Arrows of the Chace, vol. 2/2: being a collection of scattered letters published chiefly in the daily newspapers 1840-1880Ruskin, John
History
Arrows of the Chace, vol. 2/2: being a collection of scattered letters published chiefly in the daily newspapers 1840-1880
Ruskin, John
Authors, English -- 19th century -- Correspondence; Letters to the editor -- Great Britain; Ruskin, John, 1819-1900 -- Correspondence
_THE ITALIAN QUESTION._
BERLIN, _June_ 15.
You would have had this second letter sooner, had I not lost myself,
after despatching the first, in farther consideration of the theory
of Non-Intervention, or minding one's own business. What, in logical
terms, _is_ the theory? If one sees a costermonger wringing his
donkey's tail, is it proper to "intervene"? and if one sees an Emperor
or a System wringing a nation's neck, is it improper to intervene? Or
is the Intervention allowable only in the case of hides, not of souls?
for even so, I think you might find among modern Italians many quite as
deserving of intervention as the donkey. Or is interference allowable
when one person does one wrong to another person, but not when two
persons do two wrongs to two, or three to three, or a multitude to
a multitude; and is there any algebraic work on these square and
cube roots of morality wherein I may find how many coadjutors or
commissions any given crooked requires to make it straight? Or is it a
geographical question; and may one advisably interfere at Berwick but
not at Haddington? Or is there any graduated scale of intervention,
practicable according to the longitude? I see my way less clearly,
because the illustrations of the theory of Non-intervention are
as obscure as its statement. The French are at present happy and
prosperous; content with their ruler and themselves; their trade
increasing, and their science and art advancing; their feelings towards
other nations becoming every day more just. Under which circumstances
we English non-interventionalists consider it our duty to use every
means in our power of making the ruler suspected by the nation, and the
nation unmanageable by the ruler. We call both all manner of names;
exhaust every term of impertinence and every method of disturbance; and
do our best, in indirect and underhand ways, to bring about revolution,
assassination, or any other close of the existing system likely to be
satisfactory to Royals[5] in general. This is your non-intervention
when a nation is prosperous.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account