ruskins turner the making of a romantic hero
TRANSCRIPT
-
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/ -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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-
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
7/23/2019 Ruskins Turner the Making of a Romantic Hero
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