John Ruskin's Correspondence with Joan Severn: Sense and Nonsense Letters (Legenda Main Series)

Product Information

In a cover letter introducing the file, an anonymous writer reports that the family was enchanted by their relationship with Ruskin and that Eva, approaching 90 in 1949, still thrilled to tell stories of how charmed he was with their singing, about going to Oxford to hear his lectures, or just listening to his plans for various projects in the midst of their chats about music, books, and art. Immerse yourself in the world of John Ruskin, the famous writer, artist and social reformer. Discover his legacy through displays and activities in the house, gardens and estate. Like Peggy and Rosalind Webling, actors in London productions of the era. Ruskin had seen them perform often. At the time this letter was written, Kate Vaughn was 32 and Connie Gilchrist 21. Cf. Swett, 51, and, for the italicized passage, Boston Public Library (hereafter, BPL) Mss. Acc. 2500 (I) 37 a+b. This part of the letter was excised from the printed version, likely by Lucia Grey Swett, editor of a book containing a carefully chosen portion of the correspondence. Examination of the holographs shows that many of Ruskin’s letters were bowdlerized before publication; others, their content deemed too sensitive, were left out entirely. This sentence about Rose was crossed out on the holograph by Alexander Wedderburn, who, as one of the editors of The Library Edition, and working in collusion with Ruskin’s cousin, Joan Severn, and E. T. Cook (the other editor) had decided that, in their edition, there would be as little reference to Rose as possible. Also included in the list of evidences which would be edited or excised altogether were any references to Ruskin’s pets. (For reasons obvious from the context, this letter did not appear in the LE. It was, however, later published in its entirety by Hayman. For the excision, see, at Huntington Library—hereafter, HL—File HM 62832. For the story of the systematic bowdlerization of Ruskin’s immense cache of surviving letters, see Chapter Two.

I’m beginning to really have hopes of you. This terrific sunset shows [great improvement]. Now, do be a good girl for once and send me a little sunset as you know now how to do it—reversing everything you used to do.For a second account which parallels Webling’s, one which also stresses Ruskin’s positive influence on her life, see Goring. Ten when she met Ruskin, the holographs of the 27 letters he sent her during the first half decade of the 1880s are at New York’s Pierpont Morgan Library (hereafter PML; MA 4778). Comparison of these holographs with the transcriptions appearing in her published account shows them to be identical. Like Webling’s memories, they are devoid of any remarks which might be considered sexual. For a fuller account of the relationship with Olander and his subsequent collapse, see my “Dark Night.” May "Into town. Call at Mr Pritchard’s – found riding school! (Con and Mrs H[illiard] at lunch)" ( Diaries, II, 617).

Gordon read the letter, almost certainly in The Times, and was prompted to respond not only to Ruskin but also to Joan Severn. In his letter to "My dear Ruskin", he expressed his approval: Brantwood has a number of services and facilities available for disabled visitors throughout both the house and some of the gardens.The omissions are serious, because, as we know too well from recent, terrifying headlines, pedophilia is not only a real thing in our world, it is, when practiced in its most virulent form on the innocent and vulnerable, a practice which maims its victims for life, a practice which is, from any civilized perspective, monstrous. From which viewpoint, it makes little difference whether the cases contending whether Ruskin was a pedophile or not are weak or strong. The real issue is whether he was one. Hence, there is no help for it but to embark on a careful study of the malfunction hoping that, when that effort arrives at its conclusion, we will be able to say definitively whether he was a “sexual adventurer” driven by a malicious “desire for…little girls” (Robson: 97) or that he was, when it came to matters erotic, something very much milder. An Assessment of the Evidence

The "fatty degeneration" is something in which I should ask you not to believe except of first-rate medical authority. [...] My knowledge of your will-o'-the-wisp is neither much nor recent; but such impression of it as I have leads me to extreme a priori scepticism as to have her having any true signs of the disease. [...] Fearfully and wonderfully made are the insides of hysterically-minded young women. [...] If there is really anything beyond co-feminising twaddle to justify a suspicion of organic heart-disease of any kind, by all means get a conclusive medical opinion. [Hilton, Later Years 146-47] Activities for all ages are available, including exploring the gardens and woodland trails, connecting with the landscape through observation and art, and learning about Ruskin’s fascinating life and legacy. Don’t forget to try out the Terrace and enjoy one of the finest café views in the Lakes. March Monday " Bitter frost and snow. Sent off conclusion letter on prodigal son to Dixon. Gordon at dinner with Joan and me alone" ( Diaries, II, 613).Ruskin extended Gordon's circle of friends. At the beginning of November, he took him to dinner at the home of John and Jane Simon, probably at their London home in Great Cumberland Street, where he also met Mr and Mrs Hutchinson ( Diaries, II, 686). Mr Hutchinson was most likely Dr (later Sir) Jonathan Hutchinson (1828-1913) who became a surgeon at the London Hospital (1863-1883) in the East End and Hunterian professor of surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons. One of his great discoveries was the identification of three symptoms of congenital syphilis, known as "Hutchinson’s triad". The day after the dinner, Ruskin made a strange comment in his diary: "Had to talk at the Simons’; felt as if silent Mr. Hutchinson thought me conceited" ( Diaries, II, 686). What makes these accusations the more disquieting is the fact that, when the arguments and evidence offered by Robson and Hilton 5 in support of the contention that Ruskin was a pedophile are examined, we find little justification given for the designation and scant evidence presented to confirm the charge—especially in Robson’s case.