Interpreting Ruskin: The Argument of The Seven Lamps of Architecture and The Stones of Venice

Abstract

Strange as it is may sound, considering the huge body of secondary literature on John Ruskin (1819-1900), studies that focus on his architectural writings, reconstruct their several arguments, and place these in their proper philosophical context are rare. An essay by Charles Dougherty' takes care of just about that for Ruskin's debut as an architectural writer, The Poetry of Architecture (1839), but little of comparable scope has appeared regarding the far more celebrated The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849) and The Stones of Venice (3 vols., 1851-1853). Studies by art historians over the past twenty-five years probe less into the argument of Ruskin's texts than into their architectural impact.2 Looking at Architecture with Ruskin by John Unrau3 marks an exception, in the sense that it extensively quotes and summarizes what, here and elsewhere, Ruskin actually has to say on architecture. It rather narrowly focuses on empirical observations and practical recommendations, though. Study of "ethical, religious and historical theories woven round architecture in his writings" is left to "many able scholars"-who remain unspecified. Writing in the mid-1970s, Unrau may have thought of George Landow, whose pioneering study in textual and philosophical interpretation came out in 1971.4 That work, however, pays scant attention to The Seven Lamps of Architecture, whereas in dealing with The Stones of Venice it focuses on sections that anticipate much of great interest in the later volumes of Modern Painters (5 vols., 1846-1859), but are less distinguished for what they have to say on architecture. This pattern is repeated in later Ruskin studies by scholars whose primary field is English literature.5 In what follows, the argument of both works will be analyzed in terms of an interplay of philosophical concepts and empirical observations. The history of those concepts beyond Ruskin's writings will not be explored in depth. The focus is internal. Among the things I hope to demonstrate is that, if the effort is made, those works yield more substantial architectural thought than they are generally assumed to hold.6