As you will know from my previous comments on the subject, I have concerns about the universally acknowledged truth of the Ruskins’ marriage. As much as I am excited to view the film due out this year (any excuse to see some Pre-Raphaelitism), what is it that I am expecting to see?
Based on Desperate Romantics, I should expect to see mean, weird Ruskin not sleeping with his stunningly beautiful wife, mainly out of weird spite. What a giant weirdo. Poor old Effie is then rescued by a man who is willing to sleep with her and gallops off into the sunset on his giant stallion of all things carnal. Hurrah all round. Ruskin goes even more weird and dies. The end.
Well, okay I may be boiling things down to the nub of the matter but isn’t that what we are left with? After all, what else do we know of Effie, John and their marriage?
Dakota Fanning in Effie, due out this year |
I wonder what Mrs Ruskin/Millais would think, given that after almost 160 years after her annulment and marriage to Millais, all we think about when we think of Effie is that her first husband never had sex with her. How appalling that the woman’s entire life is condensed down to something someone else didn’t do to her. Not only that, it is like Effie sprang to life the moment that Millais noticed that Ruskin wasn’t doing what a husband should.
Effie Ruskin (1851) G F Watts |
It’s curious that, if we are feeling kind, we charge Ruskin only with neglect of his wife, rather than actual cruelty, as if he simply forgot to get into bed with her. Evidence can be found that he did notice her beauty. Before Millais decided she was a stunner, Ruskin had already had George Richmond, G F Watts and Thomas Richmond draw his beautiful bride, plus made a sketch himself. The portrait by Watts was never liked by Ruskin (or so he said in the 1870s). He wrote to Watts that he had tried to make her appear an angel, which she was decidedly not, which all sounds like sour grapes. He passed the picture to Effie through a third party and it remained in the Millais family until ending up in Wightwick Manor. She actually looks rather like a child in the picture, which reminds me rather of D G Rossetti’s image of Georgie Burne-Jones. Ruskin preferred Thomas Richmond ’s portrait (left) of her from 1851, which makes her look more grown up, if a little traditional (and doll-like, as Effie complained).
It was just after the Richmond portrait that Millais came into the Ruskins’ life, and the legends begin, but rewind with me for just a moment, back to that wedding night.
Effie with Foxgloves (1853) J E Millais |
Yes, I know, by taking about how everyone is talking about it that still counts as talking about it, but I think we can be fairly certain that in the new film, it will be talked about. At length. Even shown. Heavens, explicit scenes of the Ruskins not indulging in conjugal unpleasantness (as it is known in the Walker household). How will that get past the censor?! Anyway, due to his not sleeping with his wife, Ruskin has been labelled as the following at one point or another: gay/paedophile/frightened of pubic hair/frightened of menstruation/impotent/any number of variations. We have no proof of any of these. Not a scrap. He never decided to write an essay ‘Why I Never Done my Wife’ nor told anyone a damn word by way of explanation. For the last 160 years we have seemingly turned ourselves inside out trying to find reason in his actions subsequent to his failed marriage : his friendship with Rose La Touche, his male friendships (God help you if you are a man who is friends with other men!), his dislike of nude paintings (that is pictures of women in the nude, not actually pictures painted in the nude, although I’m guessing he probably wouldn’t have liked that either), a fragment of a letter that said that he didn’t like Effie's nudity when he saw her on their wedding night. We know that she wrote a letter to Rose’s mother when she heard that Ruskin was fond of the girl. Never do we raise our eyebrow and mutter ‘Jealous cat’ or judge Effie. In all of her dealings with Ruskin, she is the passive victim – so shaken by her marriage that she would suffer from insomnia for the rest of her life.
Ruskin: 'I'm sure I've forgotten to do something...' |
What of Ruskin? His depression is well documented, and reading his correspondence you get the impression of a man who was happy with something one moment then plunged into despair with it the next. The Whistler trial undoubtedly broke him, finally, but he is a man who is a gift for both supporters and critics alike (not that, these days, he has many supporters), seeing as he often says and does the most contrary of things. I think Ruskin has suffered from that most Victorian of complaints: not talking about his problems. Actually, I find this warms me to the man. Yes, he is difficult, contradictory and should not have been allowed to marry anyone, but we do not have his side of the argument, only his detractors, loud and clear. Would it help if we found out he was gay? Would we understand him more, feel sorry for him, trapped in a world where he would have been forced into a life he could not embrace? How about if he was mentally ill? I must admit my support of John Ruskin is due to sympathy for his periods of despair when so much was expected of him both by others and by himself. Do we even try to understand him? Will either of the two films (yes two, the second has no release date as yet) attempt to show him as sympathetic? Isn’t it a better story to show a poor young, attractive girl trying to get her old husband to try and sleep with her? Look at silly Ruskin not sleeping with his beautiful wife, what a fool!
Millais Family 1865 |
After six undoubtedly miserable years of marriage, Effie mercifully went on to have many decades of blissful happiness with Millais. John Ruskin continued between periods of happiness and despair, but no-one ever talks about what damage the marriage may have done to him. At the moment, what we know of Ruskin was that he was controlling and sexually cold. A new book on the marriage, A Marriage of Inconvenience by Robert Brownell, promises us new information of their marriage. I await the evidence with great interest, but in the meantime, as far as I can see Effie will always have won the battle because she had the last, and only, word on their marriage.
It's a good thing I read your blog or I would never have known about the new book. I wonder what that one will say about the situation?
ReplyDeleteJohn Rusking fell in love with Effie when she was 12 years old and wrote a book for her. In Sophy's diaries its shown that he spoke badly of his wife to her trying to turn her against her sister but she told Effie what was said. Her parents helped her get away from him in the end and yes she got her annulment (what was she supposed to do live a sexless life for all her life?) his spite after she had a real marriage with children was childish and petty. What did he expect to have to put up with his mother and his behaviour never to have sex because he wouldn't have sex with her? He went on to fall in love with Rose La Touch when she was 10 years old. Her parents asked Effie about her marriage when she became engaged to him and because of that information the engagement was broken.
DeleteWhat a thoughtful and sympathetic bit of writing - without damning either side. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI've always felt a bit sorry for both Ruskins. I think they both had problems with the marriage. If I remember Ruskin was brought up thinking he was totally perfect and his parents created this "nothing is too good for our boy". Granted he was a boy wonder when young and I'm sure that gave him a skewed sense of things. How horrible to grow up that way and find that you really don't get everything you want and aren't really perfect. And Effie grew up thinking she had to go along with everything.
ReplyDeleteWe tend to view people from the past as rather black and white when they have as many grey parts as we do.
yes, three cheers for writing something thoughtful and well
ReplyDeletesaid about both Mr Ruskin and Effie.
Only to add that it is worth mentioning his obsessive Mother; his correspondence explaining his side of the story to Lady Trevelyan , and hints that Effie was considered boring and 'common' by his friends who also mention the number of men she went about with in Vienna. Ruskin mention her complete misunderstanding of his work and even her laughing at it. Certainly some of us think she ruined Millais' talent.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone for your comments. I look forward to reading the new book...
ReplyDeleteI have been flipping through my copy of "John Ruskin and Effie Gray" by Admiral Sir William James. It consists in large part of letters written by the twain. At the end the grounds for the annulment are stated; these were "incurable impotence" on the part of Ruskin. There is clear evidence from the letters that the couple were happy when abroad and out of the clutches of Ruskin's mum. I am with you in thinking posterity has not been kind to Ruskin.
ReplyDeleteYikes, 'incurable impotence'... It just strikes me that we make no attempt to understand him because we do not have a pigeonhole to put him in so he goes in the good old Victorian Weirdo slot. Shame.
ReplyDeleteOf course at the end of the month I'll take it all back if the 'new evidence' shows that he was into zebras and soft fruit. Dear me....
It's a pity that the judge didn't take Ruskin up on his offer to demonstrate to the court that he was not impotent. THAT would have been a courtroom drama, and no mistake. I think he probably was a weirdo, but what the hell? There are so many weirdos and so few geniuses. How many of us could reveal every detail of our private lives without mortification? How many of us leave behind 39 wonderful volumes? Not bloody many.
DeleteOh, and it's absurd to say that Effie ruined Millais' talent. Late Millais is wonderful. Different from early Millais but still wonderful.
Hang on there are three screenplays, one of them written by Emma Thompson, who garnered an Academy Award for her screenplay of Sense and Sensibility. The existence of three scripts has led to litigation and if you like plot spoilers you can find detailed accounts of them all at the following link:
ReplyDeletehttp://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2011cv07087/385906/34/0.pdf?1355922645 If the link does not work try Googling effi - Justia.
It's a very even and balanced post - I also am finding myself wanting to read more about Ruskin, he seems to be viewed only through the filter of his addmittedly strange romantic/sexual life, when in fact he was a figure of towering importance, with views about industrialisation and the depersonalisation it caused, as well as art. Heaven knows what he, along with William Morris and D H Lawrence, would make of our "interesting times".
ReplyDeleteAlso wondering why they cast someone who looks way more like Lizzie Siddal, Effie was very Celtic looking as you can see in the Order of Release, very like some of my family on the Scots/Irish side. Is Emma T going to have a go at Rossetti next, :)
Yikes. As we have been discussing on The Stunner's Boudoir on Facebook, Emma Thompson's chap Greg Wise is playing Ruskin and he is over twice as old as Dakota Fanning, aged 19. The actual age gap between Ruskin and his bride was only 9 years which leads me to worry that they are playing the old man/child bride card, which isn't true.
ReplyDeleteJust because he was a giant weirdy doesn't mean he was evil.
Damn it, turns out I'm Team Ruskin....
On the matter of whether Effie ruined Millais talent, I'm on the fence. Millais peaked at 8, it's hard to judge as all of his work is stunning. Even the pictures of kids which could make you vomit are amazing. When I was at the Tate Show of his work a few years back you just end up feeling that he never got better after about the age of 19, which got depressing after a while...
Can one be on Team Ruskin, Team Everett, AND Team Effie? Cos I think I am. I loved Suzanne Fagence Cooper's The Model Wife (and hearing her talk about Effie was even more persuasive). You're right of course Kirsty, Millais peaked early (not managing to top Ophelia and Mariana is hardly cause for shame, though, is it? They're perfect), but Autumn Leaves? The Vale of Rest? Chill October? Lingering Autumn? All perfect too in their different ways. Melancholy, certainly, but surely not depressing? Exquisitely sad.
ReplyDeleteI do like 'exquisitely sad', Simon, I may use that as a reply if people ask me how I feel on certain days :)
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant when I said he peaked was that he astonished me with Ophelia (you can never beat seeing it for real, just amazing), but then everything was brilliant (in different ways) after that too, so I was exhausted from feeling so astonished after countless rooms. The portrait of Sophie Grey is in my office, and remains a favourite. But I just felt he had nowhere to go in terms of brilliance, which was what left me feeling depressed, sorry, exquisitely sad.
I remember at the press view for the Millais show I was chatting to Alison Smith before we went round. The press release said that he was 'the greatest of the Pre-Raphaelites' and I asked her if she really believed that (I'd always taken it for granted that Rossetti was the main man). She looked at me as if I was soft and said 'Obviously'. I thought, yeah, yeah. But then I saw the exhibition (that last room with the landscapes!) and thought, oh shit, she's right. You're right about the Sophy Grey portrait, too. That was a revelation. George Price Boyce! Bastard! Imagine having that picture and Bocca Baciata hanging in your front room! Just not fair.
ReplyDeleteMeh, I think Holman Hunt was the greatest Pre-Raphaelite as he never let it go (which also makes him the most unhinged, but possibly they are one and the same). Millais was so brilliant that even his stuff that really should not be brilliant (eg Cherry Ripe, based on Reynolds. For goodness sake, what was he thinking?) makes you want to weep with its beauty.
ReplyDeleteAh, George Price Boyce. Yet another reason to finish the time machine and marry him. Just saying...
I fear I am going to be the only commenter who has never really heard of any of these people (except Millais, and that only in a very general way), nor do I know why we should be so interested that the chap never slept with his wife. However, my interest has been duly piqued and I shall spend the remainder of the afternoon (at work) researching these people and finding out why everyone's in a tizzy about them! Am glad to hear there's another period piece starring Greg Wise (whom I have adored since "S&S") coming up. I've been starving for some good period film ever since the latest "Jane Eyre" and "The Woman in Black"...
ReplyDeleteBlimey. Are you serious about Holman Hunt? He's an artist I've always admired more than I actually liked. The great pictures are great, of course, but even in them his personality seeps out through the paint and he's not good company. Pre-Raphaelitism and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood is a sour, score-settling book. And the bad pictures! Diana Holman Hunt rightly said that the woman in Dolce Far Niente looks like a female impersonator in a wig. The Lantern Maker's Courtship (ugh), May Morning on Magdalen Tower (shudder), and, worst of all, The Triumph of the Innocents (gag)! When he was bad he was very, very bad, and when he was good he was horrid.
ReplyDeleteOi! Yes, he's mad as a bag of frogs but he's never dull. I see your May Morning in Midwitch and raise you The Lady of Shalott. And The Hireling Shepherd. God, I love The Hireling Shepherd, and not just because I like hanging around in cornfields in a low cut top waiting for a nice man to show me his hawk moth.
ReplyDeleteMillais was brilliant but blimey, he could be dull. Painfully dull.
Yes, absolutely. The Lady of Shalott is a stonker, and it was so wonderful to see it back in Britain for the first time since The Festival of Britain. I gazed and gazed. And The Finding of the Saviour in the Temple, The Light of the World, and The Awakened Conscience. Terrific. As I said, the great pictures are great, though I must say I still don't love them quite the way I love great paintings by Rossetti and Burne-Jones or (my personal passion) Spencer Stanhope.
ReplyDeletePainfully dull might be a bit harsh.
Simon, I am a harsh woman.
ReplyDeleteMillais should have been physically restrained from doing landscape unless he could prove he had a damn good reason. If he was going to do something like 'A View Near Hampstead', he should have been made to put some people in it. Or leave it to someone who did it better.
Spencer Stanhope is splendid :)
I personally feel it is likely Ruskin was asexual. Asexual people are still much understood, but they feel attachment and love for others in every way except that they have no sexual desires, and others trying to make them feel this way can make them feel uncomfortable, or even threatened. I felt that they actually treated this quite well in the part of Desperate Romantics where he tries to explain that he loves being with young people, but has no sexual urges. I actually felt very sorry for the man, although I did pity his wife more, because there is a terrible history of women being labelled abnormal, even mad, for wanting sex.
ReplyDeleteYes, I felt that Tom Hollander's Ruskin was brilliant because it was subtle (I thought his Mr Collins was a highlight of the film version of Pride and Prejudice). I agree, I think that, unlike modern society especially, sex was not his priority.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments!
Brownwell's book on Marriage of Inconvenience has been on order since February and the publication date keeps getting put back. Is there more litigation on the go, like the screenplay court case for Emma Thompson's film?
ReplyDeleteHmm, there is definitely something afoot. Does anyone have any info?
ReplyDelete