expectations of their being able honourably to maintain and teach their children. 125. No girl should receive her permission to marry before her seventeenth birthday, nor any youth before his twenty-first; and it should be a point of somewhat distinguished honour with both sexes to gain their permission of marriage in the eighteenth and twenty-second years; and a recognised disgrace not to have gained it at least before the close of their twenty-first and twenty-fourth. I do not mean that they should in any wise hasten actual marriage; but only that they should hold it a point of honour to have the right to marry. In every year there should be two festivals, one on the first of May, and one at the feast of harvest home1 in each district, at which festivals their permissions to marry should be given publicly to the maidens and youths who had won them in that half-year; and they should be crowned, the maids by the old French title of Rosières, and the youths, perhaps by some name rightly derived from one supposed signification of the word bachelor," "laurel fruit," and so led in joyful procession, with music and singing, through the city street or village lane, and the day ended with feasting of the poor.3 66 126. And every bachelor and rosière should be entitled to claim, if they needed it, according to their position in life, a fixed income from the State, for seven years from the day of their marriage, for the setting up of their homes; and, however rich they might be by inheritance, their income should not be permitted to exceed a given sum,* proportioned to their rank, for the seven years following that in which they had obtained their permission to marry, but should accumulate in the trust of the State [Ruskin in his own copy here refers to § 45, above, p. 355.] 2 [Compare Fors Clavigera, Letter 96, where the "Rosière of Nanterre" is described.J 3 [The letter, as originally published, adds :— homes." feasting of the poor, but not with theirs, except quietly at their The edition of 1867 reads: "but not with feasting [of] theirs, except quietly, at their homes."] [See above, § 8 n. (p. 322), and below, § 146 (p. 436).] until that seventh year, in which they should be put (on certain conditions) finally in possession of their property; and the men, thus necessarily not before their twentyeighth, nor usually later than their thirty-first year, become eligible to offices of State. So that the rich and poor should not be sharply separated in the beginning of the war of life; but the one supported against the first stress of it long enough to enable them, by proper forethought and economy, to secure their footing; and the other trained somewhat in the use of moderate means, before they were permitted to have the command of abundant ones. And of the sources from which these State incomes for the married poor should be supplied, or of the treatment of those of our youth whose conduct rendered it advisable to refuse them permission to marry, I defer what I have to say till we come to the general subjects of taxation and criminal discipline; leaving the proposals made in this letter to bear, for the present, whatever aspect of mere romance and unrealizable vision they probably may, and to most readers, such as they assuredly will. Nor shall I make the slightest effort to redeem them from these imputations; for though there is nothing in all their purport which would not be approved, as in the deepest sense "practical "—by the Spirit of Paradise "Which gives to all the self-same bent, and though I know that national justice in conduct, and peace in heart, could by no other laws be so swiftly secured, I confess with much dispeace of heart, that both justice and happiness have at this day become, in England, "romantic impossibilities." 1 [From Wordsworth's piece beginning "Who fancied what a pretty sight?"— Compare Vol. XI. p. on Rose Gardens' to it.] "It is the spirit of Paradise That prompts such work, a spirit strong That gives to all the self-same bent, Where life is wise and innocent." letter 153, where the same passage is quoted. With this LETTER XXI Of the Dignity of the Four Fine Arts; and of the Proper System of Retail Trade April 15, 1867. 127. I RETURN now to the part of the subject at which I was interrupted-the inquiry as to the proper means of finding persons willing to maintain themselves and others by degrading occupations. That, on the whole, simply manual occupations are degrading, I suppose I may assume you to admit; at all events, the fact is so, and I suppose few general readers will have any doubt of it.* Granting this, it follows as a direct consequence that it is the duty of all persons in higher stations of life, by every means in their power, to diminish their demand for work of such kind, and to live with as little aid from the lower trades, as they can possibly contrive. 128. I suppose you see that this conclusion is not a little at variance with received notions on political economy ? It is popularly supposed that it benefits a nation to invent a want.1 But the fact is, that the true benefit is Many of my working readers have disputed this statement eagerly, feeling the good effect of work in themselves; but observe, I only say, simply or totally manual work; and that, alone, is degrading, though often in measure, refreshing, wholesome, and necessary. So it is highly necessary and wholesome to eat sometimes; but degrading to eat all day, as to labour with the hands all day. But it is not degrading to think all day -if you can. A highly-bred court lady, rightly interested in politics and literature, is a much finer type of the human creature than a servant of all work, however clever and honest, 1 [See A Joy for Ever, Addenda v., "Invention of New Wants" (Vol. XVI. pp. 123 seq.).] in extinguishing a want-in living with as few wants as possible. I cannot tell you the contempt I feel for the common writers on political economy, in their stupefied missing of this first principle of all human economy-individual or political to live, namely, with as few wants as possible, and to waste nothing of what is given you to supply them. 129. This ought to be the first lesson of every rich man's political code. "Sir," his tutor should early say to him, "you are so placed in society, it may be for your misfortune, it must be for your trial-that you are likely to be maintained all your life by the labour of other men. You will have to make shoes for nobody, but some one will have to make a great many for you. You will have to dig ground for nobody, but some one will have to dig through every summer's hot day for you. You will build houses and make clothes for no one, but many a rough hand must knead clay, and many an elbow be crooked to the stitch, to keep that body of yours warm and fine. Now remember, whatever you and your work may be worth, the less your keep costs, the better. It does not cost money only. It costs degradation. You do not merely employ these people. You also tread upon them. It cannot be helped;-you have your place, and they have theirs; but see that you tread as lightly as possible, and on as few as possible. What food, and clothes, and lodging, you honestly need, for your health and peace, you may righteously take. See that you take the plainest you can serve yourself with -that you waste or wear nothing vainly-and that you employ no man in furnishing you with any useless luxury." 130. That is the first lesson of Christian-or humaneconomy; and depend upon it, my friend, it is a sound one, and has every voice and vote of the spirits of Heaven and earth to back it, whatever views the Manchester men, or any other manner of men, may take respecting "demand and supply." Demand what you deserve, and you shall be supplied with it, for your good. Demand what you do not deserve, and you shall be supplied with something which you have not demanded, and which Nature perceives that 2 you deserve, quite to the contrary of your good. good. That is the law of your existence, and if you do not make it the law of your resolved acts, so much, precisely, the worse for you and all connected with you. 131. Yet observe, though it is out of its proper place said here, this law forbids no luxury which men are not degraded in providing. You may have Paul Veronese to paint your ceiling, if you like, or Benvenuto Cellini to make cups for you. But you must not employ a hundred divers to find beads to stitch over your sleeve. (Did you see the account of the sales of the Esterhazy jewels the other day?1) And the degree in which you recognise the difference between these two kinds of services, is precisely what makes the difference between your being a civilised person or a barbarian. If you keep slaves to furnish forth your dressto glut your stomach-sustain your indolence-or deck your pride, you are a barbarian. If you keep servants, properly cared for, to furnish you with what you verily want, and no more than that-you are a "civil" person—a person capable of the qualities of citizenship.* * Compare The Crown of Wild Olive, $$ 79, 118, and 122.2 1 [Here Ruskin wrote in his copy, "needs note." The reference is to the Times of February 9, 1867, which gave an account of the Esterhazy jewels. On the death of the last Prince of the House, Paul, in 1866, the jewels had come into the hands of his creditors, and were on view at the shop of a London jeweller. "The jewelled suits of the Esterhazys," said the Times, "became the talk of the courts of Europe. As the feudal proprietor of nearly one-third of Hungary, the Prince Nicholas had no difficulty in qualifying a taste which had become a mania. Every part of the equipment of an officer's dress which should have been of metal was made of pure brilliants. The gems were sewn over uniforms till the fabric was literally stiff and cumbrous with the weight. The pearl suit is especially famous. The display is well worth seeing, not only for its extraordinary value and splendour, but as a striking illustration of the length to which personal display can rise even among men when once the passion is indulged in." See also an article on "The Bankruptcy of the Esterhazys" in the Pall Mall Gazette of March 2, 1867.] 2 " [This note was inserted in 1872. The reference to "122" should be to S"123 and n.' The letter, as originally published, and the edition of 1867 have an additional passage here:- qualities of citizenship. (Just look back to the note on Liebig's idea that civilization means the consumption of coal, page 200 to 201 of |