John Ruskin

‎Fors Clavigera and the Whistler Libel Case

← Previous revision		Revision as of 00:10, 26 June 2016
Line 196:		Line 196:
	In January 1871, the month before Ruskin started to lecture the wealthy undergraduates at [[Oxford University]], he began his (originally) monthly "letters to the workmen and labourers of Great Britain" under the title ''[[Fors Clavigera]]'' (1871–84). (The letters were published irregularly after the 87th instalment in March 1878.) These letters were personal, dealt with every subject in his oeuvre, and were written in a variety of styles, reflecting his mood and circumstances, in many ways anticipating a modern-day blog, albeit a highly literary, complex and allusive one. From 1873, Ruskin had full control over all his publications, having established George Allen as his sole publisher (see [[Allen & Unwin]]).		In January 1871, the month before Ruskin started to lecture the wealthy undergraduates at [[Oxford University]], he began his (originally) monthly "letters to the workmen and labourers of Great Britain" under the title ''[[Fors Clavigera]]'' (1871–84). (The letters were published irregularly after the 87th instalment in March 1878.) These letters were personal, dealt with every subject in his oeuvre, and were written in a variety of styles, reflecting his mood and circumstances, in many ways anticipating a modern-day blog, albeit a highly literary, complex and allusive one. From 1873, Ruskin had full control over all his publications, having established George Allen as his sole publisher (see [[Allen & Unwin]]).
−	In the July 1877 letter of ''[[Fors Clavigera]]'', Ruskin launched a scathing attack on paintings by [[James McNeill Whistler]] exhibited at the [[Grosvenor Gallery]]. He found particular fault with [[Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket|''Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket'']], and accused Whistler of "ask[ing] two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face".{{sfn|Cook and Wedderburn||loc=29.160}}<ref>[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n1_v81/ai_13295552 Linda Merrill, ''A Pot of Paint: Aesthetics on Trial in Whistler v. Ruskin''. — book review, ''Art in America'', January 1993, by Wendy Steiner]</ref> Whistler filed a libel suit against Ruskin. Whistler won the case, which went to trial in Ruskin’s absence in 1878 (he was ill), but the jury awarded damages of only one [[British farthing coin|farthing]] to the artist. Court costs were split between both parties. Ruskin’s were paid by public subscription, but Whistler was bankrupted within six months. The episode tarnished Ruskin's reputation, however, and may have accelerated his mental decline.<ref>For an exploration of Ruskin’s rejection of dominant artistic trends in his later life, see Clive Wilmer, "Ruskin and the Challenge of Modernity" in ''Nineteenth-Century Prose'', vol. 38, no. 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 13–34.</ref> It did nothing to mitigate Ruskin’s consistently exaggerated sense of failure in persuading his readers to share in his own keenly felt priorities.<ref>Cook and Wedderburn 29.469, the passage in ''Sesame and Lilies'' printed in "blood-red".</ref>	+	In the July 1877 letter of ''Fors Clavigera'', Ruskin launched a scathing attack on paintings by [[James McNeill Whistler]] exhibited at the [[Grosvenor Gallery]]. He found particular fault with [[Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket|''Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket'']], and accused Whistler of "ask[ing] two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face".{{sfn|Cook and Wedderburn||loc=29.160}}<ref>[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n1_v81/ai_13295552 Linda Merrill, ''A Pot of Paint: Aesthetics on Trial in Whistler v. Ruskin''. — book review, ''Art in America'', January 1993, by Wendy Steiner]</ref> Whistler filed a libel suit against Ruskin. Whistler won the case, which went to trial in Ruskin’s absence in 1878 (he was ill), but the jury awarded damages of only one [[British farthing coin|farthing]] to the artist. Court costs were split between both parties. Ruskin’s were paid by public subscription, but Whistler was bankrupted within six months. The episode tarnished Ruskin's reputation, however, and may have accelerated his mental decline.<ref>For an exploration of Ruskin’s rejection of dominant artistic trends in his later life, see Clive Wilmer, "Ruskin and the Challenge of Modernity" in ''Nineteenth-Century Prose'', vol. 38, no. 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 13–34.</ref> It did nothing to mitigate Ruskin’s consistently exaggerated sense of failure in persuading his readers to share in his own keenly felt priorities.<ref>Cook and Wedderburn 29.469, the passage in ''Sesame and Lilies'' printed in "blood-red".</ref>
	===The Guild of St George===		===The Guild of St George===