Essay IV. Ad Valorem
John ruskin.
The following text derives from the online version of the Cook and Wedderburn Library Edition (LE) created by the Ruskin Library at the University of Lancaster. In adapting that excellent edition for the Victorian Web I have
1. moved both Ruskin’s and the LE editors’ footnotes from the bottom of the page to the left-hand column,
2. added links to material in the Victorian Web ,
3. changed to in-text citations the LE editor’s notes that simply identify passages of scripture, and
4. changed some of the very long editorial notes, such as manuscript versions of print passages, into separate linked documents. — George P. Landow
Unto This Last
- Library Edition Introduction
- I. The Roots of Honour
- II. The Veins of Wealth
- III. "Qui Judicatis Terram"
- IV. Ad Valorem
Clicking on superscript numbers brings you to notes — footnotes in the original book — which will appear at the top of the left column; hitting the back button on your browser returns you to your place in the body of the main text.
The annotations in this digital edition take multiple forms. In addition to Ruskin’s notes there are also those from the Cook & Wedderburn Library Edition (LE), in which the raised note numbers in the text are preceded by “LE,” Finally the present editor of the Victorian Web has both added annotation in the form of links in the main text and expanded some of LE notes, generally by providing biblical and other texts, or links to them, when the LE just provides the citation.
Links in both the text and notes take you to materials in the the Victorian Web ; hitting the back button on your browser returns you to your place in Ruskin’s text.
Ruskin’s footnotes
1. Book I. chap. iv. s. 1. To save space, my future references to Mr. Mill's work will be by numerals only, as in this instance, I. iv. 1. Ed. in 2 vols. 8vo, Parker, 1848.
2. If Mr. Mill had wished to show the difference in result between consumption and sale, he should have represented the hardware merchant as consuming his own goods instead of selling them; similarly, the silver merchant as consuming his own goods instead of selling them. Had he done this, he would have made his position clearer, though less tenable; and perhaps this was the position he really intended to take, tacitly involving his theory, elsewhere stated, and shown in the sequel of this paper to be false, that demand for commodities is not demand for labour. But by the most diligent scrutiny of the paragraph now under examination, I cannot determine whether it is a fallacy pure and simple, or the half of one fallacy supported by the whole of a greater one; so that I treat it here on the kinder assumption that it is one fallacy only.
3. I take Mr. [afterwards Sir A.] Helps' estimate in his essay on War.
4. Also when the wrought silver vases of Spain were dashed to fragments by our custom-house officers, because bullion might be imported free of duty, but not brains, was the axe that broke them productive? — the artist who wrought them unproductive? Or again. If the woodman's axe is productive, is the executioner's? as also, if the hemp of a cable be productive, does not the productiveness of hemp in a halter depend on its moral more than on its material application?
5. Filigree: that is to say, generally, ornament dependent on complexity, not on art.
6. These statements sound crude in their brevity; but will be found of the utmost importance when they are developed. Thus, in the above instance, economists have never perceived that disposition to buy is a wholly moral element in demand: that is to say, when you give a man half-a-crown, it depends on his disposition whether he is rich or poor with it — whether he will buy disease, ruin, and hatred, or buy health, advancement, and domestic love. And thus the agreeableness or exchange value of every offered commodity depends on production, not merely of the commodity, but of buyers of it; therefore on the education of buyers, and on all the moral elements by which their disposition to buy this, or that, is formed. I will illustrate and expand into final consequences every one of these definitions in its place: at present they can only be given with extremest brevity; for in order to put the subject at once in a connected form before the reader, I have thrown into one, the opening definitions of four chapters; namely, of that on Value ("Ad Valorem"); on Price ("Thirty Pieces"); on Production ("Demeter"); and on Economy ("The Law of the House"). [LE: Again a reference to the intended continuation of the book. Compare §§77, 84n.]
7. Perhaps it may be said, in farther support of Mr. Ricardo, that he meant, "when the utility is constant or given, the price varies as the quantity of labour." If he meant this, he should have said it; but, had he meant it, he could have hardly missed the necessary result, that utility would be one measure of price (which he expressly denies it to be); and that, to prove saleableness, he had to prove a given quantity of utility, as well as a given quantity of labour: to wit, in his own instance, that the deer and fish would each feed the same number of men, for the same number of days, with equal pleasure to their palates. The fact is, he did not know what he meant himself. The general idea which he had derived from commercial experience, without being able to analyse it, was, that when the demand is constant, the price varies as the quantity of labour required for production; or, — using the formula I gave in last paper — when y is constant, xy varies as x . But demand never is, nor can be, ultimately constant, if x varies distinctly; for, as price rises, consumers fall away; and as soon as there is a monopoly (and all scarcity is a form of monopoly; so that every commodity is affected occasionally by some colour of monopoly), y becomes the most influential condition of the price. Thus the price of a painting depends less on its merit than on the interest taken in it by the public; the price of singing less on the labour of the singer than the number of persons who desire to hear him; and the price of gold less on the scarcity which affects it in common with cerium or iridium, than on the sun-light colour and unalterable purity by which it attracts the admiration and answers the trust of mankind.
It must be kept in mind, however, that I use the word "demand" in a somewhat different sense from economists usually. They mean by it "the quantity of a thing sold." I mean by it "the force of the buyer's capable intention to buy." In good English, a person's "demand" signifies, not what he gets, but what he asks for.
Economists also do not notice that objects are not valued by absolute bulk or weight, but by such bulk and weight as is necessary to bring them into use. They say, for instance, that water bears no price in the market. It is true that a cupful does not, but a lake does; just as a handful of dust does not, but an acre does. And were it possible to make even the possession of the cupful or handful permanent ( i.e. , to find a place for them), the earth and sea would be bought up by handfuls and cupfuls. [LE: See above, § 4n., p. 64. In the MS. this note is different and longer [ follow for the original note].
8. Compare George Herbert, The Church Porch , Stanza 28. [The Library Edition adds the following lines:
Wealth is the conjurer’s devil, Whom when he thinks he hath, the devil hath him. Gold thou mayst safely touch; but if it stick Unto thy hands, it woundeth to the quick.]
9. [Greek: ho Zeus dêpou penetai.]">"ὁ Ζεὺς δήπου πένεται. " — Arist. Plut. . 582. It would but weaken the grand words to lean on the preceding ones: — ">ὅτι τοῦ Πλούτου παρέχω βελτίονας ἄνδρας, καὶ τὴν γνώμην, καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν. " [LE: The “preceding” lines are 558 and 559. From a later line (586) Ruskin took the motto for the title-page of The Crown of Wild Olive .]
10. Zech. v. 11. See note on the passage, at pp. 191-2.
11. Labour which is entirely good of its kind, that is to say, effective, or efficient, the Greeks called "weighable," or ἄξιος, translated usually "worthy," and because thus substantial and true, they called its price τιμή the "honourable estimate" of it (honorarium): this word being founded on their conception of true labour as a divine thing, to be honoured with the kind of honour given to the gods; whereas the price of false labour, or of that which led away from life, was to be, not honour, but vengeance; for which they reserved another word, attributing the exaction of such price to a peculiar goddess called Tisiphone, the "requiter (or quittance-taker) of death;" a person versed in the highest branches of arithmetic, and punctual in her habits; with whom accounts current have been opened also in modern days.
12. The most accurately nugatory labour is, perhaps, that of which not enough is given to answer a purpose effectually, and which, therefore, has all to be done over again. Also, labour which fails of effect through non-cooperation. The curé of a little village near Bellinzona, to whom I had expressed wonder that the peasants allowed the Ticino to flood their fields, told me that they would not join to build an effectual embankment high up the valley, because everybody said "that would help his neighbours as much as himself." So every proprietor built a bit of low embankment about his own field; and the Ticino, as soon as it had a mind, swept away and swallowed all up together. [LE: [Ruskin recorded this incident in a letter to his father on July 10, 1858, from Isola Bella, whither he had gone after a long stay at Bellinzona: see Introduction to 7.xxxvi. He refers to it again in his letters on Roman Inundations (below, p. 551).]
13. > Observe, I say, "rearing," not "begetting." The praise is in the seventh season, not in σπορητός , nor in φυταλιὰ , but in ὀπώρα . It is strange that men always praise enthusiastically any person who, by a momentary exertion, saves a life; but praise very hesitatingly a person who, by exertion and self-denial prolonged through years, creates one. We give the crown "ob civem servatum," — why not "ob civem natum"? Born, I mean, to the full, in soul as well as body. England has oak enough, I think, for both chaplets. [LE: Ruskin refers to the series of seven seasons as distinguished by Galen, but changes the order—ear (the spring), qeroV (the summer), opwra (the dog-days, the season of ripe fruit), fqinopwron (the autumn), sporhtoV (the seed time), ceimwn (the winter), futalia (the planting time).]
14. When Mr. Mill speaks of productive consumption, he only means consumption which results in increase of capital, or material wealth. See I. iii. 4, and I. iii. 5.
15. So also in the vision of the women bearing the ephah, before quoted [LE: From Zechariah v. 3 seq.: see above, §68 ], "the wind was in their wings," not wings "of a stork," as in our version; but " milvi ," of a kite, in the Vulgate, or perhaps more accurately still in the Septuagint, "hoopoe," a bird connected typically with the power of riches by many traditions, of which that of its petition for a crest of gold is perhaps the most interesting. The "Birds" of Aristophanes, in which its part is principal, is full of them; note especially the "fortification of the air with baked bricks, like Babylon," l. 550; and, again, compare the Plutus of Dante, who (to show the influence of riches in destroying the reason) is the only one of the powers of the Inferno who cannot speak intelligibly; and also the cowardliest; he is not merely quelled or restrained, but literally "collapses" at a word; the sudden and helpless operation of mercantile panic being all told in the brief metaphor, "as the sails, swollen with the wind, fall, when the mast breaks." [ Inferno , vii. 13, 14, and preceding lines. The passage is further quoted and explained in Munera Pulveris , §58 n .]
16. The value of raw material, which has, indeed, to be deducted from the price of the labour, is not contemplated in the passages referred to, Mr. Mill having fallen into the mistake solely by pursuing the collateral results of the payment of wages to middlemen. He says: — "The consumer does not, with his own funds, pay the weaver for his day's work." Pardon me; the consumer of the velvet pays the weaver with his own funds as much as he pays the gardener. He pays, probably, an intermediate ship-owner, velvet merchant, and shopman; pays carriage money, shop rent, damage money, time money, and care money; all these are above and beside the velvet price (just as the wages of a head gardener would be above the grass price); but the velvet is as much produced by the consumer's capital, though he does not pay for it till six months after production, as the grass is produced by his capital, though he does not pay the man who mowed and rolled it on Monday, till Saturday afternoon. I do not know if Mr. Mill's conclusion — "the capital cannot be dispensed with, the purchasers can" — has yet been reduced to practice in the City on any large scale.
17. Which, observe, is the precise opposite of the one under examination. The hardware theory required us to discharge our gardeners and engage manufacturers; the velvet theory requires us to discharge our manufacturers and engage gardeners.
18. It is one very awful form of the operation of wealth in Europe that it is entirely capitalists' wealth which supports unjust wars. Just wars do not need so much money to support them; for most of the men who wage such, wage them gratis; but for an unjust war, men's bodies and souls have both to be bought; and the best tools of war for them besides; which makes such war costly to the maximum; not to speak of the cost of base fear, and angry suspicion, between nations which have not grace nor honesty enough in all their multitudes to buy an hour's peace of mind with: as, at present, France and England, purchasing of each other ten millions sterling worth of consternation annually (a remarkably light crop, half thorns and half aspen leaves, — sown, reaped, and granaried by "the science" of the modern political economist, teaching covetousness instead of truth). And all unjust war being supportable, if not by pillage of the enemy, only by loans from capitalists, these loans are repaid by subsequent taxation of the people, who appear to have no will in the matter, the capitalists' will being the primary root of the war; but its real root is the covetousness of the whole nation, rendering it incapable of faith, frankness, or justice, and bringing about, therefore, in due time, his own separate loss and punishment to each person. [LE: Compare Munera Pulveris , §19 ; and Sesame and Lilies , §47 (18.103), where Ruskin repeated this note. In referring to it again in 1885, Ruskin noted that he “should have said, in accuracy, ‘capitalists’ cash,” not “wealth”’: see his Introduction to R. G. Sillar’s Usury , § 4 (1885), reprinted in a later volume of this edition. See also Ethics of the Dust , Note 6. After “gratis” the LE note states: The MS. adds: “and often their weapons are inexpensive—many a just battle having been won with sticks and rocks (as Morgarten and some of Hofer’s).” For the battle of Morgarten, in which the Swiss peasantry rolled down an avalanche of rocks and trunks upon the enemy, see 5.415n.; and for Hofer, 2.88 n.. After “France and England” LE adds, “Compare Munera Pulveris , Appendix i , Sesame and Lilies , §48 (18.104).]”
19. "In all reasoning about prices, the proviso must be understood, 'supposing all parties to take care of their own interest.'" — Mill, III. i. 5.
20. James v. 4. Observe, in these statements I am not taking up, nor countenancing one whit, the common socialist idea of division of property [LE: Compare § 54 ; above, p. 74 . See also Munera Pulveris, Preface, §21 ]; division of property is its destruction; and with it the destruction of all hope, all industry, and all justice: it is simply chaos — a chaos towards which the believers in modern political economy are fast tending, and from which I am striving to save them. The rich man does not keep back meat from the poor by retaining his riches; but by basely using them. Riches are a form of strength; and a strong man does not injure others by keeping his strength, but by using it injuriously. The socialist, seeing a strong man oppress a weak one, cries out — "Break the strong man's arms"; but I say, "Teach him to use them to better purpose." The fortitude and intelligence which acquire riches are intended, by the Giver of both, not to scatter, nor to give away, but to employ those riches in the service of mankind; in other words, in the redemption of the erring and aid of the weak — that is to say, there is first to be the work to gain money; then the Sabbath of use for it — the Sabbath, whose law is, not to lose life, but to save [LE: See Luke xiii. 14 seq.]. It is continually the fault or the folly of the poor that they are poor, as it is usually a child's fault if it falls into a pond, and a cripple's weakness that slips at a crossing; nevertheless, most passers-by would pull the child out, or help up the cripple. Put it at the worst, that all the poor of the world are but disobedient children, or careless cripples, and that all rich people are wise and strong, and you will see at once that neither is the socialist right in desiring to make everybody poor, powerless, and foolish as he is himself, nor the rich man right in leaving the children in the mire.
21. The quantity of life is the same in both cases; but it is differently allotted.
22. The proper offices of middlemen, namely, overseers (or authoritative workmen), conveyancers (merchants, sailors, retail dealers, etc.), and order-takers (persons employed to receive directions from the consumer), must, of course, be examined before I can enter farther into the question of just payment of the first producer. But I have not spoken of them in these introductory papers, because the evils attendant on the abuse of such intermediate functions result not from any alleged principle of modern political economy, but from private carelessness or iniquity.
Notes by Editors of the Library Edition
LE1. See § 47, p. 64 .
LE2. [The MS. continues:— “Most persons confuse the value of a thing with its price (which is as though they should estimate the healing powers of a medicine by the charge of the apothecary); confuse the wealth (or the possessions which constitute the well-being of an individual) with riches (or the possessions which constitute power over others); and, finally, confuse production, or profit, which is an increase of the possessions of the world, with Acquisition or Gain, which is an increase of the possessions of one person by the diminution of those of another. This last word, production, indeed, which one might . . .”
LE3. See below § 76 .
LE4. In his copy of Mill, against the passage about “buying plate and jewels,” Ruskin wrote in the margin: “It is a very curious fact to see that no art is supposed to be involved in producing plate, in the mind of so enlightened an economist as Mr. Mill.”]
LE6. In his first draft Ruskin took a different illustration, thus:— “You may have a bad pen, which yet may serve; or a good one, which will serve better; and a blunt penknife, which will mend it; or a sharp one, which will mend it quicker. Now, what is the exact degree of utility which is essential to exchangeable value, but not the measure of it? How sharp must the knife be, in order to possess any exchangeable value? and how blunt must it be, in order to possess none? There appears to be some hitch . . .”
LE8. See above, §47n / In the MS. this note is different and longer, thus: [follow for original text of Ruskin’s note]. For the reference to De Quincey, see “Dialogue the First” in his Dialogues of Three Templars on Political Economy (vol. iv. pp. 194 seq. in his Works , 1863).]
LE9. Compare Munera Pulveris , §§ 32–34 .
LE10. On the name of the church, so called at Venice, see Stones of Venice , vol. ii. (10.443).
LE12. [Judges ix. 13. On the use and abuse of wine, compare Time and Tide , § 63 (below, p. 371).]
LE13. The actual meaning of the word Dionysus is, however, matter of uncertainty. “Zeus of Nysa” (a supposed place) was the favourite derivation among the ancients. Of modern guesses “son of Zeus” seems as good as any: see Preller-Robert, Griechische Mythologie , i. 664 n. Ruskin‘s derivation is not clear.
LE14. The derivation of the word, through its secondary sense in Greek of “layman” (as opposed to “professional”), is thus traced by Trench: “The” idiot,‘ or idiwthV, was originally the private man, as contradistinguished from one clothed with office, and taking his share in the management of public affairs. In this its primary use it is occasionally employed in English; as when Jeremy Taylor says, ̳Humility is a duty in great ones, as well as in idiots.‘ It came then to signify a rude, ignorant, unskilled, intellectually unexercised person, a boor; this derived or secondary sense bearing witness to a conviction woven deep into the Greek mind of the indispensableness of public life, even to the right development of the intellect, a conviction which could scarcely have uttered itself with greater clearness than it does in this secondary use of “idiot” ( On the Study of Words , p. 85, ed. 1867/
LE15. Compare Xenophon‘s Economist , as cited below, p. 288.
LE16. [The MS. here appends the following footnote (with which compare p. 83 n., above):— “Here also, as in the case of price of commodities, the true Algebraical value of wealth is a compound quantity; if the value of the possessions=x and wisdom of possession=y, the wealth is xy and it=0, if either x or y=0.]
LE17. Ruskin quotes from memory; the first line in Pope is “Yet sure, of qualities deserving praise.” See above, § 53. ]
LE18. “Flying roll” in the Authorised Version; “volumen volans” in the Vulgate; but “flying sickle” (drepanon petomenon) in the Septuagint. Ruskin here uses the Septuagint, as instead of “injustice” (adikia), our version has “resemblance”; so in verse 11, where the Septuagint has “Babylon,” our version has “Shinar.”]
LE19. The term was first used by Whately in his Lectures on Political Economy (1831): “The name I should have preferred as the most descriptive, and on the whole least objectionable, is that of Catallactics, or the ‘science of Exchange.’”]
LE20. Compare Munera Pulveris , §59 .
LE21. [“Caput mortuum,” the term used by the old chemists to designate the residuum of chemicals when all their volatile matter had escaped.]
LE22. For this expression, see 4.240n.
LE23. Virgil, Georgics , i. 46: “Vere novo . . . incipiat . . . sulco attritus splendescere vomer.”
LE24. Ruskin here moralises the legend of Ixion, who had promised his father-in-law, Deioneus, a valuable present, but had not given it. Deioneus in consequence stole the horses of Ixion, who thereupon—―“the first among the heroes to shed blood of kindred craftily” (Pindar, Pyth. ii. 32)—invited his father-in-law to a banquet, and threw him into a secret pit, filled with fire. Ixion was unable to obtain expiation from gods or men, till at last Zeus received him in pity and purified him. Pindar, in the same ode, tells the story of Ixion‘s infatuation, and of his eternal punishment on the wheel. “Ixion,” says the poet,“writhing on his winged wheel, proclaims this message unto men, To him who does thee service make fair recompense.” From this passage, and from later lines in the same ode—where the poet teaches the worthlessness of riches if not joined with the happy gift of wisdom—Ruskin seems to have taken a clue for his own interpretation of the story.
LE25. [See Jude 12; Ruskin quotes the words in Modern Painters , vol. v. (7.458), and in Sesame and Lilies , § 23 (Vol. 18.74).
LE26. [In the Pilgrim’s Progress (part i.): “a little Hill called Lucre, and in that Hill a Silver-Mine, which some of them that had formerly gone that way, because of the rarity of it, had turned aside to see; but going too near the brink of the pit, the ground being deceitful under them, broke, and they were slain. . . . A little way off the road, over against the Silver-Mine, stood Demas (gentleman-like) to call to Passengers to come and see,” etc.]
LE27. Compare Queen of the Air , § 29: “the disappointed fury of Ixion (taking shadow for power).”
LE29. Mill in the passage referred to mentions Ricardo as one of the few economists who have kept the principle steadily in view. This proposition that “a demand for commodities is not a demand for labour” is examined at greater length in Fors Clavigera , Letter 2.
LE30. [For a passing reference to this passage, see Fors Clavigera , Letter 51.]
LE31. Compare Modern Painters , vol. ii., where Ruskin quotes Wordsworth‘s line, “We live by admiration, hope, and love” (4.29n), and see the other passages noted at 16.154.]
LE32. “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not. . . . For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell . . .” (2 Peter ii. 3, 4).]
LE33. For Ruskin’s references to Colonisation, see the letter on Railway Economy given below, p. 534; also a letter to the Daily Telegraph of January 15, 1870 (reprinted in Arrows of the Chace , 1880, 2.185, and in a later volume of this edition), where he calls on English gentlemen to become “Captains of Emigration”; with which passage, compare his exhortation in Lectures on Art, § 29. On the bringing of waste lands under cultivation, see Notes on the General Principles of Employment , etc., below, p. 545. On the regulation of marriage, T ime and Tide , § 124; below, p. 420.]
LE34. [ Principles of Political Economy , ch. v. (“On Wages”): “The natural price of labour is that price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or diminution.” Ricardo adds, “The power of the labourer to support himself, and the family which may be necessary to keep up the number of labourers, does not depend on the quantity of money which he may receive for wages, but on the quantity of food, necessaries, and conveniences become essential to him from habit, which that money will purchase.”]
LE35. Book iv. ch. vi. (“Of the Stationary State”). Ch. vii. (“On the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes”).
LE36. Compare Time and Tide , § 10 (below, p. 326); Lectures on Art , § 123; Fors Clavigera , Letter 35; and 7.425.]
LE37. Compare Time and Tide , § 45 (below, p. 355).]
LE38. Compare Ruskin‘s letter from Zug given in 7.xxxi.
LE39. For Ruskin’s views on this maxim of the Church Catechism, see below, p. 320n.
LE40. Compare Modern Painters , vol. v. (7.426).]
LE41. [Proverbs iii. 17 — words often quoted by Ruskin; see, for instance, A joy for Ever , § 120n. (16.103; and Time and Tide , § 60; below, p. 367).]
LE43. [Compare The Opening of the Crystal Palace , § 18, where Ruskin thus lifts the veil upon “a London dinner-party” (12.430).]
56. IN the last paper we saw LE1 that just payment of labour consisted in a sum of money which would approximately obtain equivalent labour at a future time: we have now to examine the means of obtaining such equivalence. Which question involves the definition of Value, Wealth, Price, and Produce.
None of these terms are yet defined so as to be understood by the public. But the last, Produce, which one might have thought the clearest of all, is, in use, the most ambiguous; and the examination of the kind of ambiguity attendant on its present employment will best open the way to our work.
In his Chapter on Capital, 1 Mr. J. S. Mill instances, as a capitalist, a hardware manufacturer, who, having intended to spend a certain portion of the proceeds of his business in buying plate and jewels, changes his mind, and "pays it as wages to additional workpeople." The effect is stated by [77/78] Mr. Mill to be that "more food is appropriated to the consumption of productive labourers." LE3
57 . Now I do not ask, though, had I written this paragraph, it would surely have been asked of me, What is to become of the silversmiths? If they are truly unproductive persons, we will acquiesce in their extinction. And though in another part of the same passage, the hardware merchant is supposed also to dispense with a number of servants, whose "food is thus set free for productive purposes," I do not inquire what will be the effect, painful or otherwise, upon the servants, of this emancipation of their food. But I very seriously inquire why ironware is produce, and silverware is not? LE4 That the merchant consumes the one, and sells the other, certainly does not constitute the difference, unless it can be shown (which, indeed, I perceive it to be becoming daily more and more the aim of tradesmen to show) that commodities are made to be sold, and not to be consumed. The merchant is an agent of conveyance to the consumer in one case, and is himself the consumer in the other: 2 but the labourers are in either case equally productive, since they have produced goods to the same value, if the hardware and the plate are both goods.
And what distinction separates them? It is indeed possible that in the "comparative estimate of the moralist," with which Mr. Mill says political economy has nothing to do (III. i. 2), a steel fork might appear a more substantial production than a silver one: we may grant also that knives, no less than forks, are good produce; and scythes and ploughshares serviceable articles. But, how of bayonets? Supposing the hardware merchant to effect large sales of these , by help of the "setting free" of the food of his servants and his silversmith, — is he still employing productive labourers, or, in Mr. Mill's words, labourers who increase "the stock of permanent means of enjoyment" (I. iii. 4)? Or if, instead of bayonets, he supply bombs, will not the absolute and final "enjoyment" of even these energetically productive articles (each of which costs ten pounds 3 ) be dependent on a proper choice of time and place for their enfantement ; choice, that is to say, depending on those philosophical considerations with which political economy has nothing to do? 4
58 . I should have regretted the need of pointing out inconsistency in any portion of Mr. Mill's work, had not the value of his work proceeded from its inconsistencies. He deserves honour among economists by inadvertently disclaiming the principles which he states, and tacitly introducing the moral considerations with which he declares his science has no connection. Many of his chapters, are, therefore, true and valuable; and the only conclusions of his which I have to dispute are those which follow from his premises.
Thus, the idea which lies at the root of the passage we have just been examining, namely, that labour applied to produce luxuries will not support so many persons as labour applied to produce useful articles, is entirely true; but the instance given fails — and in four directions of failure at once — because Mr. Mill has not defined the real meaning of usefulness. The definition which he has given — "capacity to satisfy a desire, or serve a purpose" (III. i. 2) — applies equally to the iron and silver; while the true definition, — which he has not given, but which nevertheless underlies the false verbal definition in his mind, and comes out once or twice by accident (as in the words "any support to life or strength" in I. i. 5) — applies to some articles of iron, but not to others, and to some articles of silver, but not to others. It applies to ploughs, but not to bayonets; and to forks, but not to filigree. 5
59 .The eliciting of the true definition will give us the reply to our first question, "What is value?" respecting which, however, we must first hear the popular statements.
"The word 'value,' when used without adjunct, always means, in political economy, value in exchange" (Mill, III. i. 3). So that, if two ships cannot exchange their rudders, their rudders are, in politico-economic language, of no value to either.
But "the subject of political economy is wealth." — (Preliminary remarks, page 1.)
And wealth "consists of all useful and agreeable objects which possess exchangeable value." — (Preliminary remarks, page 10.)
It appears then, according to Mr. Mill, that usefulness and agreeableness underlie the exchange value, and must be ascertained to exist in the thing, before we can esteem it an object of wealth.
Now, the economical usefulness of a thing depends not merely on its own nature, but on the number of people who can and will use it. A horse is useless, and therefore unsaleable, if no one can ride, — a sword if no one can strike, and meat, if no one can eat. Thus every material utility depends on its relative human capacity.
Similarly: The agreeableness of a thing depends not merely on its own likeableness, but on the number of people who can be got to like it. The relative agreeableness, and therefore saleableness, of "a pot of the smallest ale," and of "Adonis painted by a running brook," depends virtually on the opinion of Demos, in the shape of Christopher Sly [LE: In Taming of the Shrew : Induction, sc. ii.]. That is to say, the agreeableness of a thing depends on its relative human disposition. 6 Therefore, political economy, being a science of wealth, must be a science respecting human capacities and dispositions. But moral considerations have nothing to do with political economy (III. i. 2). Therefore, moral considerations have nothing to do with human capacities and dispositions.
60 . I do not wholly like the look of this conclusion from Mr. Mill's statements: — let us try Mr. Ricardo's [LE: Principles of Political Economy and Taxation ].
"Utility is not the measure of exchangeable value, though it is absolutely essential to it." — (Chap. 1. sect. i.) Essential to what degree, Mr. Ricardo? There may be greater and less degrees of utility. LE6 Meat, for instance, may be so good as to be fit for any one to eat, or so bad as to be fit for no one to eat. What is the exact degree of goodness which is "essential" to its exchangeable value, but not "the measure" of it? How good must the meat be, in order to possess any exchangeable value; and how bad must it be — (I wish this were a settled question in London markets) — in order to possess none?
There appears to be some hitch, I think, in the working even of Mr. Ricardo's principles; but let him take his own example. "Suppose that in the early stages of society the bows and arrows of the hunter were of equal value with the implements of the fisherman. Under such circumstances the value of the deer, the produce of the hunter's day's labour, would be exactly " (italics mine) "equal to the value of the fish, the product of the fisherman's day's labour. The comparative value of the fish and game would be entirely regulated by the quantity of labour realized in each." (Ricardo, chap. iii. On Value.)
Indeed! Therefore, if the fisherman catches one sprat, and the huntsman one deer, one sprat will be equal in value to one deer; but if the fisherman catches no sprat, and the huntsman two deer, no sprat will be equal in value to two deer?
Nay; but — Mr. Ricardo's supporters may say — he means, on an average; — if the average product of a day's work of fisher and hunter be one fish and one deer, the one fish will always be equal in value to the one deer.
Might I inquire the species of fish. Whale? or whitebait? 7
It would be waste of time to pursue these fallacies farther; we will seek for a true definition.
61 .Much store has been set for centuries upon the use of our English classical education. It were to be wished that our well-educated merchants recalled to mind always this much of their Latin schooling, — that the nominative of valorem (a word already sufficiently familiar to them) is valor ; a word which, therefore, ought to be familiar to them. Valor , from valere , to be well, or strong (ὑγιαίνω ); — strong, in life (if a man), or valiant; strong, for life (if a thing), or valuable. To be "valuable," therefore, is to "avail towards life." A truly valuable or availing thing is that which leads to life with its whole strength. In proportion as it does not lead to life, or as its strength is broken, it is less valuable; in proportion as it leads away from life, it is unvaluable or malignant.
The value of a thing, therefore, is independent of opinion, and of quantity. Think what you will of it, gain how much you may of it, the value of the thing itself is neither greater nor less. For ever it avails, or avails not; no estimate can raise, no disdain depress, the power which it holds from the Maker of things and of men. LE9
The real science of political economy, which has yet to be distinguished from the bastard science, as medicine from witchcraft, and astronomy from astrology, is that which teaches nations to desire and labour for the things that lead to life; and which teaches them to scorn and destroy the things that lead to destruction. And if, in a state of infancy, they suppose indifferent things, such as excrescences of shellfish, and pieces of blue and red stone, to be valuable, and spend large measure of the labour which ought to be employed for the extension and ennobling of life, in diving or digging for them, and cutting them into various shapes, — or if, in the same state of infancy, they imagine precious and beneficent things, such as air, light, and cleanliness, to be valueless, — or if, finally, they imagine the conditions of their own existence, by which alone they can truly possess or use anything, such, for instance, as peace, trust, and love, to be prudently exchangeable, when the market offers, for gold, iron, or excrescences of shells — the great and only science of Political Economy teaches them, in all these cases, what is vanity, and what substance; and how the service of Death, the Lord of Waste, and of eternal emptiness, differs from the service of Wisdom, the Lady of Saving, and of eternal fulness; she who has said, "I will cause those that love me to inherit Substance ; and I will Fill their treasures” [LE: Proverbs viii. 21.]
The "Lady of Saving," in a profounder sense than that of the savings' bank, though that is a good one: Madonna della Salute, LE10 — Lady of Health — which, though commonly spoken of as if separate from wealth, is indeed a part of wealth. This word, "wealth," it will be remembered, is the next we have to define.
62 . "To be wealthy," says Mr. Mill, is "to have a large stock of useful articles." [LE: [ Principles of Political Economy , p. 8 of the Preliminary Remarks (ed. 1848).]
I accept this definition. Only let us perfectly understand it. My opponents often lament my not giving them enough logic: I fear I must at present use a little more than they will like; but this business of Political Economy is no light one, and we must allow no loose terms in it.
We have, therefore, to ascertain in the above definition, first, what is the meaning of "having," or the nature of Possession. Then, what is the meaning of "useful," or the nature of Utility.
And first of possession. At the crossing of the transepts of Milan Cathedral has lain, for three hundred years, the embalmed body of St. Carlo Borromeo. It holds a golden crosier, and has a cross of emeralds on its breast. Admitting the crosier and emeralds to be useful articles, is the body to be considered as "having" them? Do they, in the politico-economical sense of property, belong to it? If not, and if we may, therefore, conclude generally that a dead body cannot possess property, what degree and period of animation in the body will render possession possible?
As thus: lately in a wreck of a Californian ship, one of the passengers fastened a belt about him with two hundred pounds of gold in it, with which he was found afterwards at the bottom. Now, as he was sinking — had he the gold? or had the gold him? 8
And if, instead of sinking him in the sea by its weight, the gold had struck him on the forehead, and thereby caused incurable disease — suppose palsy or insanity, — would the gold in that case have been more a "possession" than in the first? Without pressing the inquiry up through instances of gradually increasing vital power over the gold (which I will, however, give, if they are asked for), I presume the reader will see that possession, or "having," is not an absolute, but a gradated, power; and consists not only in the quantity or nature of the thing possessed, but also (and in a greater degree) in its suitableness to the person possessing it, and in his vital power to use it.
And our definition of Wealth, expanded, becomes: "The possession of useful articles, which we can use ." This is a very serious change. For wealth, instead of depending merely on a "have," is thus seen to depend on a "can." Gladiator's death, on a "habet"; but soldier's victory, and state's salvation, on a "quo plurimum posset." (Liv. VII. 6.) LE11 And what we reasoned of only as accumulation of material, is seen to demand also accumulation of capacity.
63 . So much for our verb. Next for our adjective. What is the meaning of "useful?"
The inquiry is closely connected with the last. For what is capable of use in the hands of some persons, is capable, in the hands of others, of the opposite of use, called commonly, "from-use," or "ab-use." And it depends on the person, much more than on the article, whether its usefulness or ab-usefulness will be the quality developed in it. Thus, wine, which the Greeks, in their Bacchus, made, rightly, the type of all passion, and which, when used, "cheereth god and man" LE12 (that is to say, strengthens both the divine life, or reasoning power, and the earthly, or carnal power, of man); yet, when abused, becomes "Dionusos," hurtful especially to the divine part of man, or reason. LE13 And again, the body itself, being equally liable to use and to abuse, and, when rightly disciplined, serviceable to the State, both for war and labour; — but when not disciplined, or abused, valueless to the State, and capable only of continuing the private or single existence of the individual (and that but feebly) — the Greeks called such a body an "idiotic" or "private" body, from their word signifying a person employed in no way directly useful to the State: whence, finally, our "idiot," meaning a person entirely occupied with his own concerns. LE14
Hence, it follows, that if a thing is to be useful, it must be not only of an availing nature, but in availing hands. Or, in accurate terms, usefulness is value in the hands of the valiant; so that this science of wealth being, as we have just seen, when regarded as the science of Accumulation, accumulative of capacity as well as of material, — when regarded as the science of Distribution, is distribution not absolute, but discriminate; not of every thing to every man, but of the right thing to the right man. A difficult science, dependent on more than arithmetic.
64 . Wealth, therefore, is " THE POSSESSION OF THE VALUABLE BY THE VALIANT; " LE15 and in considering it as a power existing in a nation, the two elements, the value of the thing, and the valour of its possessor, must be estimated together. LE16 Whence it appears that many of the persons commonly considered wealthy, are in reality no more wealthy than the locks of their own strong boxes are; they being inherently and eternally incapable of wealth; and operating for the nation, in an economical point of view, either as pools of dead water, and eddies in a stream (which, so long as the stream flows, are useless, or serve only to drown people, but may become of importance in a state of stagnation, should the stream dry); or else, as dams in a river, of which the ultimate service depends not on the dam, but the miller; or else, as mere accidental stays and impediments, acting, not as wealth, but (for we ought to have a correspondent term) as "illth," causing various devastation and trouble around them in all directions; or lastly, act not at all, but are merely animated conditions of delay (no use being possible of anything they have until they are dead), in which last condition they are nevertheless often useful as delays, and "impedimenta," if a nation is apt to move too fast.
65 . This being so, the difficulty of the true science of Political Economy lies not merely in the need of developing manly character to deal with material value, but in the fact, that while the manly character and material value only form wealth by their conjunction, they have nevertheless a mutually destructive operation on each other. For the manly character is apt to ignore, or even cast away, the material value : — whence that of Pope: —
"Sure, of qualities demanding praise More go to ruin fortunes, than to raise." [ Moral Essays : Epistle III, ll. 201-02 LE17 ]
And on the other hand, the material value is apt to undermine the manly character; so that it must be our work, in the issue, to examine what evidence there is of the effect of wealth on the minds of its possessors; also, what kind of person it is who usually sets himself to obtain wealth, and succeeds in doing so; and whether the world owes more gratitude to rich or to poor men, either for their moral influence upon it, or for chief goods, discoveries, and practical advancements. I may, however, anticipate future conclusions so far as to state that in a community regulated only by laws of demand and supply, but protected from open violence, the persons who become rich are, generally speaking, industrious, resolute, proud, covetous, prompt, methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insensitive, and ignorant. The persons who remain poor are the entirely foolish, the entirely wise, 9 the idle, the reckless, the humble, the thoughtful, the dull, the imaginative, the sensitive, the well-informed, the improvident, the irregularly and impulsively wicked, the clumsy knave, the open thief, and the entirely merciful, just, and godly person.
66 . Thus far then of wealth. Next, we have to ascertain the nature of Price ; that is to say, of exchange value, and its expression by currencies.
Note first, of exchange, there can be no profit in it. It is only in labour there can be profit — that is to say a "making in advance," or "making in favour of" (from proficio). In exchange, there is only advantage, i.e. , a bringing of vantage or power to the exchanging persons. Thus, one man, by sowing and reaping, turns one measure of corn into two measures. That is Profit. Another by digging and forging, turns one spade into two spades. That is Profit. But the man who has two measures of corn wants sometimes to dig; and the man who has two spades wants sometimes to eat: — They exchange the gained grain for the gained tool; and both are the better for the exchange; but though there is much advantage in the transaction, there is no profit. Nothing is constructed or produced. Only that which had been before constructed is given to the person by whom it can be used. If labour is necessary to effect the exchange, that labour is in reality involved in the production, and, like all other labour, bears profit. Whatever number of men are concerned in the manufacture, or in the conveyance, have share in the profit; but neither the manufacture nor the conveyance are the exchange, and in the exchange itself there is no profit.
There may, however, be acquisition, which is a very different thing. If, in the exchange, one man is able to give what cost him little labour for what has cost the other much, he "acquires" a certain quantity of the produce of the other's labour. And precisely what he acquires, the other loses. In mercantile language, the person who thus acquires is commonly said to have "made a profit;" and I believe that many of our merchants are seriously under the impression that it is possible for everybody, somehow, to make a profit in this manner. Whereas, by the unfortunate constitution of the world we live in, the laws both of matter and motion have quite rigorously forbidden universal acquisition of this kind. Profit, or material gain, is attainable only by construction or by discovery; not by exchange. Whenever material gain follows exchange, for every plus there is a precisely equal minus .
Unhappily for the progress of the science of Political Economy, the plus quantities, or — if I may be allowed to coin an awkward plural — the pluses, make a very positive and venerable appearance in the world, so that every one is eager to learn the science which produces results so magnificent; whereas the minuses have, on the other hand, a tendency to retire into back streets, and other places of shade, — or even to get themselves wholly and finally put out of sight in graves: which renders the algebra of this science peculiar, and difficultly legible; a large number of its negative signs being written by the account-keeper in a kind of red ink, which starvation thins, and makes strangely pale, or even quite invisible ink, for the present.
67 . The science of Exchange, or, as I hear it has been proposed to call it, of "Catallactics," LE19 considered as one of gain, is, therefore, simply nugatory; but considered as one of acquisition, it is a very curious science, differing in its data and basis from every other science known. Thus: — If I can exchange a needle with a savage for a diamond, my power of doing so depends either on the savage's ignorance of social arrangements in Europe, or on his want of power to take advantage of them, by selling the diamond to any one else for more needles. If, farther, I make the bargain as completely advantageous to myself as possible, by giving to the savage a needle with no eye in it (reaching, thus, a sufficiently satisfactory type of the perfect operation of catallactic science), the advantage to me in the entire transaction depends wholly upon the ignorance, powerlessness, or heedlessness of the person dealt with. Do away with these, and catallactic advantage becomes impossible. So far, therefore as the science of exchange relates to the advantage of one of the exchanging persons only, it is founded on the ignorance or incapacity of the opposite person. Where these vanish, it also vanishes. It is therefore a science founded on nescience, and an art founded on artlessness. But all other sciences and arts, except this, have for their object the doing away with their opposite nescience and artlessness. This science, alone of sciences, must, by all available means, promulgate and prolong its opposite nescience; otherwise the science itself is impossible. It is, therefore, peculiarly and alone, the science of darkness; probably a bastard science — not by any means a divina scientia , but one begotten of another father, that father who, advising his children to turn stones into bread, is himself employed in turning bread into stones, and who, if you ask a fish of him (fish not being producible on his estate), can but give you a serpent. [LE: Matthew vii. 10.]
68 . The general law, then, respecting just or economical exchange, is simply this: — There must be advantage on both sides (or if only advantage on one, at least no disadvantage on the other) to the persons exchanging; and just payment for his time, intelligence, and labour, to any intermediate person effecting the transaction (commonly called a merchant): and whatever advantage there is on either side, and whatever pay is given to the intermediate person, should be thoroughly known to all concerned. All attempt at concealment implies some practice of the opposite, or undivine science, founded on nescience . Whence another saying of the Jew merchant's — “As a nail between the stone joints, so doth sin stick fast between buying and selling” [LE: Ecclesiasticus xxvii. 2.]. Which peculiar riveting of stone and timber, in men's dealing with each other, is again set forth in the house which was to be destroyed — timber and stones together — when Zechariah's roll (more probably "curved sword") LE18 flew over it: "the curse that goeth forth over all the earth upon every one that stealeth and holdeth himself guiltless” [Zechariah v. 3 ff.], instantly followed by the vision of the Great Measure; — the measure "of the injustice of them in all the earth" (autê hê adikia autôn en pasê tê gê]">αὔτη ἡ ἀδικία αὐτῶν ἐν πάσῇ τῇ γῃ ), with the weight of lead for its lid, and the woman, the spirit of wickedness, within it; — that is to say, Wickedness hidden by Dulness, and formalized, outwardly, into ponderously established cruelty. "It shall be set upon its own base in the land on Babel." 10
69. I have hitherto carefully restricted myself, in speaking of exchange, to the use of the term "advantage;" but that term includes two ideas: the advantage, namely, of getting what we need , and that of getting what we wish for . Three-fourths of the demands existing in the world are romantic; founded on visions, idealisms, hopes, and affections; and the regulation of the purse is, in its essence, regulation of the imagination and the heart. Hence, the right discussion of the nature of price is a very high metaphysical and psychical problem; sometimes to be solved only in a passionate manner, as by David in his counting the price of the water of the well by the gate of Bethlehem [LE: 2 Samuel xxiii. 15, 16.]; but its first conditions are the following: — The price of anything is the quantity of labour given by the person desiring it, in order to obtain possession of it. This price depends on four variable quantities. A . The quantity of wish the purchaser has for the thing; opposed α, the quantity of wish the seller has to keep it. B . The quantity of labour the purchaser can afford, to obtain the thing; opposed to β, the quantity of labour the seller can afford, to keep it. These quantities are operative only in excess; i.e. , the quantity of wish ( A ) means the quantity of wish for this thing, above wish for other things; and the quantity of work ( B ) means the quantity which can be spared to get this thing from the quantity needed to get other things.
Phenomena of price, therefore, are intensely complex, curious, and interesting — too complex, however, to be examined yet; every one of them , when traced far enough, showing itself at last as a part of the bargain of the Poor of the Flock (or "flock of slaughter" [LE: Zechariah xi. 7.]), "If ye think good, give ME my price, and if not, forbear" — Zech. xi. 12; but as the price of everything is to be calculated finally in labour, it is necessary to define the nature of that standard.
70 . Labour is the contest of the life of man with an opposite: — the term "life" including his intellect, soul, and physical power, contending with question, difficulty, trial, or material force. LE20
Labour is of a higher or lower order, as it includes more or fewer of the elements of life: and labour of good quality, in any kind, includes always as much intellect and feeling as will fully and harmoniously regulate the physical force.
In speaking of the value and price of labour, it is necessary always to understand labour of a given rank and quality, as we should speak of gold or silver of a given standard. Bad (that is, heartless, inexperienced, or senseless) labour cannot be valued; it is like gold of uncertain alloy, or flawed iron. 11
The quality and kind of labour being given, its value, like that of all other valuable things, is invariable. But the quantity of it which must be given for other things is variable: and in estimating this variation, the price of other things must always be counted by the quantity of labour; not the price of labour by the quantity of other things.
Thus, if we want to plant an apple sapling in rocky ground, it may take two hours' work; in soft ground, perhaps only half an hour. Grant the soil equally good for the tree in each case. Then the value of the sapling planted by two hours' work is nowise greater than that of the sapling planted in half an hour. One will bear no more fruit than the other. Also, one half-hour of work is as valuable as another half-hour; nevertheless the one sapling has cost four such pieces of work, the other only one. Now the proper statement of this fact is, not that the labour on the hard ground is cheaper than on the soft; but that the tree is dearer. The exchange value may, or may not, afterwards depend on this fact. If other people have plenty of soft ground to plant in, they will take no cognizance of our two hours' labour, in the price they will offer for the plant on the rock. And if, through want of sufficient botanical science, we have planted an upas-tree instead of an apple, the exchange value will be a negative quantity; still less proportionate to the labour expended.
What is commonly called cheapness of labour, signifies, therefore, in reality, that many obstacles have to be overcome by it; so that much labour is required to produce a small result. But this should never be spoken of as cheapness of labour, but as dearness of the object wrought for. It would be just as rational to say that walking was cheap, because we had ten miles to walk home to our dinner, as that labour was cheap, because we had to work ten hours to earn it.
72. The last word which we have to define is "Production."
I have hitherto spoken of all labour as profitable; because it is impossible to consider under one head the quality or value of labour, and its aim. But labour of the best quality may be various in aim. It may be either constructive ("gathering," from con and struo), as agriculture; nugatory, as jewel-cutting; or destructive ("scattering," from de and struo), as war. It is not, however, always easy to prove labour, apparently nugatory, to be actually so; 12 generally, the formula holds good, “he that gathereth not, scattereth” 1 [LE: Matthew xii. 30.]; thus, the jeweller's art is probably very harmful in its ministering to a clumsy and inelegant pride. LE20 So that, finally, I believe nearly all labour may be shortly divided into positive and negative labour: positive, that which produces life; negative, that which produces death; the most directly negative labour being murder, and the most directly positive, the bearing and rearing of children: so that in the precise degree in which murder is hateful, on the negative side of idleness, in that exact degree child-rearing is admirable, on the positive side of idleness. For which reason, and because of the honour that there is in rearing 13 children, while the wife is said to be as the vine (for cheering), the children are as the olive-branch [LE: Psalms cxxviii. 3.], for praise; nor for praise only, but for peace (because large families can only be reared in times of peace): though since, in their spreading and voyaging in various directions, they distribute strength, they are, to the home strength, as arrows in the hand of the giant [LE: Psalms cxxvii. 4]— striking here and there, far away.
Labour being thus various in its result, the prosperity of any nation is in exact proportion to the quantity of labour which it spends in obtaining and employing means of life. Observe, — I say, obtaining and employing; that is to say, not merely wisely producing, but wisely distributing and consuming. Economists usually speak as if there were no good in consumption absolute. 14 So far from this being so, consumption absolute is the end, crown, and perfection of production; and wise consumption is a far more difficult art than wise production. Twenty people can gain money for one who can use it; and the vital question, for individual and for nation, is, never "how much do they make?" but "to what purpose do they spend?"
73. The reader may, perhaps, have been surprised at the slight reference I have hitherto made to "capital," and its functions. It is here the place to define them.
Capital signifies "head, or source, or root material" — it is material by which some derivative or secondary good is produced. It is only capital proper (caput vivum, not caput mortuum LE21 ) when it is thus producing something different from itself. It is a root, which does not enter into vital function till it produces something else than a root; namely, fruit. That fruit will in time again produce roots; and so all living capital issues in reproduction of capital; but capital which produces nothing but capital is only root producing root; bulb issuing in bulb, never in tulip; seed issuing in seed, never in bread. The Political Economy of Europe has hitherto devoted itself wholly to the multiplication, or (less even) the aggregation, of bulbs. It never saw, nor conceived such a thing as a tulip. Nay, boiled bulbs they might have been — glass bulbs — Prince Rupert's drops, LE22 consummated in powder (well, if it were glass-powder and not gunpowder), for any end or meaning the economists had in defining the laws of aggregation. We will try and get a clearer notion of them.
The best and simplest general type of capital is a well-made ploughshare. Now, if that ploughshare did nothing but beget1 other ploughshares, in a polypous manner, — however the great cluster of polypous plough might glitter in the sun, it would have lost its function of capital. It becomes true capital only by another kind of splendour, — when it is seen "splendescere sulco," LE23 to grow bright in the furrow; rather with diminution of its substance, than addition, by the noble friction. And the true home question, to every capitalist and to every nation, is not, "how many ploughs have you?" but, "where are your furrows?" not — "how quickly will this capital reproduce itself?" — but, "what will it do during reproduction?" What substance will it furnish, good for life? what work construct, protective of life? if none, its own reproduction is useless — if worse than none (for capital may destroy life as well as support it), its own reproduction is worse than useless; it is merely an advance from Tisiphone, on mortgage — not a profit by any means.
74. Not a profit, as the ancients truly saw, and showed in the type of Ixion; LE24 — for capital is the head, or fountain head, of wealth — the "well-head" of wealth, as the clouds are the well-heads of rain: but when clouds are without water, LE25 and only beget clouds, they issue in wrath at last, instead of rain, and in lightning instead of harvest; whence Ixion is said first to have invited his guests to a banquet, and then made them fall into a pit filled with fire; which is the type of the temptation of riches issuing in imprisoned torment, — torment in a pit (as also Demas' silver mine LE26 ), after which, to show the rage of riches passing from lust of pleasure to lust of power, yet power not truly understood, Ixion is said to have desired Juno, and instead, embracing a cloud (or phantasm) LE26 , to have begotten the Centaurs; the power of mere wealth being, in itself, as the embrace of a shadow, — comfortless (so also "Ephraim feedeth on wind and followeth after the east wind" [LE: Hosea xii. 1.]; or "that which is not" — Prov. xxiii. 5; and again Dante's Geryon, LE27 the type of avaricious fraud, as he flies, gathers the air up with retractile claws, — "l'aer a se raccolse" 15 ), but in its offspring, a mingling of the brutal with the human nature: human in sagacity — using both intellect and arrow; but brutal in its body and hoof, for consuming, and trampling down. For which sin Ixion is at last bound upon a wheel — fiery and toothed, and rolling perpetually in the air; — the type of human labour when selfish and fruitless (kept far into the middle ages in their wheel of fortune ) LE28 ; the wheel which has in it no breath or spirit, but is whirled by chance only; whereas of all true work the Ezekiel vision is true, that the Spirit of the living creature is in the wheels, and where the angels go, the wheels go by them [LE: Ezekiel i.15 and following verses]; but move no otherwise.
This being the real nature of capital, it follows that there are two kinds of true production, always going on in an active State; one of seed, and one of food; or production for the Ground, and for the Mouth; both of which are by covetous persons thought to be production only for the granary; whereas the function of the granary is but intermediate and conservative, fulfilled in distribution; else it ends in nothing but mildew, and nourishment of rats and worms. And since production for the Ground is only useful with future hope of harvest, all essential production is for the Mouth; and is finally measured by the mouth; hence, as I said above , consumption is the crown of production; and the wealth of a nation is only to be estimated by what it consumes.
The want of any clear sight of this fact is the capital error, issuing in rich interest and revenue of error among the political economists. Their minds are continually set on money-gain, not on mouth-gain; and they fall into every sort of net and snare, dazzled by the coin-glitter as birds by the fowler's glass; or rather (for there is not much else like birds in them) they are like children trying to jump on the heads of their own shadows; the money-gain being only the shadow of the true gain, which is humanity.
76 .The final object of political economy, therefore, is to get good method of consumption, and great quantity of consumption: in other words, to use everything, and to use it nobly; whether it be substance, service, or service perfecting substance. The most curious error in Mr. Mill's entire work (provided for him originally by Ricardo LE28 ) is his endeavour to distinguish between direct and indirect service, and consequent assertion that a demand for commodities is not demand for labour (I. v. 9, et seq. ). He distinguishes between labourers employed to lay out pleasure grounds, and to manufacture velvet; declaring that it makes material difference to the labouring classes in which of these two ways a capitalist spends his money; because the employment of the gardeners is a demand for labour, but the purchase of velvet is not. 16 Error colossal as well as strange. It will, indeed, make a difference to the labourer whether we bid him swing his scythe in the spring winds, or drive the loom in pestilential air; but, so far as his pocket is concerned, it makes to him absolutely no difference whether we order him to make green velvet, with seed and a scythe, or red velvet, with silk and scissors. Neither does it anywise concern him whether, when the velvet is made, we consume it by walking on it, or wearing it, so long as our consumption of it is wholly selfish. But if our consumption is to be in any wise unselfish, not only our mode of consuming the articles we require interests him, but also the kind of article we require with a view to consumption. As thus (returning for a moment to Mr. Mill's great hardware theory [LE: See above, §56 , p. 77.] 17 ): it matters, so far as the labourer's immediate profit is concerned, not an iron filing whether I employ him in growing a peach, or forging a bombshell; LE30 but my probable mode of consumption of those articles matters seriously. Admit that it is to be in both cases "unselfish," and the difference, to him, is final, whether when his child is ill, I walk into his cottage and give it the peach, or drop the shell down his chimney, and blow his roof off.
The worst of it, for the peasant, is, that the capitalist's consumption of the peach is apt to be selfish, and of the shell, distributive; 18 but, in all cases, this is the broad and general fact, [103/104] that on due catallactic commercial principles, somebody's roof must go off in fulfilment of the bomb's destiny. You may grow for your neighbour, at your liking, grapes or grapeshot; he will also, catallactically, grow grapes or grapeshot for you, and you will each reap what you have sown [LE: Galatians vi.7].
77 . It is, therefore, the manner and issue of consumption which are the real tests of production. Production does not consist in things laboriously made, but in things serviceably consumable; and the question for the nation is not how much labour it employs, but how much life it produces. For as consumption is the end and aim of production, so life is the end and aim of consumption.
I left this question to the reader's thought two months ago [LE: See above, §§ 40–41 , pp. 55–56.], choosing rather that he should work it out for himself than have it sharply stated to him. But now, the ground being sufficiently broken (and the details into which the several questions, here opened, must lead us, being too complex for discussion in the pages of a periodical, so [104/105] that I must pursue them elsewhere [LE: A reference to the compulsory closing of the present series of papers: see above, p. xxviii.]), I desire, in closing the series of introductory papers, to leave this one great fact clearly stated. There is no Wealth but Life. Life, including all its powers of love, of joy, and of admiration. LE31 That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings; that man is richest who, having perfected the functions of his own life to the utmost, has also the widest helpful influence, both personal and by means of his possessions, over the lives of others.
A strange political economy; the only one, nevertheless, that ever was or can be: all political economy founded on self-interest 18 being but the fulfilment of that which once brought schism into the Policy of angels, and ruin into the Economy of Heaven. LE32
78. "The greatest number of human beings noble and happy." But is the nobleness consistent with the number? Yes, not only consistent with it, but essential to it. The maximum of life can only be reached by the maximum of virtue. In this respect the law of human population differs wholly from that of animal life. The multiplication of animals is checked only by want of food, and by the hostility of races; the population of the gnat is restrained by the hunger of the swallow, and that of the swallow by the scarcity of gnats. Man, considered as an animal, is indeed limited by the same laws: hunger, or plague, or war, are the necessary and only restraints upon his increase, — effectual restraints hitherto, — his principal study having been how most swiftly to destroy himself, or ravage his dwelling-places, [105/106] and his highest skill directed to give range to the famine, seed to the plague, and sway to the sword. But, considered as other than an animal, his increase is not limited by these laws. It is limited only by the limits of his courage and his love. Both of these have their bounds; and ought to have: his race has its bounds also; but these have not yet been reached, nor will be reached for ages.
79. In all the ranges of human thought I know none so melancholy as the speculations of political economists on the population question. It is proposed to better the condition of the labourer by giving him higher wages. "Nay," says the economist, "if you raise his wages, he will either drag people down to the same point of misery at which you found him, or drink your wages away." He will. I know it. Who gave him this will? Suppose it were your own son of whom you spoke, declaring to me that you dared not take him into your firm, nor even give him his just labourer's wages, because if you did, he would die of drunkenness, and leave half a score of children to the parish. "Who gave your son these dispositions?" — I should inquire. Has he them by inheritance or by education? By one or other they must come; and as in him, so also in the poor. Either these poor are of a race essentially different from ours, and unredeemable (which, however often implied, I have heard none yet openly say), or else by such care as we have ourselves received, we may make them continent and sober as ourselves — wise and dispassionate as we are — models arduous of imitation. "But," it is answered, "they cannot receive education." Why not? That is precisely the point at issue. Charitable persons suppose the worst fault of the rich is to refuse the people meat; and thepeople cry for their meat, kept back by fraud, to the Lord of Multitudes. 19 Alas! it is not meat of which the refusal is cruelest, or to which the claim is validest. The life is more than the meat [LE: Matthew vi. 25]. The rich not only refuse food to the poor; they refuse wisdom; they refuse virtue; they refuse salvation. Ye sheep without shepherd [LE: Numbers xxvii. 17; Matthew ix. 36.], it is not the pasture that has been shut from you, but the presence. Meat! perhaps your right to that may be pleadable; but other rights have to be pleaded first. Claim your crumbs from the table, if you will; but claim them as children, not as dogs; claim your right to be fed, but claim more loudly your right to be holy, perfect, and pure.
Strange words to be used of working people: "What! holy; without any long robes nor anointing oils; these rough-jacketed, rough-worded persons set to nameless and dishonoured service? Perfect! — these, with dim eyes and cramped limbs, and slowly wakening minds? Pure! — these, with sensual desire and grovelling thought; foul of body, and coarse of soul?" It may be so; nevertheless, such as they are, they are the holiest, perfectest, purest persons the earth can at present show. They may be what you have said; but if so, they yet are holier than we, who have left them thus.
But what can be done for them? Who can clothe — who teach — who restrain their multitudes? What end can there be for them at last, but to consume one another?
I hope for another end, though not, indeed, from any of the three remedies for over-population commonly suggested by economists.
80 . These three are, in brief — Colonization; Bringing in of waste lands; or Discouragement of Marriage. LE33
The first and second of these expedients merely evade or delay the question. It will, indeed, be long before the world has been all colonized, and its deserts all brought under cultivation. But the radical question is not how much habitable land is in the world, but how many human beings ought to be maintained on a given space of habitable land.
Observe, I say, ought to be, not how many can be. Ricardo, with his usual inaccuracy, defines what he calls the “natural rate of wages" as "that which will maintain the labourer.” LE34 Maintain him! yes; but how? — the question was instantly thus asked of me by a working girl, to whom I read the passage. I will amplify her question for her. "Maintain him, how?" As, first, to what length of life? [108/109] Out of a given number of fed persons how many are to be old — how many young; that is to say, will you arrange their maintenance so as to kill them early — say at thirty or thirty-five on the average, including deaths of weakly or ill-fed children? — or so as to enable them to live out a natural life? You will feed a greater number, in the first case, 20 by rapidity of succession; probably a happier number in the second: which does Mr. Ricardo mean to be their natural state, and to which state belongs the natural rate of wages?
Again: A piece of land which will only support ten idle, ignorant, and improvident persons, will support thirty or forty intelligent and industrious ones. Which of these is their natural state, and to which of them belongs the natural rate of wages?
Again: If a piece of land support forty persons in industrious ignorance; and if, tired of this ignorance, they set apart ten of their number to study the properties of cones, and the sizes of stars; the labour of these ten, being withdrawn from the ground, must either tend to the increase of food in some transitional manner, or the persons set apart for sidereal and conic purposes must starve, or some one else starve instead of them. What is, therefore, the natural rate of wages of the scientific persons, and how does this rate relate to, or measure, their reverted or transitional productiveness?
Again: If the ground maintains, at first, forty labourers in a peaceable and pious state of mind, but they become in a few years so quarrelsome and impious that they have to set apart five, to meditate upon and settle their disputes; ten, armed to the teeth with costly instruments, to enforce the decisions; and five to remind everybody in an eloquent manner of the existence of a God; — what will be the result upon the general power of production, and what is the [109/110] “natural rate of wages” of the meditative, muscular, and oracular labourers?
81. Leaving these questions to be discussed, or waived, at their pleasure, by Mr. Ricardo's followers, I proceed to state the main facts bearing on that probable future of the labouring classes which has been partially glanced at by Mr. Mill. That chapter and the preceding one LE35 differ from the common writing of political economists in admitting some value in the aspect of nature, and expressing regret at the probability of the destruction of natural scenery. But we may spare our anxieties, on this head. Men can neither drink steam, nor eat stone. The maximum of population on a given space of land implies also the relative maximum of edible vegetable, whether for men or cattle; it implies a maximum of pure air; and of pure water. Therefore: a maximum of wood, to transmute the air, and of sloping ground, protected by herbage from the extreme heat of the sun, to feed the streams. All England may, if it so chooses, become one manufacturing town; LE36 and Englishmen, sacrificing themselves to the good of general humanity, may live diminished lives in the midst of noise, of darkness, and of deadly exhalation. But the world cannot become a factory, nor a mine. No amount of ingenuity will ever make iron digestible by the million, nor substitute hydrogen for wine. Neither the avarice nor the rage of men will ever feed them, and however the apple of Sodom and the grape of Gomorrah may spread their table for a time with dainties of ashes, and nectar of asps, — so long as men live by bread, the far away valleys must laugh as they are covered with the gold of God, and the shouts of His happy multitudes ring round the winepress and the well. LE37
82. Nor need our more sentimental economists fear the too wide spread of the formalities of a mechanical agriculture. [110/111] The presence of a wise population implies the search for felicity as well as for food; nor can any population reach its maximum but through that wisdom which "rejoices" [LE: Proverbs viii. 31.] in the habitable parts of the earth. The desert has its appointed place and work; the eternal engine, whose beam is the earth's axle, whose beat is its year, and whose breath is its ocean, will still divide imperiously to their desert kingdoms, bound with unfurrowable rock, and swept by unarrested sand, their powers of frost and fire: but the zones and lands between, habitable, will be loveliest in habitation. The desire of the heart is also the light of the eyes [LE: See Proverbs xv. 30.]. No scene is continually and untiringly loved, but one rich by joyful human labour; smooth in field; fair in garden; full in orchard; trim, sweet, and frequent in homestead; ringing with voices of vivid existence. No air is sweet that is silent; LE38 it is only sweet when full of low currents of under sound — triplets of birds, and murmur and chirp of insects, and deep-toned words of men, and wayward trebles of childhood. As the art of life is learned, it will be found at last that all lovely things are also necessary: — the wild flower by the wayside , as well as the tended corn; and the wild birds and creatures of the forest, as well as the tended cattle; because man doth not live by bread only [LE: Deuteronomy viii. 3; Matthew iv. 4; and see Job xxxvii. 14], but also by the desert manna; by every wondrous word and unknowable work of God. Happy, in that he knew them not, nor did his fathers know; and that round about him reaches yet into the infinite, the amazement of his existence.
83. Note, finally, that all effectual advancement towards this true felicity of the human race must be by individual, not public effort. Certain general measures may aid, certain revised laws guide, such advancement; but the measure and law which have first to be determined are those of [111/112] each man's home. We continually hear it recommended by sagacious people to complaining neighbours (usually less well placed in the world than themselves), that they should "remain content in the station in which Providence has placed them." LE39 There are perhaps some circumstances of life in which Providence has no intention that people should be content. Nevertheless, the maxim is on the whole a good one; but it is peculiarly for home use. That your neighbour should, or should not, remain content with his position, is not your business; but it is very much your business to remain content with your own. What is chiefly needed in England at the present day is to show the quantity of pleasure that may be obtained by a consistent, well-administered competence, modest, confessed, and laborious. LE40 We need examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek — not greater wealth, but simpler pleasure; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions, self-possession; and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace. LE41
Of which lowly peace it is written that "justice and peace have kissed each other;" and that the fruit of justice is "sown in peace of them that make peace" [LE: Psalms lxxxv. 10; James iii. 18.]; not "peace-makers" in the common understanding — reconcilers of quarrels; (though that function also follows on the greater one;) but peace-Creators; Givers of Calm. Which you cannot give, unless you first gain; nor is this gain one which will follow assuredly on any course of business, commonly so called. No form of gain is less probable, business being (as is shown in the language of all nations — πωλεῖν from πέλω , πρᾶσις from περάω venire, vendre, and venal, from venio, etc.) essentially restless — and probably contentious; — having a raven-like mind to the motion to and fro, as to the carrion [112/113] food; whereas the olive-feeding and bearing birds look for rest for their feet [LE: Genesis viii. 7.]: thus it is said of Wisdom that she "hath builded her house, and hewn out her seven pillars [LE: Proverbs ix. 1.];" and even when, though apt to wait long at the doorposts, she has to leave her house and go abroad, her paths are peace also.
For us, at all events, her work must begin at the entry of the doors: all true economy is "Law of the house." Strive to make that law strict, simple, generous: waste nothing, and grudge nothing. Care in nowise to make more of money, but care to make much of it; remembering always the great, palpable, inevitable fact — the rule and root of all economy — that what one person has, another cannot have; and that every atom of substance, of whatever kind, used or consumed, is so much human life spent; which, if it issue in the saving present life, or gaining more, is well spent, but if not, is either so much life prevented, or so much slain. In all buying, consider, first, what condition of existence you cause in the producers of what you buy; secondly, whether the sum you have paid is just to the producer, and in due proportion lodged in his hands; 21 thirdly, to how much clear use, for food, knowledge, or joy, this that you have bought can be put; and fourthly, to whom and in what way it can be most speedily and serviceably distributed: in all dealings whatsoever insisting on entire openness and stern fulfilment; and in all doings, on perfection and loveliness of accomplishment; especially on fineness and purity [113/114] of all marketable commodity: watching at the same time for all ways of gaining, or teaching, powers of simple pleasure; and of showing "hoson en asphodelph geg honeiar" LE42 — the sum of enjoyment depending not on the quantity of things tasted, but on the vivacity and patience of taste.
85 . And if, on due and honest thought over these things, it seems that the kind of existence to which men are now summoned by every plea of pity and claim of right, may, for some time at least, not be a luxurious one: — consider whether, even, supposing it guiltless, luxury would be desired by any of us, if we saw clearly at our sides the suffering which accompanies it in the world. Luxury is indeed possible in the future — innocent and exquisite: luxury for all, and by the help of all; but luxury at present can only be enjoyed by the ignorant; the cruelest man living could not sit at his feast, unless he sat blindfold. LE43 Raise the veil boldly; face the light; and if, as yet, the light of the eye can only be through tears, and the light of the body [LE: Matthew vi. 22.] through sackcloth, go thou forth weeping, bearing precious seed, until the time come, and the kingdom, when Christ's gift of bread, and bequest of peace shall be Unto this last as unto thee [LE: Matthew xx. 13]; and when, for earth's severed multitudes of the wicked and the weary, there shall be holier reconciliation than that of the narrow home, and calm economy, where the Wicked cease — not from trouble, but from troubling — and the Weary are at rest [LE: Job iii. 17].
Last modified 15 February 2019
(92) 336 3216666
Read our complete notes on the essay “Work” by John Ruskin. Our notes cover this essay’s summary and detailed analysis.
Work by John Ruskin Summary
Ruskin delivered his lecture “Work” before the working men’s institute, at Camber well. In this speech he addresses the working people there at the institution of working men. This speech is a socio-economic criticism on the contemporary life of England. In the very beginning of his speech he tries to bring forward all the harsh realities and destruction of industrial revolution in the life of working class.
He talks about the class distinction caused by this industrial revolution. Ruskin takes up some glaring issues of poor people. He doesn’t care for that society in which the poor end up noticeably poorer and the rich wealthier. The upper class enjoy by making poor people work for them and to accommodate them. So far as poor working people concern there is no contrast between male ruler of ancient time and modern aristocratic class. He develops several analogies to differentiate between idle men and working men, upper class and lower class.
He tries to make distinction between idle poor and idle rich, busy poor and busy rich. He says that there are many beggars, they are as lazy as they have ten thousand a years and many there are rich men as busier than their servants. Here he gives few recommendations for healthy society as he says if rich idle people observed and admonished the idle rich people, all would be correct. If the busy deprived people took notice and reprimanded idle poor, all would be okay.
But unfortunately these classes only look for the faults of other class. Only the depraved poor consider rich as their enemy and want to sack their houses, divide their wealth. Only the dissolute rich people use disgusting language of the wrong doings and follies of the poor people. Here he criticizes the industrious people and points out the tremendous existing distinction among industrious people; the distinction of low and high, lost and won etc. Ruskin draws distinctions between the two classes in four major respective.
- work and play
- poor and rich
- work by hand and brain
- wise work and foolish work
Here he defines the work and play. He says that play is a physical and mental effort, which has no resolute end, self pleasing. On the other hand work is something which has determined end and to earn benefit. He criticizes some of the famous plays of London as cricket, snooker and calls them a game of money making but useless money. He says that it’s like the runs of cricket has no use.
He says London is a city of play, very hard and unpleasant play. He places shooting and hunting in the category of game; costly and expensive game. He says that those who earn money by these games are earning money blindly. They do not know why they earn money and what they will do of it. As hunting is a game for gentlemen’s for women we have ladies’ game of expensive dressing. He gives the example of a brooch at jeweler’s shop ago; cost of 3000 pound. He criticizes the costly dressing of English, French and Russian men and women. While on the other hand poor people have no proper dress to wear. And he says this is the first distinction between upper and lower.
For his second distinction between poor and rich, between upper class money donors(Dives) and lower class money acceptors; beggar (Lazarus), he compares two articles from newspaper to illustrate this distinction. He reads the first article which is about the lavishness of a rich Russian at Paris. He spends fifteen franc only for two peaches. Another article is about the dead man beside a dung heap. The Thames police constable finds a dead body of an aged man beside the heap of dung in Shadwell Gap. The cadaver was of a bone picker. He was extremely poor. The inspector finds some bones and a penny in his pocket. Then he goes on talking about the lawful and unlawful bases of wealth.
The lawful basis of wealth is that the working man should be paid the handful value of his work and should be given a complete liberty over his possession. If today he does not spend the day after he will spend it. The lazy people who do not work but stay at home only breaking bread in the end will be doubly poor with nothing in possession.
Next, Ruskin talks about the false basis of distinction. He says such people who earn money on false basis are poor, uneducated, coward and inferior in intellect. Their only purpose is to make money nothing else. He defines the false basis of wealth as those who prefers money than their duties.
Ruskin says that the primary objectives of a soldier are to fight and win battle. The duty of a clergyman is to baptize and preach as the doctor purpose is to cure patient. If they prefer money than their work this is false basis of accumulation wealth. This is a huge distinction and can be compared the distinction between heaven and hell, between life and death for there are no two masters can be served.
He compares the duty the first lord as God and fee the second master as devil. If you prefer first you are servant of God and if fee first you are the devil’s servant. The next he says such kind of Satan’s servant to be found in every nation, who has making money, is principle objective of their life. They are very mean and stupid people.
To explain this stupidity he tells about a biblical reference of Judas Iscariot. He was a money lover and like all money lover he deceived Jesus Christ and did not understand him. In modern time there many Judas’s bargainers who are fee-first men. The modern capitalists are violating the rights of working class. They take all the production themselves, except laborer’s food and that is modern Judas’s way of betraying others.
The next he talks about the power of capital and the disadvantages of capital in first priority. He says that when the principle object of life becomes the fee or capital of any nation or man, “it is both got ill and spent ill”; and it does hurt in spending and getting both. When money becomes the principle object of life it becomes a curse for the man and nation.
Next, Ruskin talks about the work by hand and work by head. Both types of work are important and necessary for the maintenance of life. Everyone should be honest to his work. Rough work can be done by rough men and gentle work can be done by gentle people. The same men cannot do both work at a time. He tells the working men a grand proverb of Sancho’s that nothing is achieved by empty promises or flattery. Both class of working should respect each other work because a man setting in a room with all facilities does have no idea about the work of a man sitting in front of furnace or a driver driving against the wind.
But the problem is that the rough work is real and honest and though generally no useful but the gentle work accompanies deceit and cheating. When both works are equally done with honesty then head’s work is honorable than hand’s work. All work should be done with orderly manner, lawful way and human way not in the doggish way or disorderly. He criticizes the war and recruitment of war once again. We enlist people for labor that kills. We should enlist people for labor that feed. Then he talks about justice in great detail. He emphasizes on justice between people, between working class in every action of life.
In the fourth section of his speech he talks about the wise work and foolish work. Here tries to differentiate between sensible work and non-sensible work in daily occupation. In bold words he says that wise work is that which is done for and work with God. But on the other hand the work which is against God is foolish work. Work with God means to enforce God’s law of order and ensure justice. Order and justice are two great human deeds; there are two deeds against that are devil’s inequity and devil’s disorder.
A sensible human must fight against these two Satan’s deeds. So far if a person does not fight against means work for him. All wise works can be described by threefold in character. The very first character of wise work is HONEST. Honesty is very much important aspect of wise work. Ruskin implores to the working men to be honest with their work. He says that without honesty we will not be able to do anything for you and you yourself will fail also to do anything for yourself. All things are vain without honesty. So you must put your heart together. Put your hand in hand and you will win at all.
The second attribute of wise work is USEFUL. Wise work is useful. There must be something in the end of your hard work if nothing comes this is hardest. If all your bees business turns to spiders; this is the unkind result for the worker. It would be the greatest waste for a worker if he commits the waste of his labor.
The next of wise work is CHEERFUL. It is as cheerful as child’s work. He says that God’s kingdom is not to come outside but it lies inside of our hearts. It is within us. If we want to enter into the kingdom of God or bring it into our life we must adopt the character of children. If we want our work to be cheerful we must adopt child’s character. These characters of children we want.
The first character of a child is that it is Modest. Modest child does not think that it knows everything, always ask question, and wants to know more. Well like the child the first character of a wise and good workman is that he knows very little ask questions and tries to learn more and more. The second important character of a child and wise workman is to be faithful. A good child always perceives that his father knows better what is best for it. it trust him wholly, and this is the genuine characteristic of good and wise working man in any field. They must be faithful to their captains. The third one character of a good child is to be loving and generous. All these characters of a good child is the characters of good and great workers.
Work by John Ruskin Literary Analysis
The recent essay Work is one from the speeches of Ruskin’s book “Crown of wild olive”. He delivers this speech to workingmen in the working institution at Camberwell.
The essay is the socio-economic criticism of European industrialization and outcome of the industrialization. This essay shows Ruskin’s rage against the machine and it dehumanization in an industrial era. When machines were invented and factories and industries were established there was no value for workers working by hand. This industrialization created a competition among industrial people.
Ruskin gives value to product by hand and he says the thing created without toil is worthless and “Machine ornaments are no ornaments at all”. The industrialization of Europe created class distinctions among people. Here Ruskin talks about to eliminate this class differences by the justice and honesty with the work.
More From John Ruskin