DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61217#0015
INTRODUCTION.
3
it held that if only the world would leave opposing
egoisms absolutely free, and would give self-interest the
opportunity of perfection, a violent, hostile, mechanical
equity and justice would come to pass. Only let men
resolve never to relax or cede for the sake of forbearance
or compassion, and the Manchester system would be
found to work for good. In i860 it was much in
favour of this doctrine that itself and all its workings
were alike unbeautiful to mind and eye. Men might
regret the vanishing beauty of the world, but they
were convinced that it was the ugly thing that was
“ useful,” and that, as it did not attract, it would not
deceive. Before the closing of the century all men
changed their mind. But when Ruskin warned them
that scientifically their “ orthodox ” economy made for
an intolerable poverty, that ethically it aimed at making
men less human, and that practically it could never,
while man was no less than man, have the entire and
universal freedom of action upon which its hope of
ultimate justice depended; when he recommended a
more organic and less mechanical equity — he was
hooted to silence.
Ruskin first commended the rejoining together of art
and handicraft, put asunder in the decline of the “ Re-
naissance ”; and for this too he was generally derided,
because men were sure that the ugly thing was the
useful and the comfortable. John Ruskin would show
them that it was neither of these, but they would have
it that he was showing them merely that it was ugly.
3
it held that if only the world would leave opposing
egoisms absolutely free, and would give self-interest the
opportunity of perfection, a violent, hostile, mechanical
equity and justice would come to pass. Only let men
resolve never to relax or cede for the sake of forbearance
or compassion, and the Manchester system would be
found to work for good. In i860 it was much in
favour of this doctrine that itself and all its workings
were alike unbeautiful to mind and eye. Men might
regret the vanishing beauty of the world, but they
were convinced that it was the ugly thing that was
“ useful,” and that, as it did not attract, it would not
deceive. Before the closing of the century all men
changed their mind. But when Ruskin warned them
that scientifically their “ orthodox ” economy made for
an intolerable poverty, that ethically it aimed at making
men less human, and that practically it could never,
while man was no less than man, have the entire and
universal freedom of action upon which its hope of
ultimate justice depended; when he recommended a
more organic and less mechanical equity — he was
hooted to silence.
Ruskin first commended the rejoining together of art
and handicraft, put asunder in the decline of the “ Re-
naissance ”; and for this too he was generally derided,
because men were sure that the ugly thing was the
useful and the comfortable. John Ruskin would show
them that it was neither of these, but they would have
it that he was showing them merely that it was ugly.