Ruskin began as an art critic, who wrote in favor of a naturalism based in the imagination rather than the eye. His works discussed the moral and political dimensions of art and architecture, and it was probably natural that this would lead him into his interest in socialism and the powerful writing found in _Unto This Last_. He was passionately arguing against the Utilitarianism of writers such as John Stuart Mill and others who saw immutable laws of economy which were rooted in anything except justice. His assertion was that the accumulation of money was in fact an accumulation of power rather than wealth, and necessarily resulted in an imbalance which adversely affected society. For instance, he said that a successful factory which polluted the environment could not be termed profitable because of the resulting damage to society itself.

This collection of Ruskin's works (edited and with commentary by Clive Wilmer) contains the whole of _Unto This Last_ and enough of a selection of his other works to give a sense of the chronological position of the essays in Ruskin's career.

The book features an early fairy tale by Ruskin which was written for his wife, an excerpt from _The Stones of Venice_ which discusses the nature of Gothic architecture, excerpts from _the Two Paths_ and _Modern Painters_, two lectures which were published as parts of _The Crown of Wild Olive_ and _Sesame and Lilies_, and finally ends with letters 7 and 10 from _Fors Clavigera_.

Ghandi credited _Unto This Last_ with providing part of the impetus behind his transformation. And it would not be ridiculous for me to say that the book forced a radical reexamination of many of my own assumptions and ideas. It's also a pleasure to read, with beautiful as well as thought-provoking prose. Worthwhile reading for more than students of Victoriana.


Yes. What a book!   May 4, 2004
 32 out of 33 found this review helpful

A compilation of some of the important works of Ruskin are included here, the most important being (in Ruskin's own words) "Unto This Last", which had a profoundly moving effect on Ghandi (among others) and his approach and philosophy. For Ruskin morality and moral economics, sustaining/healthy economics, comes from basic things like knowing who made your shirts and that this person is getting a fair wage for their efforts -- taking responsibility for the effect one's use of money has on the lives of others. Taking advantage of other's economic misfortune was immoral and likely to result in a future backlash on the greater society as well as well as one's inner well being. An intelligent/knowledgeable person taking advantage of the stupid or ignorant is no different than violence of the strong upon the weak, Ruskin analogized. Ruskin illustrated his ideal of a moral economy by using the Gothic "Christian" style as an example, explained in the "Stones of Venice", its communal/community development, its imperfection yet impressive beauty. Perfection is not beautiful in Ruskin's view of life/art; which echoes something of the Zen view of art. Ruskin also argued that homes, during the Gothic age, were in the Gothic style as well and that modern Churches should mimic something of the style of the typical house being built today, the church should not be seen as a separate entity, a separate style; the Church should be integral to the community's self identity and use a similar architecture. Ruskin also inadvertantly created a style and movement he did not aprove of, by creating such a popular view of the Gothic style, that being the Anglo/Catholic movement whom enjoyed the gothic style church and ceremony. (Just walk around most any town and and look at the dates of when Gothic style churches were built in the USA, probably around 1910 or so).

The wealth of the elite and the wealth of the rich should ultimately be judged by the general happiness of the common man on the street. Ruskin also advocated reading and the building of public libraries and wrote a moving essay on why one should read: included here.

Ruskin's life took some passionate twists. His mother had him memorize the Bible while his father inculcated a love for Byron in him. He proved a gifted artist and then studied geology at university. Then an attack by critics on a favored artist, Turner, lead him on an eighteen year quest to study art and explain why Turner is a great artist, writing volumes of popular art history and critiques while developing a love for Giotto and Dante on the way and becoming possibly the most widely read art critic the English-speaking world has ever produced. Then the economic debates rageing in his day between advocates of Smith's laissez-fair, Malthus, Ricardo, Mills, and Marx lead Ruskin to attack all of them and to point out why they all miss the point in some way. Ruskin's approach was organic given: time, place, and circumstances, but he does give models and examples for what good economics is. Ruskin was a great humanist, in general terms he had the heart and approach of a conservative but his results could be described as almost idealic liberalism -- echoing something of Plato's philosopher kings.

Ruskin's observations on the English language are also interesting; the hierarchy of words and the distancing of words from their right place and meaning due to English being a diverse language with Latin, Greek, French, and variety of Germanic dialects composing it.

In De Profundis, by Oscar Wilde, Wilde must have been profoundly influenced by Ruskin as Wilde expressed regret for not having taken up the moral causes of Ruskin and to have wasted his genius the way he did. Wilde seemed to say that the torch was passed to him and he dropped it. Read this book then De Profundis (which Wilde wrote, without the use of references as he was in prison), and I don't think there will be any doubt that Ruskin had a profound influence on Wilde as Wilde refers to Ruskin-esk themes throughout the book (letter). I think Waugh and Forester echo some Ruskin sentiments as well; Ruskin had a huge influence, well worth reading.


Whoa..., What a book!!   February 5, 2002
 30 out of 34 found this review helpful

I must say I never expected this to be such a stunner. I have read it twice but confess that I am sitting down again. This has to be the 'Matrix' of the 1800's as it certainly turns conventional thinking on its head...

The introduction by Clive Wilmer is extremely enlightening as it provides a background against which the book can be thoroughly enjoyed. This book cleared a lot of doubts I had for a long time on many things and I must say raised twice as many questions about what I thought right :-)

Ruskin has been praised by many people as being the vioce of truth. He starts his main essay from a story in the Bible and then blows the reader away with his acute judgements and impeccable logic. In the end all you can do is but agreee that 'There is no Wealth but Life'

Also recommend 'The Kingdom of God is Within You' by Tolstoy.


Ruskin's economic analyses ARE ecomomic reality.   July 2, 2007
 1 out of 1 found this review helpful

Ruskin, unlike Marx or Ayn Rand, bases his economic work in the real relations between human beings and the hard facts of work and exchange. There is no one reality in terms of aesthetics, or cultural approaches to the world, but _Unto This Last_ is THE TRUTH about human(and/or "post-human")economic realities. Our business-biased news media in the U.S., and academic Marxism, are ideologies. Ruskin is dealing with "mere" material reality.


The Gothic horror of capitalism   September 16, 2008
 1 out of 1 found this review helpful

John Ruskin (1819-1900) was a British art critic who later turned social critic. His most well-known work is probably "The Stones of Venice", a tribute to medieval Venetian architecture. His most interesting work, however, might be "Unto this last", published in book form in 1862. This modern edition from Penguin contains both "Unto this last" and some of Ruskin's other writings, including "The Two Boyhoods" and most of "The meaning of Gothic" (taken from his work on Venice). The point of the selection is to emphasize the connection between Ruskin's social criticism and his view of art.

Ruskin was an arch-conservative, called himself High Tory and idealized the Middle Ages, medieval Venice in particular. In art, he supported the Romantic movement, and became known for defending the Romantic landscape painter Turner. Later, he associated with the Pre-Raphaelites, an ostensibly "medievalist" art movement. He also admired Gothic architecture for it's "savageness, changefulness, naturalism, grotesqueness, rigidity and redundance", usually considered negative features. To Ruskin, the seemingly chaotic style of Gothic buildings was truthful to nature, and he believed that the medieval workmen were free and creative spirits who could manufacture Gothic sculptures and ornaments according to their own whims. In many ways, he seems to have projected the Romantic view of the world back onto the High Middle Ages.

Ruskin shocked his pampered middle-class audience in 1860, when "Cornhill Magazine" began to serialize "Unto this last". This was not a work of art criticism, but a rather violent attack on capitalism! The subscribers to the magazine demanded that Ruskin's articles should be stopped, which they also were. Although unfinished, Ruskin published them in book form two years later. Marx would probably have classified Ruskin as a "feudal socialist", but "Unto this last" sounds more "bourgeois socialist" by Marxist standards. Ruskin calls for compulsory public education and believes that the state should generate employment through a massive program of public works. He seems to accept the labor theory of value, arguing that the just price isn't decided upon according to supply and demand on a market, but is relatively stable, based on the costs of production. He also attacks the old canard that lower wages lead to lower unemployment, and calls for fixed wage rates.

Ruskin points out that many professions accept fixed salaries regardless of supply and demand: soldiers, lawyers, doctors and priests. A good doctor stays on his post even during a plague epidemic, a soldier is ready to die for his country, and lawyers are supposed to administer justice, regardless of renumeration. So why should businessmen be any different? To Ruskin, businessmen should serve the community, and heroically bring needed goods (food, for instance) to the population, regardless of how much they can expect in profit. When accused of being a socialist, Ruskin sarcastically asked whether his opponents wanted to introduce "supply and demand" as a principle within the military? Rather than egalitarianism, Ruskin wanted a hierarchical society, inspired by Plato and Carlyle. He called for a paternalist state, a society organized like a large family, and constantly emphasizes heroism. Soldiers are willing to die for a loved general, regardless of their pay cheques. Factories should be organized on the same lines: obviously, workers don't have to die for their employers, but if the employer is like a loving father, productivity will increase, regardless of pay. Mothers are willing to give their children food even if they risk starvation themselves, and tradesmen should have the same attitude towards their customers (their community).

If there is a contradiction in "Unto this last", it's between Ruskin's moralist perspective, and the claim that a paternalist state would actually organize production and distribution more efficiently than laissez faire capitalism. Ruskin claims that it would, but if the main argument against capitalism is the supposed efficiency of Ruskin's system, what need is there for the moral argument? I think it's obvious that Ruskin's real argument was the moral one. His attacks on the destruction of the environment certainly doesn't sound like the writings of a man who simply wants to make industry more effective!

Personally, I don't like John Ruskin's ultra-hierarchical perspective, and I don't like Carlyle either (who was a vicious racist and White supremacist), but "Unto this last" is nevertheless a powerful attack on a free market system gone mad.

John Ruskin loved the Gothic and despised the Gothic horror of capitalism.