130 



the substauce is united with many others. Lest, however, the 

 reader should be alarmed at some of the issues to which Ruskin's 

 investigations seem to be tending, as if their bearing against the 

 power of wealth they had something in common with those of 

 Socialism, he wishes us to know in accurate terms one or two of 

 the main points he has in view. Whether Socialism has made 

 more progress among the Army and Navy, " where payment is 

 made on his principles," or among the manufacturing operatives 

 " who are paid on his opponents' principles," he leaves it to those 

 opponents to ascertain and declare. 



Ruskin takes it for granted that we saw that just payment of 

 labour consisted in a sum of money which would approximately 

 obtain equivalent labour at a future time. He says we have now 

 to examine the means of obtaining such equivalent. This ques- 

 tion involves the definition of wealth, value, price, and produce. 



It were to be wished that our well-educated merchants recalled 

 to mind always this much of their Latin schooling that the 

 nominative of valorem (a word already sufficiently familar to 

 them) is valour, a word which therefore ought to be familiar with 

 them. Valour, from valere, to be well or strong, strong in life 

 (if a man) or valuable. To be " valuable," therefore, is to avail 

 towards life. A truly valuable or availing thing is that which 

 leads to life with its whole strength. In proporttion as it does 

 not lead to life, or as its strength is broken, it is less valuable ; 

 in proportion as it leads away from life it is unvaluable or 

 malignant. The value of a thing, therefore, is independent of 

 opinion and of quantity. For ever it avails or avails not ; no 

 estimate can raise, no disdain depress the power which it holds 

 from the maker of things and of men. 



The real science of political economy is that which teaches 

 nations to desire and labour for the things that lead to life ; and 

 which teaches them to scorn and destroy the things that lead to 

 destruction. 



" To be wealthy," says Mr. Mill, " is to have a large stock of 

 useful articles." Ruskin says he accepts this definition. Only 

 let us perfectly understand it. 



What is the meaning of " having " or the nature of possession ? 

 Then what is the meaning of " useful " or the nature of utility ? 



As thus : Lately, in the wreck of a Californian ship, one of the 

 passengers fastened a belt about him with two hundred pounds 

 of gold in it with which he was found afterwards at the bottom. 

 Now, as he was sinking, had he the gold or had the gold him ? 

 And if instead of sinking him in the sea by its weight, the gold 

 had struck him on the forehead, and thereby caused incurable 

 disease— suppose palsy or insanity — would the gold in that case 

 have been more a possession than in the first ? He presumes the 

 reader will see that possession, or having, is not an absolute but 



1 



