The Harbours of England | Page 2

of 1877, with its worn and "retouched" plates,[B] was
published at twenty-five shillings; less than a third of that sum will
suffice to procure a copy of this new issue in which the prints (save for
their reduced size) more nearly approach the clearness and beauty of
the originals of 1856 than any of the three editions which have
immediately preceded it.
[B] By this time (1877) the plates had become considerably worn, and
were accordingly "retouched" by Mr. Chas. A. Tomkins. But such
retouching proved worse than useless. The delicacy of the finer work
had entirely vanished, and the plates remained but a ghost of their
former selves, such as no one would recognize as doing justice to
Turner. The fifth is unquestionably the least satisfactory of the five

original editions containing Lupton's engravings.
I have before me the following interesting letter addressed by Mr.
Ruskin's father to Mr. W. Smith Williams, for many years literary
adviser to Messrs. Smith, Elder & Co.:--
"CHAMOUNI, August 4th, 1856.
"MY DEAR SIR,--I hear that in The Athenæum of 26th July there is a
good article on my son's Harbors of England, and I should be greatly
obliged by Mr. Gordon Smith sending me that number....
"The history of this book, I believe, I told you. Gambart, the French
publisher and picture dealer, said some 18 months ago that he was
going to put out 12 Turner plates, never published, of English Harbors,
and he would give my son two good Turner drawings for a few pages
of text to illustrate them.[C] John agreed, and wrote the text, when
poorly in the spring of 1855, at Tunbridge Wells; and it seems the work
has just come out. It was in my opinion an extremely well done thing,
and more likely, as far as it went, if not to be extremely popular, at least
to be received without cavil than anything he had written. If there is a
very favorable review in The Athenæum ... it may tend to disarm the
critics, and partly influence opinion of his larger works....--With our
united kind regards,
"Yours very truly, "JOHN JAMES RUSKIN."
[C] Mr. E. Gambart (who is still living) states that, to the best of his
recollection, he paid Mr. Ruskin 150 guineas for his work. Probably
this was the price originally agreed upon, the two Turner drawings
being ultimately accepted as a more welcome and appropriate form of
remuneration.
In all save one particular the Text here given follows precisely that of
the previous issues. It has been the good fortune of the present Editor to
be able to restore a characteristic passage suppressed from motives of
prudence when the work was originally planned.[D] The proof-sheets
of the first edition, worked upon by Mr. Ruskin, were given by him to

his old nurse Anne.[E] She, fortunately, carefully preserved them, and
in turn gave them to Mr. Allen, some ten years before he became Mr.
Ruskin's publisher. These proofs had been submitted as they came from
the press to Mr. W. H. Harrison (well known to readers of On the Old
Road, etc., as "My First Editor"), who marked them freely with notes
and suggestions. To one passage he appears to have taken so decided an
objection that its author was prevailed upon to delete it. But, whilst
deferring thus to the judgment of others, and consenting to remove a
sentence which he doubtless regarded with particular satisfaction as
expressing a decided opinion upon a favorite picture, Mr. Ruskin
indulged in one of those pleasantries which now and again we observe
in his informal letters, though seldom, if ever, in his serious writings. In
the margin, below the canceled passage, he wrote boldly: "Sacrificed to
the Muse of Prudence. J. R."[F]
[D] See post, p. 19.
[E] See Præterita. She died March 30th, 1871.
[F] The accompanying illustration is a facsimile of the portion of the
proof-sheet described above--slightly reduced to fit the smaller page.
That Mr. Harrison was justified in raising objection to this "moderate
estimate" of Turner's picture will, I think, be readily allowed. In those
days Mr. Ruskin's influence was, comparatively speaking, small; and
the expression of an opinion which heaped praise upon the single
painting of a partially understood painter at the expense of a great and
popular institution would only have served to arouse opposition, and
possibly to attract ridicule. It is different to-day. We know the keen
enthusiasm of the author of The Seven Lamps, and have seen again and
again how he expresses himself in terms of somewhat exaggerated
admiration when writing of a painter whom he appreciates, or a picture
that he loves. To us this enthusiasm is an attractive characteristic. It has
never been permitted to distort the vision or cloud the critical faculty;
and we follow