Talk:John Ruskin

Conflicting description of Ruskin's involvement in the Eyre affair

The article reads "In addition to this, Ruskin "threw himself into" personal work for the Committee..."

which makes no sense. The Committee opposed Eyre's suppression of the uprising. Ruskin was a contributor to the Fund, which supported Eyre's action. Does the writer mean the Fund instead of the Committee? Chenopodiaceous (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ruskin and Carlyle referred to the Defence as the "Defence Committee" and also the "Eyre Committee" generally (see Cook & Wedderburn, 18.xlvi). It is understandable that this would create confusion; I will promptly amend it. Sinopecynic (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Physically and emotionally normal

While I respect the desire of admirers of Ruskin not have him labelled a child molester, I find the concluding quotation on Ruskin's sexuality bizarre. This reads: "when it comes to matters of sexual capability and interest, there is every reason to conclude that John Ruskin was physically and emotionally normal". At the very least the article indicates that he was neurotic: Ruskin was repulsed by the idea of intercourse, and preferred the company of pre-pubescent girls, and looking at naked, or scantily clad, pictures of them. The article describes him falling love with Effie Gray when she was 12, but after marrying her, when she was 19, failing to consummate the marriage. There is, however, no indication of criminal behaviour by Ruskin and he would probably be disgusted by the idea of any overt sexual relationship with a child. However, words like 'voyeurism' and 'nympholepsy', do suggest themselves. I recognize that there is a problem in using the word paedophilia, because of the criminal connotations associated with it, but it does seem that Ruskin fits the definition of this psychological disorder, because he was sexually attracted to young girls, even though here's no evidence he molested any child. It is worth remembering that prior to 1875, the age of consent was 12 and only in1885 was it raised to 16. So Ruskin could have legally married Effie Gray when she was 12! I have read the Victorian web article on this topic, which fails to adequately explore the topic. Rwood128 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Age of Consent

User:Ponsonby100. I now better understand you. That is that the histories of the parts of the UK differ. However, the statutes mentioned in the following quotation relate to the whole of United Kingdom: 'In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised it to 16.' Can you plese revert your edit, or fully explain why England is correct. Also I see reference only to children not to females (but I only made a quick scan). Rwood128 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The current article wording is 'The age of consent in the United Kingdom was 12 for females until 1875 and then raised to 16 in 1885.' I suggest this could be made more comprhensive by saying 'The age of consent in the United Kingdom was 12 for females until 1875 and then raised to 16 in 1885, having been 13 in Great Britain between those dates.'

None of this elaboration affects his relations, actual or potential, with Rose La Touche, who died aged 27 just before the 1875 Act gained Royal Assent, or Effie Gray, but does make clear the background. Ponsonby100 (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ponsonby100. I like your suggested amendment. Rwood128 (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Wood engraving

So we have an "engraving" "c.1860" by an artist who apparently was 14 years old at the time.

And the clothes, hair and pose are exactly as in the initial photo (taken in 1863), so it's a copy of some other photo taken during the same session. It looks like a standard large-format magazine woodcut of the 1870s/1880s (which is how paintings and photos were reproduced in those days). 2A02:AA1:1049:B8AA:B4A8:5B1F:F9EC:5F89 (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:Portrait of John Ruskin (4671937).jpg, I'd say it shows a totally different pose and clothing to the photo used as the lead image File:John Ruskin 1863.jpg? Can't "c.1860" mean any year 1860-1865? Or are you saying Henry Sigismund Uhlrich was just a copyright criminal? Or maybe the curators at the National Library of Wales just can't do their job properly? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The woodcut was published as a full-page illustration in Harper's Weekly on July 26, 1879. Given that Uhlrich was born in 1846, that makes more sense.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/363668714590

https://archive.org/details/sim_harpers-weekly_1879-07-26_23_1178/page/596/mode/2up 2A02:AA1:1049:B8AA:B4A8:5B1F:F9EC:5F89 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Harper's Weekly don't say how old it was when they published it? I'd be inclined to trust National Library of Wales more than eBay. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't necessarily trust either. In the 19th century the modern clear distinction between a woodcut and a wood engraving had simply not developed, & anybody relying on contemporary sources might get it wrong in modern terms, certainly including librarians or curators who are not print specialists. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. The caption currently just says "engraving". But do you have any advice on the most likely date? I see no clear reason to change from the "c. 1860" used by the National Library of Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)