying at]

the

moon:-do

hey

hinkhewill ate fher

rightness,

r ber-

rate

romhe

majesty

fher

path?'3:640)

On the dvice fhis

father,

uskinent he

unsigned

an-

uscript

o Turner efore

ubmitting

t to the

periodical.

Hirner'seplyo J.R. sq.' urvives:

My

ear ir

I

beg

o hank

ou

or

our

eal,

indness,

nd he rouble

ou

have aken

n

my

ehalf

n

regard

f he riticismf lackwoods

Mag

f

Oc[t] espectingy

orks,

ut never ove

n

hese at-

ters.

hey

re

f

o

mport

avemischiefnd hemeal ub

hich

Magaie, lackwood's]

earsor

ymy aving

nvadedhe lour

tub.

[signature

ut

way]

PS.

f

ou

ishohave heMans ack ave he

oodness

o et

me now.

f

otwith

our

anctions

will

end

t o he ossessor

of he icturef

uliet.

The

ast entence

n

the

body

f

he

etters a humorousef-

erence to the review

n

Blackwood's

in whichTurner's

painting/iz/telnd HerNursePrivateollection;&J365)

is describeds models

f

different

arts

f

Venice,

hrown

61

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

Volume

,

No. The RITISH

KT

ournal

higgledy-piggledyogether,

treaked lue and

pink,

nd

thrown

nto flour ub'.The owner f the

painting

as

Hirner's

riend nd

collector,

ugh

Munro

f

Novar,

o

whom he etter

may

have

been sent.11

ollowing

irner's

advice,

uskin

ut

his etterside owork n other

rojects.

The reviews f Hirner's rt that so angeredRuskin

belonged

o

livelyublic

iscoursebout

ontemporary

rt.

Criticismbout he

visual rts irst

ppeared

n British

eri-

odicals

during

the

1760s,

partly

n

response

to the

establishmentf the

Society

fArts n

1760

nd the

Royal

Academy

n

1768.

rawing pon

variety

f

ources,

nclud-

ing

he

ocabulary

f

onnoisseurship,

rt

heory,

nd

atire,

writersreated

language

f

rt riticismhat ould ntertain

as well s inform

rapidly rowing

udience.

y

the

early

19th

entury,

t east

passing

cquaintance

ith hevisual

artswas

firmly

stablisheds an essential

art

fmiddle-class

Britishulture.

n

response

o this

nterest,

any eriodicals,

from

aily ewspapers

o

weekly

nd

monthly agazines,

published

eviewsf he

major

rt hows.

A

few

eriodicals

entirely

evoted o visual rt lso

appeared,

lthough

twas

not ntil he stablishmentf h Art ournaln1839called

theArt-Union

ntil

848)

that ne was able

to survive or

more han few

ears.12

This

wasthe riticaliscourse uskin

oined

withModern

Painters: heir

uperiority

n the

Art

f

andscape ainting

to theAncient asters

joined uite iterally,

ecause he

book

appeared

uring

he

first eekof

May,

ust

fter he

opening

f he

Royal cademy

xhibition.13onceived

n

he

summerf

1842,

when

Ruskin

gain

was

outraged ynega-

tive eviews

fTurner's

aintings,

hebook was written

n

near-secrecyuring

hefall ndwinternd

published

nder

thenom

e

plume

GraduatefOxford'.14uskin

xplained

in

he

preface

hat he

work ow aidbefore he

public rig-

inated

n

ndignation

tthe hallowndfalse riticisms

f he

periodicals

f the

day'

about

Himer

3:3; 7:8).

An

essaybecame book sone

thought

ed toanother,ndthebook

ultimately

ecame ive

olumes,

ublished

etween

843

nd

1860.

n

no sense s

any

f

hem,

ven he

first,

systematic

analysis

r evendefence

fHirner's ork.

nstead

hey

on-

tain

sprawling

nd

verypersonal rguments

bout

art,

nature,nd,

ncreasingly,ociety.

s

n

Ruskin's

ther

ubli-

cationsromhe ame

period,

owever,

irners

always

n

importantoint

f

eference,

venwhen e s not he

xplic-

it

ubject

fdiscussion.

Modern ainters as noticed t once.The

firsteference

to it

may

be a remark hat

ppeared

mid-sentence

n

a

review

n the

Spectator

f Hirner'swork t the

Royal

Academy:

There

may

e some ublime

meaning

nall

this,

as we aretold here

s;

but

we

must onfess ur

nability

o

penetratetsprofundity.'15ostof themajorperiodicals

published

eviews f t within he next ix months.16he

criticshowed

surprisingnanimity

f

opinion.

lmostll

ofthem

raised

hebook s a valuable ontribution

o the

literaturebout hefine rts.

hey

lso

admired

he

beauty

ofRuskin's

rose.

None he

ess,

hey

bjected

o the xtrav-

agant anguage

Ruskinused to criticize ther

artists,

especially

ld

Masters,

isagreed

ith is haracterizationf

Hirner,

nd

vigorously

bjected

o the

way

he

interpreted

Hirner's

ictures.

hese

ontinuedobe the

major

oints

f

criticism ade fRuskin's

ritings

boutHirner or henext

three ecades.17

The

first

mportant

eview

f

Modern ainters

ppeared

n

June

n

he

Art

ournal

still

alled he

Art-Union),ublished

while he

exhibitiont the

Academy

as still

pen.

The

anonymousevieweroncentratedn twopoints.First,

Ruskin's

anguage

as

ntirelynappropriate

or

ny urpose:

[A]

oneo oarsesnot

o

e

foundn

ny

f he

ewspaper

notices,

hich e

gree

ith

im

Ruskin]

n

ondemning.

f

e

speak

husf ne

icture

hich

edoes otike

Daniel

Maclise'samlet

,

we

pprehend

hat,

n

oing

hrough

n xhi-

bition,

is

atalogue

f

ituperativepithet

ould ot

erve

im.

Towhat ouldhe ermsf is amnatoryocabularyescendn

speaking

f

really

ad

icture?

Secondly,

he

praise iven

o Turner's

ore ecent

aintings

was

unacceptable:

We

ield

onone

n

dmirationf he

worksf he etter

eriod

of hisnce

eallyreat

rtist;

ut e annotccord

o

him

uali-

ties

nhis ast orkshichonot herein

xist,

ndwhiche

had ot hemostemote

dea f

iving

hem

qualities

hich,

n

fact,

t s

n

he

ower

f o

rt o

onvey.18

The referenceo earlier

reat

works

y

Turner

ad

begun

o

be a

staple

f

exhibition

riticism

uring

he

1820s,

sually

referring

o the classical

ubjects

ainted

uring

he mid-

1810s.19 he idea thatRuskin ound

meaning

n

Turner's

paintings

he artist ad not ntended as

mademore re-

quentlynd morefiercelyn ater ears, uttressedythe

popular

tory

hatHirner imself ad said

the ame

thing

(see

below).

Many

more eviews

ppeared

uring

he

fall nd winter.

That

n

The Gentleman's

agazine

paid

full ribute o

Ruskin's

ccomplishments:

The

uthoras solid oundation

n

he roadnd

hilosophical

principles

e

pplies

o he

rt; hile,

n

he

ery

inute,xact,

and elicateriticismse

delivers,

e hows

practical

nd rtist-

like

cquaintance

ithhe etailsf he

ubject..

He lso s n

eloquent

nd

mpressive

riter;.

[who]

an

escribehe

apti-

vating

eautiesf

ainting

n

he rilliantolour

f

oetic

iction.

The

opinions

n

thebook

are oo

profound

obe refuted

y

a

cavil,

nd too honest o be dismissed ith sneer'.20

he

opinionsboutHirner,owever,ere differentatter.he

reviewer

uoted

Ruskin's

escriptions

f

he

painter

s

glo-

rious in

conception,

nfathomablen

knowledge,

nd

solitary

n

power',

nd ike the

ngel

n

the

Apocalypse,

nd

other imilar

ersons,

hom

ut

of

respect

e shall orbear

to mention'.21

n

the

nd,

he

reader

mustdismissnd for-

get

he

glowing escriptions

ndtoo

partial

omparisons

e'

has read

n

this

olume,

nd turn rom he

visionaryplen-

dour

f hewriter's

age

othe eal olours nd

omposition

before

im' n

Hirner'sctualworks f rt

n

order

o reach

a fair

pinion.22

A

lengthy

nd muchmore

partisan

xamination

f the

book

appeared

n October nBlackwood's

Magazine,

writ-

ten

by

he

urate,

oet,

nd

enthusiasticmateur

rtist,

he

Revd

ohn

agles 1783-1855),

ho

regularly

rote rt riti-

cismfor heperiodical.23agleswas a particularargetf

Ruskin'sre ndremarked

t the

eginning

fhis eviewhat

the uthor ame

vauntinglyp

to

us,

with is

ontempt

or

us and all criticshat ver

were,

r

will

e;

we are

all ittle

Davids

n

the

ye

ofthisGoliath'.24

n

hisdiscussionfthe

sectionsnModern ainters bout

Hirner,

agles

ollowed

most ther eviewersn

finding

uskin's levation f the

painter

bove ll other rtists

stonishing

nd offensive.e

too

ingled

utthe

omparison

fHirnero the

ngel

f he

Apocalypse,

hich e

quoted

nfilli:

[A]nd

irner

glorious

n

onception

unfathomable

nknowl-

edge

solitary

n

ower

withhe lements

aitingpon

is

will,

nd he

ight

nd he

morning

bedient

ohis

all,

ents

prophet

fGod o evealomen he

mysteries

f is

niverse,

standing,ikehe reatngelf he pocalypse,lothedith

cloud,

nd

withrainbow

pon

is

ead,

nd

withhe un nd

stars

iven

nto is and.

62



4/12

The RITISH

RT

ournal

olume

,

No.

Suggesting

ithmock eriousness

hat hiswas

blasphemy,

Eagles

then

indulg[ed]

n

a small

degree

of

justifiable

ridicule'. ow could this

description

e

represented

n

a

'statue r

painting

fMr. urneror

he

Temple

fFame?'

How

ill

hey

entureo

epresent

r.

urner

ooking

iken

angelin hatress hich ould akenymanookike fool

his

loud

ightcap

ied ithibbonibandoundis

ead,

alling

to

night

nd

morning,

nd ittle

aring

hich

omes,

aking

'ducksnd rakes'f he un nd he

tars,

ut

nto is and

or

that

urpose?

e

will

nlyuggest

ne

ddition,

s t

ompletes

the

rand

dea,

nd s

n

ome

egree

haracteristicf

Mr.

Turner's

eculiar

xecution,hat,

ithhe un nd

he

tars,

here

shouldedeliverednto is

and

comet,

hoseail hould

serve

im or

brush,

nd

upply

tselfitholour.25

Compared

o

the criticalnvectiveor

which lackwoos

was

famous,

ncludingery ersonal

ttacks n actual

eo-

ple,

this

passage

does contain

nly

'small

degree'

of

ridicule.26

More

nteresting

s

Eagles's hallenge

o the

way

Ruskin

interpreted

urner's

ictures.

n

this

eview,

e used hedis-

cussionof Dido BuildingCarthage; r the Riseof the

Carthaginian

mpire

National allery,

ondon;

&

J

131)

as an

example.

t was firstxhibited

n

1815

nd afterwards

on

display

n Turner'swn

gallery,erhaps

ntil he

rtist's

death,

ndwas

bygeneral greement

grand ainting

rom

the

days

when

urner as

great.27agles

wrote:

[T]he oreground

s

ccupiedy group

f hildren

ailingoy-

boats,

hiche

Ruskin]

hinkso e n

exquisite

hoice

f

incident

xpressive

f he

ulingassion'.

e,

withwhimsical

extravagance

n

raise

f

urner,hich,

ommencing

ere,

uns

throughout

ll he estf he

olume,

ays

Such

thought

s

thiss

omething

arbovell

rt;

t s

pic oetry

f he

ighest

order'.

pic oetry

f he

ighest

rder

ngrateful

ill eour

future

pic oets

f

hey

o

not

earn

romhis

if

uchsdone

by oysailingoyoats,urelyoys lyingkite illllustratear

betterhe

reat

stronomical

nowledge

f

ur

ays

8

The discussion f Turner'srt

hen

moved,

s it did

n

so

many

eviews,

o a more

general

ssessment f Turner's

career,

ased on

Eagles's ong

memory

f

exhibited

ic-

tures.29

A

engthy

eviewlso

ppeared

n

the

Athenaeum,

ritten

by

the

poet, playwright,

nd critic

GeorgeDarley 1795-

1846),

who like

Eagles

was one of

thecritics

xplicitly

attacked

y

Ruskin. e too

objected

o bothRuskin'san-

guage

nd

his

mage

f he rtist. e ikened

he

writingtyle

to that

f

William azlitt:Boldness nd

brilliancy,igotry

amidst

iberality,

nd

great

cuteness

mid till

reater

lind-

ness'.30

urthermore,

uskin

sed the same

'burlesque

similitudesnd udicrousnalogies'hat ecriticizednperi-

odical riticism.31

arley

lso

quoted

he

passage

bout he

angel

f he

Apocalypse,sking hetorically

Whatmore

ight-

headed homontadeouldbe

scrawled,

xcept pon

walls,

or

hallooed,

xcept hrough

he

wards,

f

Bedlam,

han

he

annexed

assage resents

s?'

Remarking

hat uskin's or-

ship

of Turner s not

'blasphemous

because

it

is

crack-brained',

e endedhis

quotation

ith

he onclusion

to

Modern ainters

[Turner]

tands

pon

n

minence,

romhiche ooks ack

overhe niversef

God,

nd orwardverhe

enerations

f

men. et

very

orkf is

and,

e

history

f he

ne,

nd

lessono he ther.et ach xertion

f

is

mighty

ind eboth

hymn

nd

rophecy

adorationo he

eity,

revelationo

mankind

2

[Darley'stalics]

Darley houghthereason or heextravagancef the an-

guage

was lear:

Mr.

urner's

oxologist,

esiroushatis ast

aragraph

hould

out-doll he

est,

et

xhausted

y

is ntecedent

fforts,

as

here

rought

is

loquencep

o nunnatural

itch;

nd ence

cannot,

n

his

aroxysm

f

anegyric,

istinguish

etween

en-

uine eartfelt

raise

ndwild

allelujahs.

e

remindss f

Whirlingervish,ho t he nd f iswell-sustainedeel alls,

with

higher

ump

nd shriller

hriek,

nto

fit.33

The

mages

fTurnerhe

reviewers

bjected

o

-

especially

as the

ngel

f the

Apocalypse

r

as a maker f

hymn

nd

prophecyexpress

uskin'sision f

he rtists a Romantic

hero.Blessedwith

xtraordinaryenius,

e was

persecuted

by

cruelworld

hich

roperly

ppreciated

eitherheman

norhis alent.

his

onception

etermineduskin'siews

n

every espect.

Genius ssured

urner's

osition

upon

an

eminence,

rom hich e

looksbackover he universef

God and forwardver he

generations

f

men'.The

same

idea of the artist

etermined uskin's

method f

reading

Turner's

ictures.

ince,

s works f

enius,hey

ere

y

ef-

initionboth

hymn

nd

prophecy',

he

picturesnevitably

became a

history

f

the

universef

God]

and a lesson o

[thegenerationsfman]'.Ruskin'sonceptionf lesson'

was

very pecific.

'revelationo

mankind',

his esson

expounded

he

grandest

f

prophetic essages

rom ven

the humblest

aterial.

lthough

nclined o find

ymbolic

meanings

n

ll

rt,

uskinssumed hat e would ind hem

in

thework f a

prophet.

inally,

ritical

ostility,

fwhich

Ruskin ade

much,

roved

hat

he

painter

as

uperior

o

histime.

t also

gave

Ruskin

isrole s

defenderfmisun-

derstood

reatness.

The

stanceRuskin

dopted

n

Modern aintersof n so-

lated ritic

efending

nembattled

rtist,

s the ame ne

he

hadused

n

his

etterbout urnero

Blackwood's

s

well s

in

one ofhis arliest orks f

criticism.34hiswas n

essay

writtenor is

Oxfordutor

n

the

ame

year,

836,

n

mpas-

sioned, ven ntemperateefence f Sir Waltercott, ir

Edward

ulwer-Lytton,

ndLord

yrongainst:

Quaker

adies

haking

heireadst

us,

ldmaids

heirtickst

us,

rabbedld

entlemen

heiristst

us,

nd

glyby ourtesy

plain) oung

adiesheir

ongues

tus.

Here's

pretty

ess e

have

ot

nto

ruff,hrill,

queaking,

histling

the oicesf

multitudinous

iscordstonishur

erves:How alse ow

untenableow

hocking

owmmoralow

mpious '1:359)

Tomention

yron's

ride

fAbydos

aused he

dust

nd shes f riticism

to]

ecome

iving

eforeur

yes,

and murmurf

ndignation

risesrom

hemultitudesf

crawlinghings.

ut he ame ath

ouchedswithts

nger,

nd

our rain

s

burning,

ur earts

uivering,

ur oul sfillif

light.

Byron

as

great oet,

Ruskin

xplained,

ecausehe was

'mostmiserable

an',

is

poetry

wrung

utofhis

pirit y

that

gony'.

1:372-3)

Noneof

this

reatness,

owever,

as

apparent

o these

dogs

that

ay

at]

the

moon,

hese oul

snails hat rawl n

n

their

espicable

malice,...

heseGrub

Street

eptiles (1 375)

In

the

onception

f he

rtist,

ttitudeowardhe

period-

ical

critics,

nd use of

extravagant

motional

anguage,

Modern

ainters esembleshese wo

ssays

rom

836.

n

the

nterim,owever,

uskin ad

readThomas

arlyle,

ho

provided

im

with

larger

ntellectualrameworkor hese

ideas.35

hefirsteference

n

his

diary

o

Carlyleppeared

n

1841,

when e noted

eading

n Heroes nd

Hero-Worship

a series f ectures

ublished

n

1840.36t was from

hem,

according

o his dmirernd

biographer

G

Collingwood,

that uskineceivedhe deaofhismissionn ife:To ell he

63



5/12

Volume

,

No. The RITISH

RT

ournal

world hat

Art,

o

less than ther

pheres

f

ife,

ad

its

Heroes;

hat he

mainspring

f

their

nergy

as

Sincerity,

and he urden

f heir

tterance,

ruth.'37

arlyle's

ast nd

Present

published

n

1843,

lso nfluencedim.38

Modern ainters

resents

urner

s

a

Carlylean

rtist-

Hero. he mportancef sincerity'nd truth'nd theways

in

which urner

onquered

world hat reated

im

badly

follow

arlyle'sevelopment

f hehero

n

tsvarioustera-

tions.

Although

ach lecture discussed a different

manifestationf the

ype,

at bottom heGreat

Man,

s he

comes

from

he hand

of

Nature,

s

ever he ame kind

f

thing.

[and]

nly y

he

world's

eception

f

hem,

nd he

shapes hey

ssume,

re

they

o

immeasurably

iverse'.

he

first haracteristicf

Carlyle's

eroicman s

'

sincerity

a

deep, great, enuine incerity', sincerity

thatdoes not

depend

n

himself;

e cannot

elpbeing

incere '

urther,

'his

utterances

re... a kind f revelation"...

t

s from he

heart

f

he

world hat e comes'.39

egardless

f he

way

e

expresses

imself,

he

will

ead heworld nd ts aws'.

His

ultimate

urpose

sto reveal hat. sacred

mystery

hich e

more han thersives ver resent ith....withoutonsent

asked

f

him,

e

finds

imself

iving

n

t,

bound

o live

n

it'.40

n

all

of

hese

ways,

uskin'surnerits he

ype.

Ruskinlsowas nfluenced

yCarlyle's

elief

n

the ssen-

tial role

played

by

the unconscious n the

process

of

creation.41

his s

most

ullyxpressed

n

the econd olume

of

Modern

ainters,

hich

ppeared

n

1846.

n

a discussion

about he

magination,

uskin rote:

[Tjhere

s n

very

ordet own

y

he

maginative

indn

awfulnder-currentf

meaning,

nd videncendhadow

pon

it f he

eep laces

ut fwhichthas ome.t s ften

bscure,

often

alf-told;

or ewho rote

t,

n

his lear

eeing

f he

things

eneath,

ay

ave een

mpatient

f

etailed

nterpreta-

tion:

ut,

f

we hooseo

well

pon

t nd

race

t,

t

will

ead s

alwaysecurelyack o hat etropolisf he oul's ominion.

(4:252)

The clear

eeing

f

the

hings

eneath'

s

Carlyle's

revela-

tion...

from

he heart of the

world',

but the 'awful

under-current

f

meaning',

he

shadow',

eflect

uskin's

own

pproach

o

nterpretation

see

below).

The reviews

f

he econd olume fModern aintersat

least n so far s

they

oncerned

urner,

ostly epeated

the

bjections

hat adbeenmade bout hefirst.he crit-

ic

in

the

Athenaeum

again George Darley,

wrotethat

Ruskin's

style

f

loquence

oo much esembles

newspa-

per

critic's or ur taste.

ndeed,

were we not told our

authorwas an

Oxonian,

e should

onjecture

im

ne of

those lever

oung entlemen

alled

Reporters'.

eriodical

criticism,owever,

does

not,

ike

his,

pretend

tself

seraphic osanna uperioro allmockeries,uffooneries,

and farce. ould he

foulest-mouthed

ournal

isembogue

against

is

dol,

Mr.

urner,

ess

respectful

nd reckfulan-

guage

han isown

gainst

ertainncientmasters

?]'42

n

fact,

his

writingsreatly

esemble he

paintings

fhis

god-

pictorial;hey

re

full

f

Turnerismsurned ntowords

beauties,

garish

brilliancies,

ncomprehensibilities

nd

absurdities,

ll

mingled ogether'.

ut,

notwithstanding

whatwe have

aid,

nd

eft

nsaid,...

he book before s

serves

erusal,

eserves

raise....

etus

recommend...his

very erturbative

olume'.43

Even

espectful

eviews,

uch s that

bout oth olumes

that

ppeared

n

the

Foreign uarterly

eviewcriticized

what uskinaid bout urner.

gain,

uskin's

nterpretation

of the childrenailing oats n theforegroundfDido

Building arthage

as

ingled

ut s fantasticalnd trivial.

A

group

f

hildren

ay

ail

oy

oats

n

places y

no

means

64

maritime,

s we

have

seen

them

doing

n the

Cockney

Arcadia

f

Hampstead

eath'.44armore eriouswas

how

'our uthor

ppears

o us to be

wilfully

nd

perversely

lind

to

great

nd

glaring

efectsnthe

painter'.

urneris the

slave

f

rochets,

nd

f

antasticalmbitionso chieveman-

ifestmpossibilities'.he picturesurner xhibitedt the

Academy

hat

year

demonstrated once

again 'gross

instances f the falsehood nto which

his]

deficiencies

betray

im'.5

everal

ages

bout he

paintings

ndwith he

remarkhat t s to be 'lamentedhat heOxford raduate

should

ave

eendazzled

y

he antastic

ights

f his ccen-

tric

ainter'.46

On

19

December

851,

urner

ied,

nd the

ively

ritical

discourse bouthim nd his rt

uddenly

ameto an end.

Withouthe

egularppearance

f

pictures

n

xhibition,

he

reviewers

o

longer

ad reason o write bout

him.Now

t

wasRuskin ho

brought

he

ubject

f

Turnernto he

pub-

lic rena. hemost

mportant

orks ere he hirdecture

n

Lectures

on

Architecturend

Painting

delivered

n

Edinburgh

n

15

November

853,

nd

published

n

1854

(12:102-33); he third nd fourth olumes f Modern

Painters,

ublished

n

1856

5:1-417; :1-466);

series

f

books bout

pictures

n

theTurner

equest

hat

ppeared

between

856

nd

1859

13:81-388);

nd,

inally,

he ifth

nd

final olume f ModernPainters

7:1-460), ublished

n

I860.Thevarious

atalogues

f

he

Bequest resent

uskin's

views bout urner

n

relativelyystematic

ashion,

ut t

s

the ast olume f

Modern aintershat

rovides

ome f he

best-known

et-pieces

boutthe artist.

specially

uskin's

comparison

f the

boyhoods

f

Giorgione

nd Turner

became amoust once

7:374-81).

By

the

1850s,

Ruskin'sdeas had becomewell

enough

known o

be referredo

as

Ruskinism'.

n

arly

se

of the

term ccurred

n

1851,

when

Something

n Ruskinism

appeared, poem

nd an

essay riticizing

uskin's

ritingsabout

rchitecture,

ith

nly

catteredeferencesoTurner.47

Periodical eviewers ore nd

moreoften reated

everal

publications

t

once,

r

conceived

fhis

writings

s a whole.

In

many

rticles,

specially

hose hat

ppeared

n

themost

intellectuallyrestigiouseriodicals,

uskin'sdeas about

Turnerontinuedo be attacked

igorously.

mong

hebest

known f

hese

ummary

valuationsre wo

eryong, ery

negative

rticleshat

ppeared

n

1856,

ne

n

the

Quarterly

Review

y

Elizabeth,

ady

astlake

1809-1893)

see

the rti-

cle

by

om

evonshire

ones

lsewhere

n

his umberfThe

British rt

ournal

an arthistoriannd ritics well s wife

of Sir Charles ock

Eastlake,

he President

f

the

Royal

Academy,

nd the

other

n

the

Edinburgh

eview

y

the

music, rt,

nd theatreritic

mostly

or he

Athenaeum)

s

well swriter,enry othergillhorley1808-1872).efences

ofRuskinnthe ace f hese

cathing

ttacks

ppeared

few

monthsater

n

theNationalReview nd the Westminster

Review he atterrticle

yGeorge

liot.48

The

objections

were several.

First,

many xpressed

incredulity

t Ruskin'slaim hat e hadrescued urner

rom

scorn

nd

solation. ne

of

hemost orcefultatementsas

made

by

CharlesRobert

eslie,

painter

nd friend

f

Turner's,

ho

wrote hat uskin'secturet

Edinburgh:

. draws

touchingicture

f

he

eglect

nd oneliness

n

which

Urneried.

his

icture,

owever,

ustosemuchf ts

intended

ffecthent

sknown

hatucheclusionas urner's

own ault.o

eath-bedould emoreurrounded

y

ttentive

friendshan

is

might

ave

een,

ad e hoseno et

is

riends

know

heree ived. ehad

onstantly

inner

nvitations,

hich

he eldomvennswered,utppearedt he ake f henviter

ornot s t uitedim. is ettersereddressedohimthis



6/12

The RITISH

RT

ournal

olume

,

No.

house

n

Queen

nne

treet;

ut hewritersevernew here

he

eally

esided.49

Periodicalritics

greed.

newrote hatTurnerommanded

and received

arge rices

or he

productions

f his

pencil;

hisworks ere

onstantly

efore he

ye

of

the

public;

nd

he died at an advanced ld age'.50Chorley emarked:

'Strange

s it

may

eem o

Mr.

Ruskin,

urner as

his

English

appreciators

nd his

English ublic rior

o the

year

846.'

Further,

e

added,

he rtistnot

nly

ived o see hisfame

rise bove

ulgar

riticism,

ut

n

the ourse f

long

ife,

e

realised

large

ortune

y

his

works. herewas

no cruel

neglect'.

everal ritics

uggested

hat t was Ruskin

ho

needed

Turnernd not the reverse.

horley

as one of

them:

Mr.

uskin

wes

great

ealmore

than

urnerould

owe o

him]

o

the

elebrity

e has ontrivedo

borrow rom

so

great

n artists

Mr.

Turner.'51

critic or

lackwoos

Magazine

was

disgusted:

His

fulsome

dulationfTurners

simply

idiculous.urner'same

wes s much o

Mr.

Ruskin

as

Shakespeare's

oes to

Mr.

harles

ean.'52

ReviewersrguedhatRuskin ascreatingn apotheosis

of

Turner',

or

which e erect

ed]

a

pile

of

dead

painters'

coffinsn which o rear

p

his

tatue.

he

temple

hich e

builds or he dolof his

magination

e wouldhave sur-

rounded

ith

ailings,

ike he

King

f

Dahomey's

alace,

nd

on

every

ail he kull

f

dead

rival'.53hisdestructionf

the

reputation

nd workof other

painters,

ften

using

extremelyegative

anguage,

till eemed s

objectionable

s

what Ruskin

hought

bout

Turner.

f,

wrote Walter

Thornbury

n the AthenaeumRuskin

imply

aid that

'though

onest,

igorous,

nd

dewy,

Constable]

ook

a

restricted

arochial

iew

f

English

ature,

ndwasconven-

tional nd dull

n

texture

nd

treatment',

he

reader ould

accept

is

pinion.

nstead,

e rails

n

this

wholesale,

ntol-

erant,

oolish

way'.54

ronically,

t was the same Walter

Thornburyhopublishedhe iographyfTurnerodepen-

dent

pon

Ruskin

ust

wo

years

ater.

Disagreement

ithRuskin

s

interpretations

f

the

pic-

tures,

uggested

y

ome

critics

uring

he

1840s,

ecame

vociferous.

hornbury

as blunt:

[Ruskin]

itsdown nd

invents

houghts

n

buildings

nd

pictures....

urner

as

never

o much Turnerite

s

Mr.

Ruskin'.

is

readings

depended

pon

his

supersubtle,

ophistical,

antastic

mind,

which

s]

fond

f mall nd ntricatehreadsf

llegory'.55

n

a review

f he iftholume

f

Modern

aintersFG

Stephens

sharply

riticized

he

meaning

uskin

ound

n

thetitles

f

Turner's

ictures:

The

pinion,

o

gratuitous,

hat urner'shoice

f itlesor is

pictures,

o

frequently

aken

rom

reek

ythology,

admore

n

it han eetsheye,ndwas oeticallyonnectedith is

knowledge

fGreek

raditions,

ouldmaze

hat arvellous

artist.56

The dea that

uskin as not

ustwrong,

ut hat e

found

things

n Turner's

ictures

hat he rtist ad

not

ntended,

gained upport

rom n

often-repeated

necdote.

Various

contemporaries

laimed o have

heardTurner emark

hat

Ruskin

knows

great

eal

more bout

my ictures

han

do.

He

puts hings

nto

my

head,

nd

points

ut

meanings

n

them hat neverntended'.57

uskinddressed

he umor

n

thefourtholume fModern ainters

'Foolish

eople

re

fond f

epeating

story

hich as

gone

he ull ound

f he

artistical

orld,

hat

urner,

ome

day,

omewhereaid

to

somebody

time, lace,

r

person

ever

eing

scertainable),

that discovered

nhis

pictureshings

hich e did himself

notknowwere here.'f hiswastrue, uskinoncluded,t

was becauseTurner

neither as aware

f thevalue

f

the

truths e had

seized,

nor understood he nature f the

instincthat ombined

hem'.

6:274-5)

he

story

as

flatly

denied

y

Ruskin'sriendheRevdWilliam

ingsley

ho,

n

an

appendix

othe eventh dition fthe

atalogue

fthe

Fine

Art

ociety

xhibition,

oted

hatNo

greater

onsense

can be uttered han hestoryf Turner'sayinghatMr.

Ruskin aw

things

n his

pictures

hathe

himself

ad not

thought

f....

I]

must avebeen nventedor he

purpose

of

disparaging

othTurnernd Ruskin

y

some

one who

knew either'. note

by

Ruskin

ppeared

t

the

bottom f

the

page:

I'm

o

glad

f his it.

Nothing

ver

uts

memore

"beside

myself"...

han his

ulgar

ssertion'

13:585-6).

n

fact,

twas

repeated

y

people

whoknew othmen.

This

ore

difference

than he

between

interpretation

Ruskin

of

and

specific

his ritics

details

consists

in

partic-

of

more han he

nterpretation

f

pecific

etails

n

partic-

ular

pictures.

t lies

n

the basicmethod

f

understanding

them.WhatRuskin ook to

be intended

ubject, pening

throughreading

f

ymbols

o

largerphere,

most rt rit-

ics understoods rhetorical.his

point

fviewwas not he

resultf changenTurner'sicturesnhis astyearsrthe

superficiality

fexhibitioneviews. he

approach

ad been

present

ince he

1810s,

rticulated

y

ome

f hemost

er-

ceptive

bservers f the art. Rather han

nterpret

he

Carthaginianictures

f hemid-1810ss

allegories

fmod-

ern

Britain,

or

xample,

lmost ll riticsook he

ubjects

o

be evidence

f

Turner'srtisticmbition.

he revieweror

theSun almost

ertainly

heveteran

ournalist

nd editor

John

aylor

1757-1832),

sedthe

anguage

f raditionalrt

criticism

henhe wrote hat ido

Building

arthage

is

n

the

grand

tyle,

nd theeffects

roduced orrespond

ith

the lassical

ignity

fthe

ubject'.

he revieweror he t.

James's

hronicle

using

different

ocabulary,

escribed

ts

greatness

n

terms

f

ffectather

han

tyle:

The

ye

rests

but

momentn

[the ainting]

eforets ranscendent

ual-

ities ompletelyccupyhemind,nd t s felt o be oneof

those sublime

roductions

hich s seldommet with'.58

Similarly,

heDecline

of

the

Carthaginian

mpire

Turner

Bequest,

ate

Britain;

&

J

135),

xhibited

n

1817,

was an

ideal

omposition

pon larger

cale'.

n

it,

wrote nother

critic,

urnerembodied hewhole

pirit

f

Virgil'soetical

description

f

he

vent,

ts wful

randeur,

nd

olemnity

f

effect'.59

Even

hemost

iterary

f

he xhibition

eviewers

William

Hazlitt,

ay,

r William

hackeray

or

sophisticated,

ympa-

thetic

iewersuch s the rtists

ohn

andseernd

William

Henry yne both

fwhom lso knew urner

ersonally)

id

not

uggest

symbolicnterpretation

or heseworks.

gain

and

again,

ritics

nsisted hat like

Claude,

urner

akes

subject

rom

ythology

r ncient

istory

s a mere ame

o

produce'.60ome found articularitles retentious,ug-

gesting

mbitiouslaims hat he

pictures

id

notfulfill.

n

1814,

the critic

or the St.

James's

Chronicle

ttacked

Turner's

ido and Aeneas

Turnerequest,

ate

ritain;

&

J

129):

To attach uch

pompous

name... to a

picture

n

which

few ittlend

vilely

rawn

igures

re cattered

ver

the

foreground

f a

landscape,

eserves

trong

eproba-

tion.'61 Other

titles seemed

arbitrary,

ithout

any

relationship

owhat

ould e seen

n

he

work.

n

1828,

ido

Directing

he

quipment

f

he

leet,

r The

Morningf

he

Carthaginian

mpire Turner equest,

ate

Britain;

&

J

241)

wascalled

ust

a

fancy

itle

o a

fancy icture'.

n

1836,

the reviewer

or

he

Spectator

rote hat

uliet

nd her

Nurse

might

s wellhave een alled

nything

lse'.

n

1843,

Thackerayeclared bouthishumorouslyarbledersionf

the title

of

Light

nd Colour

(Goethe's

Theory)

the

Morning fter

he

Deluge

-

Moses

Writing

heBook

of

65



7/12

The RITISH

RT

ournal

olume

,

No.

Genesis

Himer equest,

ate

Britain;

&

J

405),

This

may

not e the xact

itle,

ut twill o as well s another.'nthe

next

ear,

critic or he

New

Monthly agazine

described

Turner'sabels' s

ludicrouslynmeaning'.inally,

n

1849,

critic emarked

n

the

Art

ournal

hatHimer follows s

nearlys he can the good ldplan" f SirWalter]cott

that f

electing

itles,

hich

hall,

merely

s

tides,

onvey

nothing

o the...reader.'62

The fundamentalifferenceetween he wo

pproaches

can be seen

n

the

responses

o The

Fighting

Temeraire',

Tugged

oHerLastBerth oBe Broken

p Himer

equest,

National

allery,

ondon;

&

J

377).

The

painting,

lmost

universallyraised

when t was shown t the

Academy

n

1839,

went

n

view

n

Hirner's

allery

fter he lose

of

he

exhibition.63

any

f

hose

writinguring

he

1850s,

nclud-

ing

Ruskin,

ad eenthe

painting

t the

Academy,

nd ome

hadwrittenbout t tthat

ime,

nd o the iscussionanbe

said o have xtended ver wo ecades.

ypical

f

he ver-

whelminglyositive

eviewst

originally

eceiveds one that

appeared

n

the

Morning

hronicle

Theres

omething

n he

ontemplation

f uchscene hich

affects

s

lmosts

deeply

s

the

ecay

f noble uman

eing.

It s

mpossible

o

aze

t he emainsf his

agnificent

nd en-

erableessel ithout

ecollecting,

ouse heworksf

ampbell,

'howmuchhe as

one,

nd ow

muchhe

as

ufferedor er

country.'

n

his

trikingerformance

r. imeras

ndulged

is

love

f

trong

nd

owerfully-contrasted

oloursith

reat

aste

and

ropriety.

gorgeous

orizon

oetically

ntimateshathe

sun f he emeraires

etting

n

lory.

The

reviewer

or he

Athenaeum ent venfurthern

the

directionf

symboliceading,lthoughpecifically

denti-

fying

t s a fanciful ode f

nterpretation':

A

ortf acrificial

olemnity

s

given

o he

cene,

y

he lood-

red

ight

ast

pon

he

aters,

y

he ound

escending

un,

nd

byhe alerleamromhe aintisingrescentoon,hichil-

vershe

majestic

ull,

nd

he

owering

asts,

nd he

aper

spars

f he oomed

essel,

liding

n

he ake f he team-boat

-

whichatter

stillollowing

his ancifulode f

nterpretation)

almost

ives

o he

icture

he

xpression

f uch

malignant

alacrity

s

might

enefitn

xecutioner.64

Both f hese

ritics,

ikemost f heir

olleagues,

ade he

process

f ssociationentralotheir

eading

f

he

ainting.

They egan

with

contemplation'

f he

remains

f

his

mag-

nificent

ndvenerableessel' nd henwent n

to the etails

andcolour

hat

hey

elt nhanced he entimentf he

pic-

ture.

Nearly

ll of hereviewers entionedhe unset s an

appropriateymbol

or he

Temeraireand

many

emarked

on

the

poignantuxtaposition

f

he

grand

masted

hip

with

the teamboat.nlynthe nterpretationfthe olourwas

there ome

disagreement.

he critic or the

Morning

Chronicle oted hat

he

gorgeous

orizons

oetically

nti-

mates

hat he un ofthe

Temeraire

s

setting

n

glory'.

or

theAthenaeum's

eviewer,

y

contrast,

he

ight

dded

a

'sort f

acrificial

olemnity

othe cene'.

n

both

ases,

ow-

ever,

he

process

f

reading

he

picture

s

the same.The

viewermuses n an

nherentlyuggestive

heme,

ith is r

her

reflectionsirected

y

few etails n the

picture.

he

emphasis

s not on a

particularnterpretation

f

each ele-

ment,

ut athernthe

pleasure

f

being

ware f

he

way

n

which ne

thinguggests

nother.t s ess hefinal esult

any

ort f

fixed

meaning

than he

process

f

viewing

hat

delights.

his s

the

pproach y

which

he

picturesque

ad

been

defined

ome

50

years

efore.65

Ruskin'spproach asdecisivelyifferent.e considered

the

ighting

emerairecentral ork

n

Hirner'sareer. he

66

most

mportant

iscussions f t occur nthree

laces

n

Modern ainters

nd

in

a

single

xtended

escription

n

Notes n the iirner

allery

t

Marlborough

ouse

1856.

n

the

former,

e called

he

painting,long

with lavers nd

Juliet

nd her Nurse

perfect

orks,

qual

to

works

y

Phidias rLeonardo,incapable...f ny mprovementon-

ceivable

y

humanmind'.

3:248)

As

n

Slaversthe olours

of

the

Fighting

emeraire

re

symbolic.

imer hose the

'deeply

rimsoned

unset'

ky,

he olour f

blood,

o ndi-

cate the circumstancesf

death,

specially

he deathof

multitudes'

6:381).

Furthermore,

ccording

o

Ruskin,

he

work ad

personal

meaning

orHimer. t

represented

he

fulfillmentf vow

madewhile e was a small

oyplaying

among

he

hips

f he

London arbor:

Trafalgar

hall avets ributef

memory

ome

ay.

hich,

accordingly,

s

ccomplished

once,

ithll ur

might,

orts

death;

wice,

ithll ur

might,

orts

ictory;

hrice,

n

ensive

farewello he ld

Tmraireandwith

t,

o hatrderf

hings.

(7:379)

It swith hese emarkshatRuskinmade hepaintingnto

something

ther

han

suggestive

epresentation

f con-

temporary

ubject.

o iken

crimsonunset o

blood,

nd

thus

ead he

painting

s a scene f

death,

oes beyond

he

associative

leasures

f he

icturesque.

herevieweror he

Athenaeumlso

called he

ight

blood-red',

utfor

im

he

colour

nly ave

solemn

mood

o

the cene and ven hat

wasofferedfter

ue

apology

orthis anciful ode f nter-

pretation'.

uskin,

y

contrast,

harged

he colourwith

specific eaning.

y ndicating

he circumstancesf

death',

it becomes

key

hat

urns ne

thing

nto nother. ather

than nhance

ictorial

lements ith

dditional

esonances,

Ruskin ransformed

hem.With

roper nterpretation,

he

hidden

meaning

ecomesmanifest.t s theresult nd not

the

process

hatmatters.

The inkingfHirner'saintingo a childhood ow s also

an

interpretative

ct that

ransformshe

picture.

irst,

he

vow tselfs

Ruskin'snvention.hree

ictures

f

Trafalgar,

representing

hedeath f

Nelson,

hebattle

tself,

nd

the

retirementf the

ship,

constitute is

only

evidence

f

Hirner's

romise.

n

fact,

hehistoriesf

he

paintings

ake

itclear

hat

hey

re not

related.66he dea of

motivating

vow

hanges

he

nature f he

painting,

owever.nstead f

being

response

o

contemporaryubject

f bvious

atri-

otic nd

poetic

ppeal,

he

Fighting

emeraireecomes

profoundlyersonal

tatement.

imer,

great

manhimself

and

in

Ruskin's

iew) lready

ascent

n

his

greatness

s a

boy, aid

tributef

memory'

o

great

vent

n

Britishis-

tory.

t

s, hen,

work reated rom nexus fhistoricalnd

personal orces,

nd t results rom

imer

onfronting

he

greatness

f nother. he actual istoricalircumstancesf

the

particular

aintingslay

o role t all.

The more xtended

escription

f

he

ighting

emeraire

in

Notes n theTurner

allery

eveals uskin's ethod f

interpretation

ven

more

learly.

he

nalysisegins

ith

n

explanation

f

the

picture

s the ast ne Himer ever xe-

cutedwith is

erfect ower'

whenhis

xecution

as till

'as

firm

nd

faultlesss

in

middleife'. his

valuation

pens

the

way

or he

irstfRuskin'sransformationsf

he

work.

In

his

view,

irner's

period

f

entral

ower', pened

with

Ulysses eriding olyphemus

Homer's

Odyssey

Himer

Bequest,

National

allery,

ondon;

&

J

330),

xhibitedt

the

Academy

n

1829,

and closed with the

Fighting

Temeraire.aired

y

Ruskin,

he wo

pictures

ecome

ym-

bolsofHirner'siography.ach s, inallthe ircumstances

of

ts

ubject,

nconsciously

llustrativefhisown ifen ts

triumph'.67

s the

unconsciously'

ndicates,

irner's

nten-



8/12

Volume

,

No. The RITISH

RT

ournal

tion s not n ssue

here. ut t s

typical

fRuskin's

pproach

that his imitation

either

hanges

hecourse f his

argu-

ment or essens ts

passion.

isdiscussion

oes

on:

I

do

not

uppose

hat

urner,

eep

shis

ye-thoughts

ften

were,

ad

ny

nder

eaning

n

itherf hese

ictures:

ut,

s

accuratelys he irstets orthis scapeo he ildrightness

of

Nature,

o

eign

midstllher

appypirits,

odoes heast

set orthis

eturning

o ie

y

he horef he hames:he old

mists

athering

ver is

trength,

nd ll

men

rying

ut

gainst

him,

nd

ragging

he ld

fighting

mraireout f heir

ay,

with

im,

uliginousontumely

This ection nds

with n additional eason orTurner o

havehad a

special

motional

ngagement

ith he

ubject:

'Sympathy

ith eamennd

hips'

adbeen one of he

gov-

erning

motions

n

Turner'smind

throughout

is life'.

Furthermore,

twas the ast f

group

f

pictures',

all llus-

trativef ne

hauntingonception,

f he entral

truggle

t

Trafalgar'.13:168-70)

hus,

y mplication

t

east,

he hild-

hood

vow

mentioned

n

Modern ainters

ppears

gain.

The econd alf fRuskin'siscussionxplainshepicture

as themost

athetic

hat

was ver

ainted'

f

subject

not

visiblynvolving

uman

ain'.Only

t a few

oints

oes the

description uggest

what the

painting ctually

hows.

'[T]hose

ides hatwerewetwith he

ong

unletsf

English

life-blood,

ike

ress-planks

t

vintage,

leamingoodly

rim-

son down o the ast nd clash f he

washing

oam'

might

be

read

s an

maginativenterpretation

f hereddish

low

cast

y

he

unlight.

imilarly,

he

pale

masts',

mentioned

y

many

eviewers

f he

picture,stayed

hemselves

p against

the

war-ruin,

haking

ut heir

nsigns hrough

he

hunder,

till he ail nd

ensign rooped steep

n the

death-stilled

pause

of

Andalusian

ir,

urning

ith ts witness-cloudf

human ouls t rest'.One of the

concluding

entences

s:

'Nevermore hall unset

ay olden

obe

n

her,

or

tarlight

tremblen thewaves hat art t her liding'13:170-72).t

no

point,

owever,

s the

descriptionlearly

inked o

specif-

ic visual etails

ound

n

the

painting.

Although

uskin'smethod

begins

with

n

associative

process,

t nds

by ransforming

hat

rocess

nto

omething

else.Withoutclear ense f he

bject

rview hat

nspired

his

houghts,

e cannot

articipate

n

leisurelyxploration

of

he

ubject.

nstead,

mphasis

hiftso the onclusion

f

the

process

nd,

with his

hange,

nterpretation

ecomes

meaning.

ithouthe

lexibilitymplied y

sense f

process

or the

uggestion

f lternate

eadings,

uskin's

xplication

becomes he

single,

rue

understanding.

urthermore,

e

cannot

hallenge

t,

incehis

nterpretativeescription

as

effectivelyeplaced

he

bject

f

nalysis.68

Ruskin'snterpretationlso ppears

n

his

elling

fTurner's

biography,

s in the amous

escription

fTurner's

oyhood,

which

ppears

n

he

ast olume fModern ainters

Nearhe outh-west

ornerf ovent

arden,

square

rick

it

orwellsformed

y

close-set

lockf

ouses,

o he ack

in-

dows fwhicht dmitsfew

ays

f

ight.

ccesso he ottom

of t s btainedut

fMaiden

ane,

hrough

ow

rchway

nd

an ron

ate;

nd

f

ou

tand

ong nough

nderhe

rchway

o

accustom

ouryes

o he arkness

oumay

ee n heeft and

a narrow

oor,

hich

ormerlyave uiet

ccesso

respectable

barber's

hop,

fwhichhe ront

indow,

ooking

nto aiden

Lane,

s tillxtant...

moreashionable

eighbourhood,

t s

said,

ightyears

go

han ow never

ertainly

cheerfulne.

...

[0]f

hings

eautiful,

esides en nd

women,

usty

sunbeams

p

r ownhe treetn ummer

ornings;eep

ur-

rowedabbage-leavest he reengrocer's;agnificencef

oranges

n

wheel-barrowsoundhe

orner;

nd hames'hore

within

hree

inutes'ace.

None f hese

hingserylorious;

he

est, owever,

hat

England,

t

eems,

as henble o

provide

or

boy

f

ift.

(7:375-6)

In

spirit

nd

n

fact,

uskin's

ccount ontrasts

harply

ith

the

presentation

f Turner's hildhood hat

ppears

n

biographiesublisheduringhe1850s.One,publishedn

1860,

onveniently

ummarizeshe most

mportant

arlier

authors,

ll

ofwhom

ad

known

urner:

Some

inety

ears

go,

hen oventarden

as fashionable

part

f he

own,

twas amedorts

erruquiers

orhair-

dressers,

nd

ealers

n

rticlesf ressnd

ersonal

rnament,

and he

treetsererowdedith

arriages

t

hopping

ours..

Theres videncef his

elebrity

n he

ign

f heWhiteeruke

in

Maiden-lane,

twhich

odged

oltaire,

ho as

n

ngland

three

ears.

As

ou

roceed

hrough

aiden-lane,

eartswest

nd,

n he

right

and,

pposite

he

yderCellars,opened

bout

730,)

s

small

aved lace,

ith

n rched

ntrance,

amed

and-court;

and

ere,

t he ornerf he

ourt,

n he ouse o.

6,

ived

Williamurner,ho dressedigs,havedeards,ndn he ays

of

ueues,

op-knots,

nd

air-powder,

aitedn he

entlemen

of he

ardent

heir

wn

ouses,

ndmade

moneyy

is

rade,

thenmore

lourishing

rofession

hanhatf hair-dresserf

the

resentay".

When,

r

n

what

ay,

he

oung

urnerirstvincedove or

art,

o nehas old s....

W]hen

sked,

she

the ather]

ften

was, Well,urner,

hatsWilliamo e?" ewould

eply,

ith

look f

elight,

Williams

going

obe

painter."

e

was,

ccord-

ingly,rovided

ith atercoloursnd

rushes,

nd he atheras

proud

o how

is

ustomershe

oy's

oloured

rawings.

e

soon vincedkill

eyond

hese

oyish

xercises,

ndwas

employed

o olour

rintsy

ohn

aphael

mith,

he

rayon-

painter

ndmezzotinto

ngraver,

ho

ived

n

Maiden-lane,

nd

nextn

King-street,

ovent

arden.notherf mith'solourers

at hiseriodas homasirtin.and romimtwas hat

Turner

cquired

is ove or

andscape-painting.^

Timbs ddedthat he rtist homas tothardwent ne

day

to

Turner,

hehair-dresser's

hop

n

Maiden-laneo

get

his

hair

ut,

when hebarber emarkedo

him n

conversation,

"My

on s

going

o be a

painter'".70

he sense f ommuni-

ty,

f

parentalupport,

f onnectionso a

larger

orldnto

which urnerould

advance,

re so

persuasive

n Timbs's

account hat t s a

surprise

o encounter uskin'sersion

f

this ame

period

n

Turner'sife

n

n

appendix

tthe ndof

Timbs's

ook.71

uskin's

ark alehas noneof he

enseof

possibility,

one f hehuman

imension,

f he

iographies

of he

850s.

he dditionfRuskin'samous

et-piece,

ow-

ever,

s

evidence

f how

quickly

t

gained

n

audience

nd

replacedhe lder ccount.72

Ruskin'siews eceived ew ttentionfterhe

ublication

of Walter

hornbury's

ife f

J.M.W

urner

n

1862.

3

His

ambition,

hornbury

rote,

as to

paint

heman s

I

really

believe e

was;

n

mage

f

gold

with

lay

eet'. o that

nd,

he wove

ye-witness

ccounts,etters,tories,

its

f

history,

andoverblown

escriptiveassages

nto

rambling

ndwild-

ly

unreliable

ributeo the

ate,

reat

Mr. urner.here s no

question

hat uskins a central

igure

n

Thornbury's

ook.

The uthor

mphasized

othRuskin's

pproval

f he

roject

and the

help

he

gave along

the

way.

n

his

preface,

Thornbury

tated he

hope

that:

My

iewsf urner'sife

aygree

ithhose eld

y

he

reat

exponent

f is

enius.

.. have

ought

ot o

put

im n

high-

er

r

owerhronehanhat hereonhe enius

f is

reat

exponent

as

lreadylaced

im,

ut athero

ather

resh

proofs

f is

enius

rom

he

ecordsf is

ersonal

istory.7^

67



9/12

The RITISH

RT

ournal

olume

,

No.

Revealingly,

hornbury

on remarkable

egree

f

pproval

from uskin.

lthough

uskinalledworkdreadful'

n

let-

ter o his

father,

articularly

amenting

ts

ravesty

f

factual

accuracy,

e added hat

in

Thornbury's

iew f he

man,

he

book s better han

expected'. 13:554nl)

WhatRuskin

meant,learly,s that hornburylosely ollowed is own

descriptions

f Turner.

hus,

for

xample,

he

biography

quoted

a

passage

fromModern

Painters

bout Turner's

nature

exactly

he

kind

f characterizationhat ad been

criticizedo

severely:

Imagine

hattwas or man o ive

eventyears

n

his

ard

world,

ithhe indesteartnd he oblestntellectf is

ime,

and

everomeet ith

single

ordr

ay

f

ympathy,

ntile

felt imself

inking

ntohe

rave.

romhe ime e

knew is

true

reatness,

ll he orld as

gainst

im. eheld is wn ut

it ould ot ewithout

oughness

f

earing

nd

ardening

f

the

emper,

f

ot f he eart.o ne

nderstood

im,

o ne

trusted

im,

nd

veryone

riedut

gainst

im.

This

mage

of 'soul

[tempered

y

he hills f

ife]

nto

stuffarderhanteel', sThornburyrote t notheroint-

appears hroughout

is

biography,

ith nd withouthe

sanctionfRuskin's ords.75

Thornbury

lso followed uskin

n

discoveringroof

f

Turner'slienation rom he world

n

the

subjects

f his

paintings.

he

omplicated

hemes

fhis

ateworks esulted

from

isgust

nd

despair

t the

way

n

which e wastreated.

Had he been

encouraged

n his

early

work,

urner ould

havecontinued

roducing

ccessible

ictures.

nstead,

e

created new

tyle:

Wonderful

roofs

f

Turner's]ower,

[the

ate

paintings]

ad

value f

riddles,

xperiments,

nd

prophecies.'hey

eflectedis

peculiar

ove f

mystification

which

was]

he esult f

uspicious

eserve'. he

names

nd

subjects

fhis

ateworks ere ntendedo

puzzle

ndtease

the

public'.76

Finally,ikeRuskin, hornburynvented pisodes in

Turner'sife.

ere, owever,

he ffects

very

ifferent.hile

Ruskin'snventions

ransformurnernto n embodimentf

the

reat

rtist,

hornbury'sarely

ise

bove he evel f

os-

sip.

For

xample, hornburyuoted

Ruskin'samous and

fictitious

description

fTurner's

iscovery

fhisvocation

as a

landscape ainter:

At

ast,

ortune ills hat he ad's

true ife hall

egin.'77hornbury,y

ontrast,

ntroduced

series f

unhappy

ove

ffairsnto he

painter's

ife. lues

n

the

writing

ometimeslert

he reader o this

process

f

invention.

pisodes

n

Thornbury'siography

re intro-

duced

byphrases

uch s With he

ye

ofthe

magination,

wemust

ierce.

the arkness'r

Wemust

magine'.78any

other

imes, owever,

he ncidents

re woven

eamlessly

into

he ext.

his s

one of hemost

rustratingspects

f he

biography

ormodern istorians.

Thornbury'sife f

J.M.W

urner

ppeared

n

November

1861 and was reviewed lmost

immediately

n

the

Athenaeum.

ther

periodicals

ollowed.

ll

of the

major

reviewers

arshly

riticizedhe

contradictions,

epetitions,

and

unsupportedllegations

hat iddle

hornbury's

arra-

tive. he critic

or

heAthenaeumfor

xample,

tated hat

the uthor

unwisely

ttempted

o emulate

n

anguage

hat

period

f he

great ainter's

areerwhen

obriety

nd taste

werecast to the

winds,

nd when hatwhich

was

florid,

extravagant,ncomplete

nd

experimental

albeit oetical)

tooktheir

lace'.79

he

account

n

the

Quarterly

eview

written

yLady

astlake,

as venmore

egative.

fter

ot-

ing

hat

hornbury

ad

published

t

leastninebooks nd

numerousrticlesuringhe ime eclaimed ohave evot-

ed to

Turner,

hecontinued:

But hatever

ay

e hemeritsfMr.

hornbury's

ther

roduc-

68

tions,

isLifef urner's

imply

hemost

eplorableiece

f

book-making

hat as

ver allen

n ur

way.

n

certain

ense,

indeed,

r.

hornbury's

ccountf is

perations

ay

e or-

rect,

orhe ook oes xhibit

omething

f he

pirit

f esearch

of Paris

hiffonier,

ho

oes

bout ith is asketnd

icksp

everyit f ilthnd inselhatomesnhisway;ut ornyeal-

ly

ccurate

nvestigation

f

acts

orthy

obe

known,

or

ny

useful

udgmentspon

acts

hatre

scertained,

emust ot

look oMr.

hornbury.80

The reviewersurther

bserved,

s

they

ad aboutRuskin's

books,

hat hefacts f

Turner'sareer id not ubstantiate

Thornbury's mage

of

persecuted genius. Ironically,

Thornbury

imself

rovided

lenty

f

contradictory

vi-

dencewith is

many

tories boutTurner's

ame, ortune,

andfriends.

Criticsadnodoubt hat uskin

rovided

he

uthority

or

Thornbury's

nterpretation.

he

critic

or

heAthenaeum

wrote:

It

has een

he

ashionf ate o

peak

f urnersone

neglected

tillpowerfulnd oeticaldvocateompelledhe ublico

attendohis

xcellencies,-

hatre he acts?

nly

he

ecorded

praise

f

ontemporaries

romhe

ery

omente ook ank

among

hem -

nly

nehundrednd

orty

housand

ounds

amassed

uring

is ifetime

The review

n

the

Quarterly

eview eiteratedhis: It s a

favoriteoctrine othwithMr.Ruskin nd Mr.

Thornbury,

that urner as

deeplywronged y

he

world,

nd that n

the world is faults

ught

o be

charged.

We

express

ur

entire isbelieff uch

theory.'81

incefactualubstantia-

tionof

their

mage

f Turner as

impossible,

uskin

nd

Thornbury

esorted o what reviewer orBlackwood's

called

webs

of

cunning rgument

nd

specious leading'.

Ruskin's

ommand f

anguage ave

him

n

extraordinary

advantage:

Mr.

uskin,

imselfman f

enius,

nows

ow o

nvelop

he

doubtfuloul

of

urner]

which,

ndeed,

edeclares

lainly

e

did

ot

nderstand,

n

hemistnd

osy

apours

f he elestial

gift

hich

ccompanied

t. But hen

aylight

nd actsre

poured

old nd

illingpon

he

isionaryicture

whenuck-

less

Mr.

hornburyuffs

side hose

plendid

ists.all naware

of

he

avoc e s

making,

he]

evealshat

habbyeality

below.82

The

response

o the

engthyritique

n

theAthenaeum

s

astonishing:

stream

f

angry

etters rom

hornbury's

sources

enying

he

validity

f he nformationttributedo

them. he

respondents

nclude uch

igures

s the

ublisher

Lovell

eeve,

he ollectornd ndustrialist

enry

'Connell,

and Turner's

ngraver

nd old friend

ohn ye.

All

ategori-

cally

enied he ruth f n assortmentffacts nd stories

found

n

thebook.

On

ruskins turner the making of a romantic hero

Documents