grains of sand. This is the Hamite bondage of art. Felt an increasing desire that the Master should try it, and a respect for the ancient Egyptians. Bore patiently the scoffs of the Amorites.

"Third day. Sent chisel to the village to be hardened. Was recommended a lead hammer. Finally, a friend went to the village and brought back with him an iron hammer and two shorter chisels. Was asked by an Amorite gardener how I was getting on'-unconcealed pleasure on his part to hear that I was not getting on at all. Later, accomplished a beautiful irregular star-fish, which looks mashed out rather than cut, not the least like 'sharp, cliff-edged harbours,'1 as the Master kindly supposes. I begin to feel for the ancient Egyptians: they must have got a great deal of porphyry-dust into their eyes. I shall rise in the morning to dulled points and splintered chisels; but when you have cut your asterisk, you will know,' etc.,2 and this is not the voice of a syren (see Eagle's Nest3), but of my honoured Master. . . . A terrible suspicion occurs to me that he thought no one would or could cut it! Obedience is a fine thing! How it works in the midst of difficulties, dust, and worst of all-doubt!

"Fourth day.I think porphyry-cutting is delightful work: it is true that I have not done any to-day, but I have had my chisels sharpened, and two new ones have arrived from the blacksmith this evening, made out of old files. Also, I have covered my chisels with pretty blue paper, and my hammer with blue-and-white ribbon. I feel the importance of the step gained. Surely I may rest righteously after such labour. If they sing 'From Egypt lately come,' in church, I shall think it very personal.

"Fifth day. My piece of porphyry is now enriched by a second star-fish, with a little more backbone in it, and two dividing lines. I worked on the lawn this morning, under the chestnut trees; the derision of the Amorite gardener (who was mowing the grass with a scythe) was manifested by the remark 'Is that-t all !' I told him about the Egyptian tombs, but he probably thinks me mildly insane; he however suggested a flat edge instead of a point to a chisel, and I will try it. "Sixth day. Had lead hammer cast, and waited for chisel.

"Seventh day.--With third hammer and seventh chisel will surely charm the porphyry.

"But, no! my latest asterisk is jagged in outline instead of sharp. I wonder what attempts others have made. Any one living in or near a blacksmith's shop would have an advantage, for the chisels are always wanting hardening, or rectifying in some way; and my blue papers soon disappeared. If obedience for the sake of obedience is angelic, I must be an exalted creature. One Amorite's suggestion was, 'You would do a deal better with a softer material.' This was the voice of the tempter.

"What is gained?-(besides a lifelong affection for porphyry)—a knowledge of one more thing that I cannot do; an admiration (to a certain extent) of those who could do it; and a wonder as to what the Master will require next of (amongst others) his faithful and obedient disciple."

24. (VII.) Portion of valuable letter from Mr. Sillar :

4

:

"KINGSWOOD LODGE, LEE GREEN, S.E., 66 August 7th, 1876.

"MY DEAR MR. RUSKIN,-It may interest your correspondent, A Reader of Fors, and possibly yourself also, to know that interested persons have altered old John Wesley's rules to suit modern ideas.

"Rules of the Methodist Societies (Tyerman's Life and Times of Wesley, p. 431). "Rule.-Leader to receive once a week what members are willing to give towards relief of the poor.

"Altered to support of the Gospel.'

"Going to law forbidden, is altered to 'brother going to law with brother.'

66 Original Rule.-The giving or taking things on usury, the words have been added, that is, unlawful interest.'

"Mr. Tyerman remarks, 'the curious reader will forgive these trifles.'

"I for one do not at all feel disposed to do so.”1

(Nor does St. George; nor has he either leave, or hope, to say, "God forgive them.")

[For an answer to this letter, see Letter 71, § 18 (p. 750).]

LETTER 70

PROPERTY TO WHOM PROPER1

1. I HAVE been not a little pestered this month by the quantities of letters, which I can't wholly cure myself of the weakness of reading, from people who fancy that, like other political writers of the day, I print, on the most important subjects, the first thing that comes into my head; and may be made immediately to repent of what I have said, and generally to see the error of my ways, by the suggestions of their better judgment.

Letters of this sort do not surprise me if they have a Scottish postmark, the air of Edinburgh having always had a curiously exciting quality, and amazing power over weak heads; but one or two communications from modest and thoughtful English friends have seriously troubled me by the extreme simplicity of their objections to statements which, if not acceptable, I had at least hoped would have been intelligible to them.

2. I had, indeed, expected difficulty in proving to my readers the mischievousness of Usury; but I never thought to find confusion in their minds between Property itself, and its Interest. Yet I find this singular confusion at the root of the objections made by most of my cavilling correspondents: "How are we to live" (they say) "if, when we have saved a hundred pounds, we can't make a hundred and five of them, without any more trouble?"

Gentlemen and ladies all,-you are to live on your hundred pounds, saved; and if you want five pounds more,

1 ["Property" " and "The A B C of Property" were rejected titles for this Letter. For passages originally intended for the beginning of the Letter, see Appendix 17, Vol. XXIX. p. 570.]

you must go and work for five pounds more; just as a man who hasn't a hundred pounds must work for the first five he gets.

The following sentence, written by a man of real economical knowledge, expresses, with more than usual precision, the common mistake: "I much fear if your definition of Usury be correct, which is to the effect that it is a sin to derive money from the possession of capital, or otherwise than by our own personal work. Should we follow this proposition to its final logical conclusion, we must preach communism pure and simple, and contend that property is theft,-which God forbid."

To this correspondent I answered briefly, "Is my house not my property unless I let it for lodgings, or my wife not my property unless I prostitute her?"

3. But I believe it will be well, though I intended to enter on other matters this month, to repeat instead once more, in the shortest and strongest terms I can find, what I have now stated at least a hundred times1 respecting the eternal nature and sanctity of "Property."

A man's "Property," the possession "proper" to himhis own, rightly so called, and no one else's on any pretence of their's-consists of,

A, The good things,

B, Which he has honestly got,

C, And can skilfully use.

That is the A B C of Property.

It

A. It must consist of good things-not bad ones. is rightly called therefore a man's "Goods," not a man's "Bads."

If you have got a quantity of dung lodged in your drains, a quantity of fleas lodged in your bed, or a quantity of nonsense lodged in your brains, that is not "Property," but the reverse thereof; the value to you of your drains, bed, and brains being thereby diminished, not increased.

1 [See, for instance, Letters 5, 25, 28 (Vol. XXVII. pp. 90-95, 470, 521).]

Can you understand that much, my practical friend?

B. It must be a good thing, honestly got. Nothing that you have stolen or taken by force, nor anything that your fathers stole or took by force, is your property. Nevertheless, the benignant law of Nature concerning any such holding, has always been quite manifestly that you may keep it if you can,-so only that you acknowledge that and none other to be the condition of tenure. †

Can you understand that much more, my practical friend? C. It must be not only something good, and not only something honestly got, but also something you can skilfully use.

For, as the old proverb, "You can't eat your pudding and have it," is utterly true in its bearing against Usury,— so also this reverse of it is true in confirmation of property -that you can't "have" your pudding unless you can eat it. It may be composed for you of the finest plums, and paid for wholly out of your own pocket; but if you can't stomach it-the pudding is not for you. Buy the finest horse on four legs, he is not "proper" to you if you can't ride him.' Buy the best book between boards,-Horace, or Homer, or Dante, and if you don't know Latin, nor Greek, nor Christianity, the paper and boards are yours indeed, but the books-by no means.

You doubt this, my practical friend?

4. Try a child with a stick of barley-sugar;—tell him it is his, but he mustn't eat it; his face will express to you the fallaciousness of that principle of property in an mistakable manner. But by the time he grows as old and

*

I suppose myself, in the rest of this letter, to be addressing a "business man of the nineteenth century."

†Thus, in the earlier numbers of Fors, I have observed more than once,2 to the present landholders of England, that they may keep their lands-if they can! Only let them understand that trial will soon be made, by the Laws of Nature, of such capacity in them.

1 [Compare Munera Pulveris, § 14 (Vol. XVII. p. 154).]

2 [For references to the land question in the earlier numbers of Fors, see Vol. XXVII. pp. 30, 191, 233, 291, 368, 379–380, 471.]