xliv INTRODUCTION

And similarly in his more serious pages the “Architect” makes of Ruskin’s praise of St. Mark’s a crowning instance of perversity: “In direct opposition to every other critic and architectural writer who has spoken of that edifice, he scruples not to call its facade ‘as lovely a dream as ever filled the human imagination!’¹ After that, we must be impressed, if not with admiration of St. Mark’s, with astonishment at Mr. Ruskin’s notions of loveliness; he being the very first who has ever attributed that quality to an edifice which most others have branded by the epithet ugly, despite the sumptuousness of its materials, and its abundant, yet very unequal, as well as uncouth ornamentation” (pp. 45-46).

Ruskin’s old enemy, the Athenœum (March 22, 1851), made a great point, too, of the author’s running counter to so many deeply-rooted ideas. As for his style it was “whimsically studied quaintness and mere fustian rant,” while the argument raised “a question as to the condition of the author’s mind.”²

The general reception of the volume by the press was, however, very favourable; any slowness in the sale certainly could not be attributed to the critics. “I always think,” wrote Ruskin in a humorous strain (October 10, 1851), “the reviews read very well where they quote me and say nothing themselves.” This was in acknowledgment of a review sent by his father from The Ecclesiologist, which very handsomely waived the author’s attack on Catholicism (Anglican, as well as Roman) as a regrettable prejudice, and dealt with the volume on its merits by means of appreciative extracts.³ Probably Ruskin’s father did not withhold all reviews, and in that case the author might have drunk deep of those “draughts of unqualified praise” of which Miss Edgeworth speaks. One cupful may here suffice. It is from The Church of England Quarterly (July 1851, vol. 30, pp. 132-148), which after taking credit for having

¹ See below, p. 55 n.

² The reviewer was very angry with the title of ch. i., “The Quarry,” since “instead of treating as might be expected of the various kinds of stone employed by the Venetians in their structures, it turns out to be,” etc., etc.

³ The Ecclesiologist, Aug. 1851, vol. xi. pp. 275-284. In addition to those mentioned in the text the following among other reviews of the volume may be mentioned:-The Express, March 15, 1851; Literary Gazette, March 22, 1851; Art Journal, April 1851 (review signed “H”); Examiner, April 12, 1851; Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, May 1851, N. S. vol. 18, pp. 286-292; Eclectic Review,May 1851, N.S. vol. i. pp. 591-601; Architectural Quarterly Review, June 1851, pp. 51-75; Christian Observer, August 1851, vol. 51, pp. 538-553; Gentlemen’s Magazine, August 1851, N.S. vol. 36, pp. 130-136; North British Review, August 1851, vol. 15, pp. 461-496; Dublin University Magazine, September 1851, vol. 38, pp. 253-271; Free Church Magazine, Edinburgh, 1851, vol. 8, pp. 196-202. Some of these reviews noticed at the same time The Construction of Sheepfolds, and others, the first three parts of The Examples of Venetian Architecture.

[Version 0.04: March 2008]