Sesame and Lilies

by John Ruskin

In this classic work of Victorian literature, Ruskin explores the role of education in society through two 'Sesame' discusses the importance of education for men, while 'Lilies' focuses on women's education. Ruskin argues that education should aim not only to impart knowledge, but also to instill moral values and cultivate the imagination. This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Essays, Nonfiction, Victorian, Classics, Philosophy, 19th Century, Literary Criticism

210 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1865

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

John Ruskin was an English writer, philosopher, art historian, art critic and polymath of the Victorian era. He wrote on subjects as varied as geology, architecture, myth, ornithology, literature, education, botany and political economy.
Ruskin was heavily engaged by the work of Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc which he taught to all his pupils including William Morris, notably Viollet-le-Duc's Dictionary, which he considered as "the only book of any value on architecture". Ruskin's writing styles and literary forms were equally varied. He wrote essays and treatises, poetry and lectures, travel guides and manuals, letters and even a fairy tale. He also made detailed sketches and paintings of rocks, plants, birds, landscapes, architectural structures and ornamentation. The elaborate style that characterised his earliest writing on art gave way in time to plainer language designed to communicate his ideas more effectively. In all of his writing, he emphasised the connections between nature, art and society.
Ruskin was hugely influential in the latter half of the 19th century and up to the First World War. After a period of relative decline, his reputation has steadily improved since the 1960s with the publication of numerous academic studies of his work. Today, his ideas and concerns are widely recognised as having anticipated interest in environmentalism, sustainability and craft.
Ruskin first came to widespread attention with the first volume of Modern Painters (1843), an extended essay in defence of the work of J.M.W. Turner in which he argued that the principal role of the artist is "truth to nature". From the 1850s, he championed the Pre-Raphaelites, who were influenced by his ideas. His work increasingly focused on social and political issues. Unto This Last (1860, 1862) marked the shift in emphasis. In 1869, Ruskin became the first Slade Professor of Fine Art at the University of Oxford, where he established the Ruskin School of Drawing. In 1871, he began his monthly "letters to the workmen and labourers of Great Britain", published under the title Fors Clavigera (1871–1884). In the course of this complex and deeply personal work, he developed the principles underlying his ideal society. As a result, he founded the Guild of St George, an organisation that endures today.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was disappointed in this book. In my idle moments, I had savored the idea of reading it for many years. But now that I have finished it, I find it to be much less than I hoped it would be.

I admire Ruskin, both for his prose style and for the forthright moral views he expresses in this aesthetic criticism. I have dipped generously into Modern Painters, sampled The Stones of Venice, and carefully—and with delight—read The Seven Lamps of Architecture. (I was particularly struck by Ruskin’s treatment of his second “lamp,” Truth: if the architect can only afford brick, he should use the best brick he can afford, and he must never slap a facade upon it and pretend that the brick is marble.)

Sesame and Lilies (1865) first attracted my attention because I used to find many copies of it for sale in thrift shops: thin, well-bound little books—obviously school editions—published in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. There must be something worthwhile in this little treatise if it had once been a temporary “classic” for use in America’s public schools.

My hunch was right, I think, but not right enough. The focus of these two essays—lectures, really—is the education of the young, the first concentrating on boys, and the second on girls. The fact that they began as lectures for a popular audience may be part of the problem (I found the prose lacking in concentration, more diffuse than the Ruskin I remembered), but certainly the worst thing about the book is the attitude Ruskin takes in “Lilies,” the second lecture.

Feminists have roundly condemned “Lilies,” comparing it to John Stuart Mill’s “The Subjection of Women” (1869)—published only five years later—and finding it distinctly inferior. But then Mill was a forward-looking rebel, and Ruskin was a man of his age, a man who believed in “The Angel of the House”: the sweet, self-sacrificing goddess of the Victorian home. (It must be said, too, that Ruskin was more than a little weird in his relations with women. His marriage with Effie Gray—a beautiful woman, if Thomas’ Richmond’s portrait be any guide—was never consummated, and their “union” was annulled after six years. “[H]e had imagined women were quite different to what he saw I was,” said Effie Gray in a letter, “and that the reason he did not make me his Wife was because he was disgusted with my person the first evening...”)

Ruskin’s views on women's education, though, was progressive for his time. He believed in what we would call today a liberal arts education for women, which would help women acquire the cultural literacy necessary to appreciate—and morally perfect—the accomplishments of
men:

All such knowledge should be given her as may enable her to understand, and even to aid, the work of men: and yet it should be given, not as knowledge,--not as if it were, or could be, for her an object to know; but only to feel, and to judge. It is of no moment, as a matter of pride or perfectness in herself, whether she knows many languages or one; but it is of the utmost, that she should be able to show kindness to a stranger, and to understand the sweetness of a stranger's tongue. It is of no moment to her own worth or dignity that she should be acquainted with this science or that; but it is of the highest that she should be trained in habits of accurate thought; that she should understand the meaning, the inevitableness, and the loveliness of natural laws; and follow at least some one path of scientific attainment, as far as to the threshold of that bitter Valley of Humiliation, into which only the wisest and bravest of men can descend, owning themselves for ever children, gathering pebbles on a boundless shore.

The first lecture, though, is superior to the second. It takes its title from the “Open Sesame,” the password that opens the treasure cave of the Arabian Nights. Every great book, Ruskin argues, is this sort of a treasure cave. If we take the trouble to learn what words mean and how they are used, then the treasures of the world’s great minds will open before us:

A well-educated gentleman may not know many languages,—may not be able to speak any but his own,—may have read very few books. But whatever language he knows, he knows precisely; whatever word he pronounces, he pronounces rightly; above all, he is learned in the PEERAGE of words; knows the words of true descent and ancient blood, at a glance, from words of modern canaille; remembers all their ancestry, their intermarriages, distant relationships, and the extent to which they were admitted, and offices they held, among the national noblesse of words at any time, and in any country. But an uneducated person may know, by memory, many languages, and talk them all, and yet truly know not a word of any,—not a word even of his own.

Ruskin invites his readers to become members of an aristocracy, an aristocracy that everyone can enter. All you must do is read great books and give them the proper attention.

[Ayşe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Altını o kadar çok çizdim, öyle iyi geldi ki. Kasım listemi bozmama değdi
John Ruskin’in 154 yıl önce yani 1864 yılının Aralık ayında “Susam” ve “Zambaklar” başlıklı iki bölümden oluşan, konuşmalarından derlenen yazıları mevcut.
Susam bölümü “Mevki kazandıracak bir eğitim yerine kendine yeten, topluma faydalı fertler haline gelebilmeleri için gençlerin nasıl bir eğitim sistemine tabii olmaları gerekir?” sorusuyla başlıyor. Eğitim, kitap okumak, okumanın yararları gibi konular işleniyor. Aşkla okudum gerçekten.
İkinci bölümse “Zambaklar” yani kadınlarla ilgili. Ruskin kadınlara öyle yüce görev, sorumluluk yüklemiş ki, erkekler kusura bakmasın ama objektif okurlarsa hak vereceklerdir:) Kadınlar insan, erkekler insanoğlu dememiş miydi Neşet Ertaş.
Öyle güzel ve dolu ki, isminin neden susam ve zambak olduğu bile öyle naif ki.
Tüm kitap dostlarıma tavsiye ediyorum. Çok seveceksiniz çok
Kitap yorumlarıma youtube kanalımdan da ulaşabilirsiniz. Linki profilimde

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

Free download available at Project Gutenberg

I made the proofing of this book for Free Literature and Project Gutenberg will publish it.

TABLE DES MATIERES
PRÉFACE DU TRADUCTEUR[1]
SUR LA LECTURE
PREMIÈRE CONFÉRENCE
SÉSAME
DES TRÉSORS DES ROI
LES LYS.
Des Jardins des Reines

«À vingt ans j’écrivis Peintres modernes, à trente ans, les
Pierres de Venise, à quarante ans, Unto this last, à cinquante ans,
les Leçons inaugurales d’Oxford, et, si je finis jamais Fors Clavigera,
l’état d’esprit dans lequel je me trouvais à soixante ans sera
fixé.

«Les Peintres modernes enseignèrent l’affinité de toute la nature
infinie avec le cœur de l’homme; montrèrent le rocher, la vague et
l’herbe comme un élément nécessaire de sa vie spirituelle. Ce dont
je vous conjure aujourd’hui, d’orner la terre et de la garder, n’est
que le complément, la suite logique de ce que j’enseignais alors.
Les Pierres de Venise enseignèrent les lois de l’art de bâtir et comment
la beauté de toute œuvre, de tout édifice humain dépend de la
vie heureuse de son ouvrier. Unto this last enseigna les lois de
cette vie même et la montra comme dépendante du Soleil de justice.

[شمس · Rating 4 out of 5]

For all books can be divided into two classes: books of the moment and books for all times. Note this distinction: it is not one of quality only. It is not only the bad book that does not last, and the good one that does. It is a distinction of types. There are good books of the moment and good books for all times; there are bad books of the moment and bad ones for all times. I must define these two sorts of books before going any further.

The good book of the moment then — I do not speak of the bad ones — is simply the useful or pleasant talk with someone with whom you cannot converse any other way, printed for you. Often very useful, telling you what you need to know, often very pleasant, as the conversation of an intelligent friend who was there. These brilliant accounts of travels, these publications where a question is discussed with good humour and wit; these lively and moving stories in the form of a novel, these documented accounts of contemporary history written by those who have played an effective role in them, all these books of the moment, multiplied among us as education becomes more widespread, properly belong to the present; we ought to be very grateful for them and entirely ashamed of ourselves if we do not make good use of them. But we make the worst possible use of them if we permit them to usurp the place of true books; for, strictly speaking, they are not books at all, but simply letters or better printed newspapers. Our friend’s letter can be delightful or necessary today; whether it is worth keeping or not is questionable. The newspaper can be absolutely spot on at breakfast time, but assuredly it is not reading for all day. (Sesame, Of King's Treasuries, 9)
__________
Very quickly, in this taste for and enjoyment of reading, the preference of the great writers goes to the books of the ancients.

. . . this predilection of great minds for the works of antiquity [. . . since the books of the past that we read have been chosen from the whole past, so vast compared to the contemporary period.]
(Marcel Proust, Preface and [Note])

__________
Ruskin's Sesame and Lilies comprise two lectures: Sesame discusses how, what, and why to read, Lilies discusses "what part of this royal authority arising out of a noble education can be rightly possessed by women." There is also a third lecture, The Mystery of Life and its Arts , (which I have not read) which was added at a later date, and does not seem to be included in most editions.

An interesting point to note (and the main reason why I came to read this), is that Marcel Proust translated this work into French with copious notes (of course, Proust's notes to Sesame end up being longer than Sesame itself), and included a preface entitled, On Reading, which contains some excellent thoughts written in Proust's beautiful style.

Sesame contains some good points, and Proust's notes to this section are extremely insightful, and often contain reveries and expand on thoughts of his own. But there is a good reason why Lilies is not frequently included in anthologies or selections of Ruskin: as well as not being as insightful as Sesame, Ruskin seems to hold both progressive views, and views of a, let's say, antithetical-to-progressive, nature. (There was one passage in particular (Lilies 91.) which I simply marked with a '!')

But, as someone (the name eludes me) once said: when reading, absorb the good, and discard the bad.

All in all, I think Sesame is worth reading, even more so if taken together with Proust's Preface and notes.

4 stars for Sesame, 2 for Lilies.
__________
. . . the Greeks who have shown us almost all the true ideas and have left our modern scruples the task of fathoming them. (Proust, Preface)

The Greeks . . . whom you owe, down to this day, all that you hold most precious in art, in literature . . . (Lilies, 62)

But if [they] can have access to a good library of old and classical books, there is no need for choice at all. Put the magazine and modern novel out of the way . . . (Lilies, 78)

Even those who appeared to their contemporaries the most 'romantic' read hardly anything but the classics. One might almost go so far as to say, renewing perhaps by this interpretation, entirely partial though it may be, the old distinction between the classicists and the romantics, that it is the public (the intelligent public, of course) that is romantic, while the masters (even the masters who are called 'romantic', the masters whom the romantic public prefers) are classicists. (A remark that could be extended to all the arts . . .) [And conversely, the classicists have no better commentators than the 'romantics'. In effect, the romantics alone know how to read classical works, because they read them as they have been written, romantically, because in order to read a poet or prose writer well, one has to be oneself not a scholar, but a poet or a prose writer. That is true at least for the 'romantic' works.] (Proust, Preface and Note)
__________
If whoever wrote the book is not wiser than you, you have no need to read it. (Sesame, 13)

A book is only worth anything if it worth a lot and it is only of benefit once it has been read, and reread, and loved, and loved again, and marked so that you can refer to the passage you need like the soldier can grab the weapon he needs in an armoury or as a housewife can get the spice she needs from her store. (Sesame, 32)

At the carriage gate of this silent faubourg Saint-Germain you are asked just one brief question: ‘Do you deserve to enter? Pass. Do you ask for the company of noblemen? Make yourself noble, and you will be. Do you ardently desire the conversation of wise men? Learn to understand it and you will hear it. But as for other conditions? No. If you will not rise to us, we cannot stoop to you. The living lord can affect courtesy, the living philosopher can through benevolence force himself to translate his thought for you, but here we neither feign nor interpret; you must rise to the level of our thoughts if you want to be gladdened by them, and share our feelings if you want to perceive our presence.’ (Sesame, 12)

. . . the kind of word by word examination of an author which is rightly called reading, attentive to each subtlety and expression, and putting ourselves always in the author's place; annihilating our own personality and seeking to enter into his, so as to be able to so with certainty: 'thus thought Milton,' not: 'thus thought I in misreading Milton.' (Sesame, 25)
__________
. . . to 'advance in life' — in life itself — not in the trappings of it. (Sesame, 42)

There is . . . only one single true kind of kingship, a necessary and eternal kind, whether or not it is crowned: namely, the kingship which consists in a more powerful moral state and a truer state of reflection, than that of others . . . established and enthroned on the foundations of an eternal law which nothing can alter or overthrow. (Lilies, 52)
__________
Modern education consists for the most part in giving people the faculty of thinking wrong on every conceivable subject of importance to them. (Proust, Note to Sesame, 25)

I do not nor enter into any question of choice of books. (Lilies, 75)
__________
. . . I have never used information without indicating immediately where it came from. (Proust, Note to Preface)

[belisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

kitabı okurken konferansların tarihini unutmayın (1864) çünkü bazı provoke edici yaklaşımların (özellikle kadın eğitimiyle ilgili olanların) epey ilerici olduğu söylenebilir... Schopenhauer'ın ölümünden dört sene sonra böyle ilerici düşünebilmek de kayda değer...

yine de yeni bir şey söylemiyor haliyle...

[Cindy Rollins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a gift from a Charlotte Mason friend. Charlotte often quoted Ruskin. On my recent trip to England I was able to see Ruskin's school in Oxford and got quite close to visiting his house in the lake district, but alas my legs were too short.

This book careens wildly between being a bombastic, misogynistic 2-star book and a deeply profound 5-star one. The three sections are lectures delivered to the Royal College of Science in Dublin.

A few highlights:

Lecture 1 Sesame

"13. This, then, is what you have to do, and I admit that it is much. You must, in a word, love these people, if you are to be among them. No ambition is of any use. They scorn your ambition. You must love them, and show your love..."

"Modern 'education' for the most part signifies giving people the faculty of thinking wrong on every conceivable subject of importance to them."

Lecture 2 Lilies

"..namely that the first use of education was to enable us to consult with the wisest and the greatest men on all points of earnest difficulty."

On how women should be educated:

"...but it is of the highest that she should be trained in habits of accurate thought; that she should understand the meaning, the inevitableness, and the loveliness of natural laws; and follow at least some one path of scientific attainment as far as to the threshold of that bitter valley of humiliation, into which only the wisest and bravest of men can descend, owing themselves forever children, gathering pebbles on a boundless shore. It is of little consequence how many positions of cities she knows, or how many dates of events, or names of celebrated persons--it is not the object of education to turn the woman into a dictionary; but it is deeply necessary that she should be taught to enter with her whole personality into the history she reads; to picture the passages of it vitally in her own bright imagination; to apprehend , with her fine instincts, the pathetic circumstances and dramatic relations, which the historian too often only eclipses by his reasoning, and disconnects by his arrangement."

Lecture 3 The Mystery of Life and its Arts

"I rather believe that in periods of new effort and violent change, disappointment is a wholesome medicine; and that in the secret of it, as in the twilight so beloved by Titian, we may see the colors of things with deeper truth than in the most dazzling sunshine."

"It does not matter how little or how much any of us have read, either of Homer or Shakespeare; everything around us, in substance or in thought, has been moulded by them."

[Gülşen Ç.Ç. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Normalde sadece ilk bölümü okumuş olsam 5 yıldız vereceğim kitaba kadınların nasıl olması gerektiğiyle ilgili Zambak bölümü sebebiyle 3 yıldızı zor veriyorum.

Bugünün bakış açısıyla geçmişi değerlendirmek doğru değil biliyorum ama, kadın bir dili ya da bilimi kocasının o bilime hakim olunca aldığı zevke eşlik edecek kadar öğrense yeter diyen, kadınlara hangi eğitimin "verilmesi" ya da hangi kitapların "okutulması" gerektiğini uzun uzun yazan bir metne isterse milattan önce yazılmış olsun tahammül edemeyeceğim.

Ruskin bey aydınlanmacı düşünce geleneğinden geliyormuş ama ortaçağ karanlığından aydınlık gelmesi, düşüncelerinin gerçekten de aydınlatıcı olduğu anlamına gelmiyor artık.

Kitabın bir sonraki baskılarında Zambak bölümü çıkartılarak sadece Susam ismiyle basılması daha güzel olabilir.

[Poiema · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Ruskin (1819-1900) was a prolific English art critic and historian, poet, and writer. His theories were taken up by the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and his acquaintances included Dante Rossetti, William Hunt, Lewis Carroll, and Thomas Carlyle. Many homeschool Moms would simply recognize him as the author of the children's fantasy, King of the Golden River.

The small book, Sesame and Lilies is only one of his 250 works and is a written transcript of 3 lectures that Mr. Ruskin delivered to the Royal College of Science, Dublin 1868.

Book lovers will appreciate the first lecture, in which Ruskin urges his audience to read the best books. He makes a distinction between "books of the hour" and books for all time. In his own words:

"life is short....have you measured and mapped out this short life and its possibilities? Do you know, if you read this, that you cannot read that; that what you lose today you cannot gain tomorrow? Will you go and gossip with your housemaid or your stable-boy, when you may talk with queens and kings?"

Ruskin speaks also of developing the habit of "looking intensely at words" and advocates learning the "true descent and ancient blood" of the words we handle. Keep a good dictionary handy and patiently track the evolution and meanings of words you are not absolutely clear on. Illustrating with an excerpt from Milton's Lycidas, which he classifies a "true book", Ruskin is at his best. He does a masterful job dissecting the reading.

At the close of the lecture, the well-to-do audience is challenged to use their influence to promote the buying of books and the building of libraries rather than investing in weapons of war. Ruskin's passion is unmistakable; he seems to be pleading for the soul of the nation.

The "Lilies" portion of the book deals with the education of young ladies. His approach is aimed at nailing the pride of those born into luxury and privilege. He urges practical domestic skills to be taught and used so that the poor are fed, clothed, and sheltered.

It is an interesting paradox that, while taking aim at the pride of the elite, Mr. Ruskin himself comes across as bombastic. I was fascinated by his genius and spice, but felt as though he was seeking to right the wrongs of society by bearing down hard with fire and brimstone.

His words are used elegantly and intelligently, yet I felt no warmth or lingering glow upon closing the book. I share the desire to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor. I share in his observation that young "lilies"should be taught domestic arts so that they may be of service to others. But my motivation is different. For me, service is internally motivated by love. Ruskin uses his great gift with words to motivate people to action externally; more as an act of duty. At times I sensed he was seeking even to shame people into action.

I am not sorry I read the book. Many wonderful quotes I have gleaned from its pages. The verbal fireworks were enjoyable. But I find myself unchanged inwardly by Ruskin's passion.

[Sümeyye Yıldız]

Sanat ve mimarlık üzerine yazılarından sonra diğer metinlerini merak ettiğim karşılaşmaktan mutluluk duyduğum yüce bir ruh John Ruskin. Susam ve Zambaklar yazarın Susam başlığında gerçek bir krallık anlatısına yer verdiği, Zambaklar ise kadınlar üzerine yaptığı konuşmayı içeren iki bölümden oluşan kitabı. Neyi nasıl okumalıyız? Niçin okuruz? sorularına cevaplar verdiği ilk bölümle, kendi dönemi içerisinde düşünülmesi gereken kadın konusuna dair bakış açısını bulduğumuz ikinci bölümle bazı detayları için okunabilecek bir anlatı.

[Etienne Mahieux · Rating 4 out of 5]

C'est la première édition française, traduite, annotée sans pitié et fameusement préfacée par Marcel Proust, de deux conférences sur la lecture données par Ruskin. L'idée même de donner des conférences ayant partie liée avec un idéal de diffusion de la culture, on ne s'étonnera pas que dans la première ("Sésame — Les trésors des rois") l'essayiste anglais recommande la lecture aux hommes, ni que dans la seconde ("Les Lys — Les jardins des reines") il étende aux femmes cette ordonnance.
Le plus remarquable est d'abord que, dans un style qui va du bon ton du conférencier à l'envolée lyrique, il se fasse le chantre d'une conception extrêmement exigeante de la lecture, qui réclame du lecteur la concentration nécessaire pour tirer le suc des meilleurs ouvrages des meilleurs auteurs, ceux en fait qui méritent pleinement le nom de livre. Il prêche d'exemple, notamment sur quelques lignes de Milton, pour notre plus grande satisfaction.
Ruskin devient étonnant pour le lecteur moderne quand il entrelace des considérations qui peuvent nous sembler remarquablement actuelles et d'autres qui, vues du vingt-et-unième siècle, témoignent d'un état irrévocablement passé de la société. D'un côté, il ne sépare pas sa réflexion sur la culture de ses idées sur la société et l'humanité en général et, pour simplifier, il tâche de démontrer que si l'Angleterre sombre dans un capitalisme sans frein, c'est faute de cultiver la littérature et les beaux-arts. De l'autre, il tempère ces visions fulminantes par des raisonnements marqués par la hiérarchisation aristocratique de la société anglaise, qui me semble influencer profondément une vision élitaire de la lecture. De même son féminisme, parfois virulent dans son opposition à la société de son temps et son plaidoyer pour l'éducation des femmes, ne se départ pas d'une vision essentialiste de la différence entre les sexes, qui se plaît à remonter aux temps de l'amour courtois. "Sésame et les Lys" est donc le savant et éloquent témoignage d'une société en mutation.

[Bettie]

gutenberg link: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1293

LECTURE I—SESAME. OF KING'S TREASURIES

"You shall each have a cake of sesame,—and ten pound."
Lucian: The Fisherman.

My first duty this evening is to ask your pardon for the ambiguity of title under which the subject of lecture has been announced: for indeed I am not going to talk of kings, known as regnant, nor of treasuries, understood to contain wealth; but of quite another order of royalty, and another material of riches, than those usually acknowledged. I had even intended to ask your attention for a little while on trust, and (as sometimes one contrives, in taking a friend to see a favourite piece of scenery) to hide what I wanted most to show, with such imperfect cunning as I might, until we unexpectedly reached the best point of view by winding paths.

[A.M. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lecture 1: Sesame
The author has something to say which he perceives to be true and useful, or helpfully beautiful. So far as he knows, no one has yet said it; so far as he knows, no one else can say it. He is bound to say it, clearly and melodiously if he may; clearly at all events. In the sum of his life he finds this to be the thing, or group of things, manifest to him; —this, the piece of true knowledge, or sight, which his share of sunshine and earth has permitted him to seize. He would fain set it down for ever; engrave it on rock, if he could; saying, “This is the best of me; for the rest, I ate, and drank, and slept, loved, and hated, like another; my life was as the vapour, and is not; but this I saw and knew: this, if anything of mine, is worth your memory. “ That is his “writing; “ it is, in his small human way, and with whatever degree of true inspiration is in him, his inscription, or scripture. That is a “Book”

Ruskin proposes that there is a peerage of words. That the mere act of mispronouncing reduces a man to a lesser level. That all the reading in the world will not educate you if you are reading the wrong words. He is, if you will, being a literary snob.
He gives examples of calling the bible the ‘bible’ rather than ‘the good book’. I wonder if he was aware of just how much William Tyndale changed the English bible when he translated it?
He goes through an intricate breakdown of the meaning of one of Milton’s poems, derides humanity for building industry on top of nature, and points out the difference between religion and actual christian acts. (With a small c)
For there is a true Church wherever one hand meets another helpfully, and that is the only holy or Mother Church which ever was, or ever shall be.
He mentions a painting and with the wonder of modern Internet I found it in a second. Boys throwing rocks at their schoolbooks by Turner.



He proposes an army of good thinkers rather than an army of stabbers. That the wealth of the nation should support literature and not war. He dreams of a world where the library is open all hours; “that these great libraries will be accessible to all clean and orderly persons at all times of the day and evening; strict law being enforced for this cleanliness and quietness.”
Where all the information is accessible and easily presented. Oddly enough, the Internet is almost exactly what he wanted. One that is not censored or limited, of course. And does not require the wearing of pants. He probably wouldn’t cope with the no-pants bit…

Lecture 2: lilies
This lecture is on the place of women in the world. He states that to think a woman is less than a man is foolishly wrong.
And not less wrong—perhaps even more foolishly wrong … is the idea that woman is only the shadow and attendant image of her lord, owing him a thoughtless and servile obedience, and supported altogether in her weakness by the pre-eminence of his fortitude.
He then states that Shakespeare has no heroes only heroines. Huh…
The catastrophe of every play is caused always by the folly or fault of a man; the redemption, if there be any, is by the wisdom and virtue of a woman, and, failing that, there is none.
Do you know, I had never thought about that? But he’s right. The only one he criticizes is Ophelia; he sees her as letting Hamlet down when he needed her.
Then he examines the place of women in the works of Walter Scott, Dante, Homer and the Greeks, Chaucer - who wrote a ‘Legend of good women’ but no legend for the man. He mentions the Egyptians and their belief that the spirit of wisdom was female. He argues that you can’t bring up a girl as an ornament and then complain when she is frivolous. That she must be allowed to run free in the library. That her education must be the same as a boys. He suggests that women ought to avoid theology and frivolous novels but that fits with his earlier lecture on wasted reading.
“Will you not covet such power as this, and seek such throne as this, and be no more housewives, but queens?”
He also says that the two faults you should eradicate are idleness and cruelty. Nor should you live beyond your means.

Lecture 3: the mystery of life
Here he talks of his own years of wasted effort. Of projects ignored or not come to fruition and he argues that it does not cheapen his life but rather enhance it. No research or work is wasted. He turns from the arts and deflects into Christianity.

He asks what honor there is in art or pleasure in possessions. He talks of a dream where children, in fighting amongst themselves, tore apart a beautiful house they had been allowed to play in. He woke with the thought that children do not behave like that, but men do. He says that art should be felt and rejoiced, not lectured on. If you dig at the roots of something, the leaves and branches die. Art is the work of people who feel that they are right. They open the eyes of others to the sacred law of truth.
Just because you look to heaven do not be ignorant of this wonderful and infinite earth. That every day is a day of judgment and that you should live your life accordingly and do the work of Man. That work, he opines, is feeding people, clothing people, lodging people and making art for them. Don’t ask what a beggar did to earn his food when you do not ask yourself. He derides the idea that there is a hereditarily sacred level of persons to whom the earth belongs. He suggests that if you introduced a maximum limit for salary that there would arise a secondary currency; that wealth would assert itself in other ways. He votes for public education.
Which of us, in brief word, is to do the hard and dirty work for the rest, and for what pay? Who is to do the pleasant and clean work, and for what pay? Who is to do no work, and for what pay?
He is horrified that a poor woman should feel shame for taking charity of a shilling when another takes a thousand pounds from the government with no shame.
******
So a basic summary of lecture 1 is ‘don’t waste your time reading valueless books’ and lecture 2 is try each day to make yourself a somewhat better creature and make sure to educate your women. And lecture 3 is art is just as valuable as other things, but charity is the highest thing we should strive for.
His ideas, for the time, would have been pretty radical. He even expresses horror that industry had literally blackened his favorite stream. But I have no issues with the statement:
Be no more housewives, but queens.

[C. B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is so difficult to appraise. Ruskin’s prose is deeply attractive at times, and his thoughts about reading and learning in “Of Kings’ Treasuries” are wonderful. Like Seneca, Ruskin is diverting me away from my habit of reading as widely as possible. Their views on this seem extremely similar: Seneca recommends “extending your stay among writers whose genius is unquestionable” (Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium, Letter II), while Ruskin emphasises the importance of reading great books very closely – word by word – so you can “faithfully listen to the great teachers” and “enter into their thoughts” (pp. 41-2). Although I don’t believe in either of their senses of greatness and genius, I do appreciate that slow and in-depth reading is important and can be so satisfying, as long as it’s a book which is worth that attention. I relish these sorts of thoughts about reading strategies.

But unfortunately, as others have indicated, the book takes a turn in the second essay. Very broadly speaking, the first essay (sesame) is about a masculine education, and the second is about a feminine one (lilies). For Ruskin, men need to venture into new realms of knowledge, constantly challenging themselves, failing, and growing. Women, on the other hand, require knowledge simply for “daily and helpful use” and to understand the context of what their husbands are talking about (pp. 117-8). This is obviously a very objectionable argument which doesn’t resonate in any way to me. Ruskin, however gently and affectionately, re-asserts women’s natural passivity and immovable place in the social order; it’s all quite unpleasant.

The third essay is about art, morality, Christianity, and purpose in life. It’s interesting enough (and reaches poetic heights when on the idea of life as a mysterious cloud or vapour), but nothing much jumped out at me.

Regardless of any of these issues, Sesame and Lilies is a fascinating relic of its time, and I’d be wise to remember the importance of reading things like this first-hand and tackling their arguments directly. In reading books like these, we must dive into the murky waters from which we might extract good ideas from their unpleasant context, but we must concurrently consider any possible paramountcy of those ideas to what we find repulsive.

[James Henderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is a book?

"A book is essentially not a talking thing, but a written thing; and written, not with a view of mere communication, but of permanence. The book of talk is printed only because its author cannot speak to thousands o people at once; if he could, he would---the volume is mere multiplication of his voice. You cannot talk to your friend in India; if you could, you would; you write instead: that is mere conveyance of voice. But a book is written, not to multiply the voice merely, not to carry it merely, but to perpetuate it. The author has something to say which he perceives to be true and useful, or helpfully beautiful. So far as he knows, no one has yet said it; so far as he knows, no one else can say it. He is bound to say it, clearly and melodiously if he may; clearly at all events. In the sum of his life he finds this to be the thing, or group of things, manifest to him; ---this, the piece of true knowledge, or sight, which his share of sunshine and earth has permitted him to seize. He would fain set it down for ever; engrave it on rock, if he could; saying, "This is the best of me; for the rest, I ate, and drank, and slept, loved, and hated, like another; my life was as the vapour, and is not; but this I saw and knew: this, if anything is worth your memory." That is his "writing"; it is, in his small human way, and with whatever degree of true inspiration is in him, his inscription, or scripture. That is a "Book.""

[Münibe Bilgiç · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kitap okumanın önemi üzerine çok faydalı bir konferansı yine bir kitaptan dinlemek çok güzeldi. Bir konferansın yazıya aktarılmış şeklini okumanın sıkıcı olacağını beklemiştim sanki ama hayır, biraz bile sıkıcı değildi, iyi ki okumuşum dediğim bir kitap.
Tabii her konuda yazarla/hatiple aynı fikirde değilim, özellikle kitabın tıpkı açıl susam açıl sözünün hazine mağarasının kapısını açması gibi insana üst düzeyin, aristokrasinin kapılarını açan bir sihirden ibaret görülmesi en başından muhalif olduğum bir fikir. Ama bu başlığın altında yine güzel şeyler söylemiş mi söylemiş. Severek, hatta çok severek okudum herkese tavsiye ederim.

-Ayrıca Zambaklar bölümünde Shakespeare'in kadın kahramanları hakkında yazdıkları aşırı hoşuma gitti, aydınlandım resmen ve tabi gururlandım da biraz:)-

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

There were so many profound ideas in this book. The feminist in me couldn't quite give it 5 stars, but I resonated with Ruskin's ideas on work, education, politics, economics, religion, and social justice.

[Rex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whatever our station in life may be, at this crisis, those of us who mean to fulfil our duty ought first to live on as little as we can; and, secondly, to do all the wholesome work for it we can, and to spend all we can spare in doing all the sure good we can. And sure good is, first in feeding people, then in dressing people, then in lodging people, and lastly in rightly pleasing people, with arts, or sciences, or any other subject of thought.

The lectures comprising Sesame and Liles were composed in Ruskin’s middle age, some few years after his fiery Unto This Last established him as a critic of his society’s pursuit of money to the detriment of true wealth, which is human and natural life. The first two speeches were given in 1864 to support library and school funds respectively, and in print they proved among his most popular works. If yours is the 1871 edition or later, it will include a third lecture delivered in Dublin in 1868 and a preface intending to sum up the book as a whole.

If you happen to acquire the 1865 edition or the relevant volume from Ruskin’s collected works, you will find a quite different preface that addresses the practice of alpinism. Ruskin complains of the vanity of recreational mountaineers. Ruskin compares them to a group of touring schoolboys who plucked and demolished an Alpine rose he had been painting. Love of excitement is so far from being love of beauty, that it always ends in a joy in its exact reverse: joy in destruction. He mourns especially for Switzerland, treated by the alpinists as "half watering-place, half gymnasium." In his own lifetime he saw its glories tarnished by the introduction of commercialism and industry, destroying traditional architecture and the purity and quiet of its roads and rivers. The placement of this essay as a preface to the 2nd edition may be odd, but it complements the other themes Ruskin develops here.

“Of King’s Treasuries,” the first lecture, is an appeal in behalf of education. Or as Ruskin himself capitulated, it made the point that, life being very short, and the quiet hours of it few, we ought to waste none of them in reading valueless books; and that valuable books should, in a civilized country, be within the reach of every one, printed in excellent form, for a just price. Ruskin attacked the notion that the purpose of education is to supply social privilege; instead, education is itself “advancement in Life,” and it may be had for the taking through good books. The greatest genus of book is properly the “good book for all time,” which Ruskin also calls simply the “true book.” This book is not merely entertaining or useful in the moment, but of perpetual value, embodying the wisdom of the wise. The truly educated man (or woman) is one who has spent long hours uncovering the treasures contained in “true books.”

But Ruskin is not satisfied with intellectual understanding of the great teachers. We must also learn to “enter into their Hearts.” For they can not only show us what is true, but what is just. He accuses his society of being drawn to frivolous entertainments and indifferent to justice and righteousness, specifically referencing systemic poverty, religious fraternization with capitalism, and British commercial support of the Confederate States and the Opium Wars, among other issues. The failure of England to read will be its downfall. It is simply and sternly impossible for the English public, at this moment, to understand any thoughtful writing,—so incapable of thought has it become in its insanity of avarice…. A nation cannot last as a money-making mob: it cannot with impunity,—it cannot with existence,—go on despising literature, despising science, despising art, despising nature, despising compassion, and concentrating its soul on Pence. Christianity itself has been debased into soporific triumphalism, encouraging people to “feel sorry” for those who suffer and die while also perpetuating the conditions that produce this suffering and death. What is needed, Ruskin argues, is national mobilization for education rather than war, on the field of public libraries, galleries, museums, parks, and the like.

Ruskin’s ideas with regard to gender roles, as found in “Of Queens’ Gardens,” are admittedly dated. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Ruskin believed women should be well-educated and their influence on the public sphere cultivated; but he also embraced an understanding of womanhood defined by romanticized feminine attributes. Knowing that most Victorian elites perceived Ruskin to be a radical will not help the modern reader avoid the occasional cringe, as for example when Ruskin suggests that a wife need not pursue learning in specific fields beyond what will allow her to converse intelligently with her husband and his friends. Feminists of the 1970s had a field day with this passage and others like it.

Nevertheless, as others have since pointed out, Ruskin, whose views were fluid over the course of his life, should not be judged solely on oft-reprinted excerpts from this one notorious lecture. He may have argued that woman is properly identified with the domestic sphere, but he also believed the domestic sphere should encompass the political sphere and indeed all human life. Benevolent female influence was key to his utopian vision of a world rescued from masculine warmongering, oppression, and injustice. For that reason, Ruskin embraced progressive theories of education that insisted young ladies should not remain in ignorance and idleness, but should rather be set loose on great books and learn habits of productivity for the benefit of society and especially the poor. Like his faith in hierarchies of blood chastened by enormous social responsibilities, Ruskin’s opinions on the female sex display both nobility of spirit and quixotic idealism that, as we know, yielded him profound frustration and alienation.

The 1871 preface tries to clarify Ruskin’s chief hopes for young ladies: namely, that they acquire humility, dispelling any illusion that they are more in favor with God or illuminated by truth than girls in poorer condition; and also that they avoid the two faults “that are of real consequence[:] Idleness and Cruelty.” Ladies of gentle birth have as much of a responsibility as anyone else to live productively for the good of others. He emphasizes that they are not exempt from labor or the evil of complacent self-satisfaction, as if God would shield them from unpleasantness or the consequences of a useless life. Such joy [of the Kingdom of God] is not by any means, necessarily, in going to church, or in singing hymns; but may be joy in a dance, or joy in a jest, or joy in anything you have deserved to possess, or that you are willing to give; but joy in nothing that separates you, as by any strange favour, from your fellow-creatures, that exalts you through their degradation—exempts you from their toil—or indulges you in time of their distress.

But let’s talk about his third lecture, “The Mystery of Life and its Arts.” Ruskin intended this lecture to be wide-ranging, and its conclusion, he claimed, most perfectly summarized the whole point of the earlier two. It expresses a philosophy of life that emerged from a series of personal realizations: first, that the glory of artistic genius is “perishable, as well as invisible [to ordinary people].” This and other disappointments drove Ruskin to the conviction that all worthwhile human effort must be directed to some noble and unselfish purpose. He felt that while the wisdom and rightness of every act and art of life could only be consistent with a right understanding of the ends of life, we were all plunged as in a languid dream…. This intense apathy in all of us is the first great mystery of life; it stands in the way of every perception, every virtue. How can we account for our instinctive aimlessness and disinterest in our own good?

Religion cannot satisfy us, because we cannot verify its promises. Our greatest poets tell of the gloom of fate, which offers no comfort. So-called worldly men are fools who chase meaningless tokens of wealth and status. However, those who labor honorably have no need to multiply words about the meaning of life; they do not speak, but simply do, and benefit all by their work. This work is instinctual, like an animal’s, but has the added property of being directed at excellence, as skill is built up by long experience of imperfection.

The more beautiful the art, the more it is essentially the work of people who feel themselves wrong;—who are striving for the fulfilment of a law, and the grasp of a loveliness, which they have not yet attained, which they feel even farther and farther from attaining the more they strive for it.  And yet, in still deeper sense, it is the work of people who know also that they are right.  The very sense of inevitable error from their purpose marks the perfectness of that purpose, and the continued sense of failure arises from the continued opening of the eyes more clearly to all the sacredest laws of truth.

This is one lesson.  The second is a very plain, and greatly precious one: namely—that whenever the arts and labours of life are fulfilled in this spirit of striving against misrule, and doing whatever we have to do, honourably and perfectly, they invariably bring happiness, as much as seems possible to the nature of man.  In all other paths by which that happiness is pursued there is disappointment, or destruction: for ambition and for passion there is no rest—no fruition; the fairest pleasures of youth perish in a darkness greater than their past light: and the loftiest and purest love too often does but inflame the cloud of life with endless fire of pain.  But, ascending from lowest to highest, through every scale of human industry, that industry worthily followed, gives peace.  Ask the labourer in the field, at the forge, or in the mine; ask the patient, delicate-fingered artisan, or the strong-armed, fiery-hearted worker in bronze, and in marble, and with the colours of light; and none of these, who are true workmen, will ever tell you, that they have found the law of heaven an unkind one—that in the sweat of their face they should eat bread, till they return to the ground; nor that they ever found it an unrewarded obedience, if, indeed, it was rendered faithfully to the command—“Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do—do it with thy might.”

From these lessons follows an uncomfortable third: for all the noble labor and sacrifices of workers for millennia, famine, nakedness, and squalor remain even in the heart of Europe. Nevertheless, as Ruskin insists, mortality, the transience of accomplishment, and hope in an afterlife alike give no excuse for complacency. Let us, for our lives, do the work of Men while we bear the form of them. All of us have received the duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and house the destitute, deserving or undeserving, even at the sacrifice of comfort and social position. Ruskin adds that adherence to such prosaic responsibility will by no means deprive the world of higher pleasures; “all the fine arts will healthily follow,” as will indeed good of all kinds. On such holy and simple practice will be founded, indeed, at last, an infallible religion. The greatest of all the mysteries of life, and the most terrible, is the corruption of even the sincerest religion, which is not daily founded on rational, effective, humble, and helpful action. Solidarity with the poor and weak, combined with continuous effort to lift them up, purifies and enlightens the spirit. Girls and boys alike must be taught to be useful according to their capacities and callings, to go to bed each night tired and at peace.

This, then, is Ruskin’s ultimate vision for education, that people train their hands and intellects in skills they can apply to the “toil of mercy.” This alone will build a society made firm by Faith, Hope, and Charity.

[Merve · Rating 4 out of 5]

1865e ait içerisinde 2 konferans bulunan İngiliz edebiyatına ait bir eserle geldim. John Ruskin, Viktorya çağına ait önemli düşünürlerden biri. Yaşadığı çağa karşı eleştirilerini esirgemeyen, sanayileşme ile birlikte ortaya çıkan sorunlara çözüm bulmaya çalışan, Ahlak dediğimiz şeyi ön planda tutan yazarlardan kendisi.

Susam ve Zambaklar, 1865te kitap haline getiriliyor. İçerisinde 2 konferans bulunmakta. Birincisi okumak, kitaplar ve eğitim ile ilgili. İkincisi ise kadınlar ile ilgili. 1868de bu kitaba 3.konferans da eklenmiş, Yaşamın ve Sanatların Gizi adında. Ancak bu kitapta o yer almıyor, sadece 2 konferans okuyoruz.

Ruskin'in dili muhteşem. Size seslenişi, üslubu, kalemi hiçbir şekilde sıkmıyor, okudukça okuyorsunuz. Fikirlerini doğrudan kanıtlama yerine örnekler ile açıkladıktan sonra buyrun düşünün tadında kanıtlama sunuyor.

Susam ve Zambaklar'i okurken iyi ki okumuşum dedim, iyi ki Ruskin ile tanıştım. Çünkü kaleminde sizi kendine çeken bir yanı var, düşüncelerinde de öyle. Öyle ki konferanslarına verdiği başlıktan siz de bunu anlayacaksınız. Tabi ki katilmadigim çok fazla düşüncesi oldu, hayır dedim karşı çıktım kendimce. Ancak yazdığı dönem, aşırı dinci bir anne, sanat eleştirmenligi tarafı, ahlak düşkünlüğü göz önüne alininca Ruskin'e çok karşı çıkamadım.

Kendi hayatında da birçok çelişki yaşamış kendisi. Soylu tarafı savunurken yoksul kesim için de çalışmış cabalamis. Tek çocuk olması, aşırı koruyucu bir aileye sahip olması hayatını olumsuz yönlerde de etkilemiş ama yine de düşüncelerini savunmaktan vazgeçmemiş, pes etmemiş. Bunları bilmek Ruskin'e olan saygimi bir tık daha arttırdı.

Marcel Proust da kendisine hayranmis, öyle ki az İngilizcesi ile Fransizcaya çevirmiş Ruskin'in kitaplarını.

Uzun lafın kısası, ben herkesin okumasını tavsiye ederim, özellikle kitaplar ve eğitim ile olan kısımlarını kesinlikle okuyun, bakış aciniza yeni bir pencere acabilmesi bakımından şairane bir yönü var.

Keyifli okumalar 🌼

[Burcu Meric Sakir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ruskin okullarda müfredata girsin. Özellikle susam kısmı - ne okumalı, neden okumalı - 60,70 sayfada koca koca kitaplardan daha önemli bilgiler verebilmiş.

[Tobi ﾄﾋﾞ · Rating 3 out of 5]

the extreme sexism and classism was bearable in the beginning because what did i expect from a book written in the mid 1800s but towards the end it got a bit much

[Oliver Brauning · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are a lot of issues today leading reactionaries to re-think societal norms for men and women, especially as it's the young who are doing particularly poorly. The CDC reported that in 2021, 57% of teen girls felt "consistently sad or hopeless" and 30% seriously considered killing themselves. These statistics are horrifying. They are screaming at our country that we have a serious problem. While statistics for teen girls got slightly better in 2023 post-pandemic, the number of consistently sad and hopeless girls still remained over 50%. The wide disparity in mental health outcomes between teen girls and teen boys suggests our social construal of womanhood could be out of step with what young women truly need to be successful in life (with happiness being the best operational definition of success). The nadir in young women's mental health is all the more confusing because it comes at a time in which young women are higher achieving than men. For example, young women are more likely to go to college and earn more money than young men. Clearly, "achievement" is not helping young women, at least not educational achievement. Those interested in reordering society so as to support the next generation will be tempted to look to past wisdom for guidance. Does the U.S. educational system need altering? Does Sesame and Lilies a worthwhile model?


Sesame and Lilies is a set of lectures delivered by Ruskin in 1864. The first, "Of King's Treasuries" elaborates what male education should be for, while the second, "Of Queen's Garden's" discusses what female education should be for. The premise of the lectures is that through the right training any boy or girl can grow up to be a king or queen.

Ruskin describes most clearly what a king is at the beginning of the second lecture. He writes, "I wish you to see that both well-directed moral training and well-chosen reading lead to the possession of a power over the ill-guided and illiterate, which is, according to the measure of it is, in the truest sense, kingly" (68) Ruskin's vision of kingly education consists of three things, then: first, that it is guided by a moral vision; second, that it is achieved through the means of reading; and third, that it confers power over illiterate people.

By "moral training" Ruskin means the acquirement of virtues, like wisdom, justice etc., such as are exemplified in literature and revealed in nature. The method of reading literature advocated by Ruskin is one of close-reading. He describes it as "watching every accent and expression, and putting ourselves always in our author's place, annihilating our own personality, and seeking to enter into his, so as to be able to assuredly say, 'Thus Milton thought,' not 'Thus I thought, in mis-reading Milton". (43) The importance of close-reading for Ruskin is that authors whose books stand the test of time are the epitome of a kingly state because, according to the etymology of "state," a king should be something immovable, just as virtue is unchanging. (69)

Towards the end of "Kings' Treasuries," Ruskin describes what he means by kingly power. "Yet the visible king may also be a true one, if ever day comes when he will estimate his dominion by the force of it...You may measure your dominion by multitudes, better than miles; and count degrees of love-latitude, not from, but to, a wonderfully warm and infinite equator" (62). As Ruskin will attest in "Queens' Gardens," power is the ability to be loved by others and love them back. "Vainly, as falsely, you blame or rebuke the desire of power!—For Heaven's sake, and for Man's sake, desire it all you can. But what power?...Power to destroy?...Not so. Power to heal, to redeem, to guide and to guard" (88). The power of kings over illiterates is loving and paternal and the power of Queens over others is loving and maternal.

Yet this brings up the complicated question: how is a king different from a queen? The way Ruskin describes kings, it sounds as if both a man and a woman could become a king. There is nothing sex-specific in what he says. Nevertheless, it is very clear he has something else in mind for women.

The man's power is active, progressive, defensive. He is eminently the does, the creator, the discoverer, the defender. His intellect is for speculation and invention; his energy for adventure, for war, and for conquest, wherever war is just, wherever conquest necessary. But the woman's power is for rule, not for battle,—and her intellect is not for invention or creation, but for sweet ordering, arrangement and decision. She sees the qualities of things, their claims, and their places; she enters into no contest but infallibly judges the crown of contest. (77)

Kings conquer and queens govern.

As you can see, this book is quite silly. That is somewhat to be expected given the nature of the subject. Whenever someone tries to pin down exactly what womanhood or manhood is, that person begins to sound ridiculous. What's interesting, however, is Ruskin's method of arguing. He draws, not on social science research like someone would today—of course there was hardly any back then— rather he cites the personality and activity of literary characters. This method is, of course, consistent with his premise that tried-and-true literature contains the wisdom of kings; and it is in fact a very good one, provided you choose the relevant examples and apply them properly. The trouble is that each culture construes sexual difference differently (and each person within that culture), and in any one example, the truth is still only glimpsed mostly hidden. Even good books are plagued by this problem. Ruskin had lost his faith by the time he delivered these lectures. That's too bad because theology is the only discipline certain enough to provide solid answers, since it assumes a priori an objective arbiter, sacred Scripture. A theological method would have been better than a literary method, but even still, Ruskin's answers to the problem of sexual difference aren't crazy. His insistence that men fight and women rule is very interesting, although shallow-rooted.

The biggest problem Sesame and Lilies runs into is that it doesn't actually describe what sort of education men and women should get, except in the vaguest terms. Ruskin says, for example, of men's and women's knowledge,

His command of it should be foundational and progressive; hers, general and accomplished for daily and helpful us. Not but that it would often be wiser in men to learn things in a womanly sort of way, for present use, and to seek for the discipline of their mental powers in such branches as will be afterwards fit for social service; but speaking broadly, a man ought to know any language or science he learns, thoroughly—while a woman ought to know the same language only so far as may enable her to sympathise in her husband's pleasures, and in those of his best friends (82).

"Speaking broadly"? No kidding. What does "foundational and progressive" mean? What about "general and accomplished for daily use"? Ruskin continues his vagary with a massive tension: "And if indeed, there were to be any difference between a girl's education and a boy's, I should say that of the two the girl should be earlier led, as her intellect ripens faster, into deep and serious subjects." It makes sense to push girls earlier in school; however, it is more than a little at odds with his previous statement that women should know things mainly to sympathize with her husband. Won't the girl always remain ahead of the boy? Perhaps they are reconcilable, but if Ruskin is going to write so confusedly, is it really worthwhile for someone to go back to him for insight? I would have preferred a more direct approach instead of Ruskin's highly rhetorical one.

Sesame and Lilies ultimately falls flat, despite it's complexity of thought because of what you might call it's romanticism: yes, it's lofty rhetoric that mostly obscures the substantial points but also Ruskin's ultimately far too rosy view of human nature. As "Queens' Gardens" progresses, Ruskin compares a girl to a plant: "She grows as a flower does...she may fall, and defile her head in dust if you leave her without help at some moments of her life; but you cannot fetter her." (83) His idea is that girls naturally have inside them what it takes to be queens, and as a parent or teacher, you can for the most part leave them alone. They'll mature as long as you don't hinder them. "Let her loose in the library, I say, as you do a fawn in a field. It know the weeds twenty times better than you." (84) But is that really true? No, of course not. How many women read non-fiction except for a few of the most buzzed about bestsellers? And how well do romance and smut sell? A man's nature is, of course, no better; as the meme goes, he'll adopt some hoe-scaring ideology. The point is that given a choice to do wrong, people will much more often than not take it.

Sesame and Lilies doesn't provide much of a path forward. While Ruskin's method of appealing to literature, developing metaphors and so forth might be beneficial tools for thinking, his application of these is off the mark. In fact, there's a real danger that some overeducated, maybe crypto-Catholic, literature nerd with a Substack reads this book, and it exacerbates the worst tendencies in him or her. While it might be true that old books are kings' treasuries, some people don't need to be convinced of that any more than they already are. Reading is cool, but book-worshippers are lame and need to touch grass and maybe throw a football around. Likewise, women aren't actually plants! They actually need someone to challenge them too, in order to genuinely mature. There's also some extraordinarily naive political takes in here as well (mostly on environmentalism), which drag the book down. On the other hand, Ruskin provides a defense of the humanities that is stirring, if not always reasonable, and God knows the humanities could use defending. Really though, the bottom line is that this book became influential due to its rhetorical style; it was popular, not because it is lucid, but because it is obscure, and you can cherry-pick quotes to support whatever position you want. That staple Ruskin rhetoric is both its commercial success and its critical downfall. Don't bother reading it.

[Jim Puskas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This pair of essays were originally delivered as two sequential lectures, apparently to the same audience. They form a logical pair, having dealt with similar subject matter (reading, and its role in educating first men , then women). But Ruskin broadens his topic considerably, extending into a general critique of Victorian English society, citing its excessive focus on gaining wealth, its abuse of the lowest working classes, and its constant striving for reputation and appearance as opposed to substance.
The "Sesame" essay, initially billed as "Of Kings' Treasuries" is by far the better of the two; it starts off by advocating the importance—indeed, the necessity— of reading the works of the great thinkers; further, the need to truly understand, love, and "enter into" those works, positing that attempting to impose one's own interpretation on them misses the point. Might that constitute an argument against critical thinking? Perhaps; but what he is really advocating is the development of a trained mind, able to discern truth from falsehood.
Ruskin's works never fail to provoke, to challenge the reader; and he chooses to insert startling ideas and opinions, even if they do not at first glance appear entirely germane to his main argument. For example, he manages to refute and discredit, in a very few words, two "false theories"—in effect condemning both the plutocrat's creed and the Communist Manifesto, without having to quote from either of them!
Ruskin's comments on what constitute the characteristics and behavior of a "great nation" prompted me to wonder today what Mr. Trump envisions those characteristics to be—or whether he in fact "envisions" anything at all! As I said, Ruskin prompts the reader to think in unexpected ways.
The second essay, "Lilies", initially billed as "Of Queens' Gardens" celebrates the role of women as being the uplifting of society, the pursuit of man's better nature. Despite being deeply rooted in Victorian ethos, Ruskin urges that girls be educated equally to their brothers, to realize their potential, invoking the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Scott, and others to support his case.
Despite Ruskin's worldview being uncompromisingly Victorian, his instincts are a product of the Enlightenment and his core ideas are timeless. His works wear their age very well.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

For me a second hand bookshop isn't a second hand bookshop unless it has at least one copy of ' Sesame and Lilies ' by Ruskin and ' The Cloister and the Hearth ' by Charles Reade. It often makes me wonder whether that is because there were so many unwanted copies bought as presents and then gathering useless dust until quietly slipped into the shop when the present buyer was nowhere around or is it that the books were so popular everyone had a copy and there was a glut that needed release. I for one bought an old second hand copy from 1895 first read presumably in 1895 which I always think adds a wonderful frisson to the whole experience and I enoyed it. Ruskin's style can be heavy going but that, I suppose, is of its time.

[Haythem Bastawy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ruskin, in his usual style, lectures at his readers and listeners, assuming a full authority over a people he thought he was their shepherd. Although he is right in some of what he says, the majority is not and his tome is repulsive.

[Stephanie Kangootui · Rating 3 out of 5]

A timeless classic! I couldn't quite give it 5 stars because I had a hard time comprehending and/or enjoying the prose of Sir Ruskin, but I resonated with his ideas on work, education, politics, economics, religion, and social justice.

[Inna · Rating 3 out of 5]

The "Stones of Venice" is definitely better, but I still love Ruskin...

[Hannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I did find parts of the first lecture especially very impactful and Ruskin's musings on libraries, museums and art which were relevant both to learning more about Victorian attitudes and assessing my own attitudes.
I disagree with Ruskin, I think you can enjoy a piece of art on a number of levels and you do not have to think of every connotation or etymology of each word to have effectively analysed a piece of writing. Whilst his style can sometimes be helpful (and does suggest something about the growth of scientific method and rigour during his life), I think the impact on the reader is far more important than the intentions of the writer and so for me a highly emotional analysis of a piece of art will always be of greater value than a highly detailed one. However, I still think it is useful to have my views challenged and I enjoyed reading Ruskin's arguments.

The essays included in my copy of the book were very helpful as they provided a wide range of different views on Ruskin helping me to understand the debates which surround this work. However I disagreed with the essay which argued that we should reevaluate Ruskin's work within its context and so see it as a feminist work (I read this book almost a year ago so if that's not what the essay was arguing, I apologise to its author).
Whilst Ruskin does argue for the education of women, he cannot get beyond the constraints of gender essentialism and this greatly hinders his work. It is important to note that this work was written in 1865 and the first university in the UK to take women (UCL 😍) was only in 1878. Given Ruskin's influence, these lectures could be seen as having influence on the growing focus on women's education.
However, I think it is possible to recognise that the lectures had some positive achievement but were still deeply limited. Ruskin's views are clearly a reflection of those around him and I simply think that a man lecturing to a group mainly consisting of men saying that maybe women should get a little bit of education so that they can be better wives and mothers is not very feminist.

In summary, I found the passages on public libraries and museums very inspiring and very helpful for an understanding of pre-Socialist ideas but other than that, the prose was nothing to write home about and I felt his writings on women (which took up a good half of the book) were very patronising.

[Gille Liath · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ruskin was a classic Victorian, and the keynote of the Victorians was certainty. They were convinced they had found all the answers, and that it was the part of anyone who differed from them simply to listen and learn. In the Foreword, he repudiates everything he has previously written about religion; but he expresses his new views with just the same certainty as he had the old.

However, on the whole the certainty is ill-founded. Towards the end – not to make the mistake of choosing little people for his targets – he dismisses the work of Dante, Milton, Homer and Shakespeare. Religion, as a true Victorian, he clearly sees as a means to an end - good if it encourage hard work, otherwise not. Instead of studying these things, he recommends we learn Arts and Crafts, become carvers or blacksmiths. Now, I don’t mind the practical virtues being recommended by a practical man (like Cobbett); whether he is right or wrong, we feel that he has a right to say it and that his advice is of a piece with the way he has lived his life. But when I see words decried by the type of person who takes a whole paragraph to say ‘good morning’, and practical skills extolled by someone who has never done ten minutes’ physical work in his life, I find myself frowning. It’s curious that Ruskin, such a typical, paradigmatic product of his age, should think it possible to ignore all the most substantial achievements of that age – which were technological – and return to an artisan Garden of Eden. Totally impractical practicality!

Shortly after that there is a passage acknowledging the early medieval Irish ‘golden age’ – the last lecture was delivered in Ireland – and attributing their failure to capitalise on it (ironically) to ill-founded self-satisfaction. This was only a decade or two after the Great Famine, the climactic catastrophe of a thousand years of foreign rapine and domination, first by the Norse and then the British, which might have had something to do with the failure of Irish art to develop further. But this supremely certain (but un-self-aware) thinker is not someone to whom the facts seem to matter a great deal.

These are only examples. He is an extremely diffuse writer – diffuse, and profuse. There’s a certain fascination to it, as there is to encountering any mind belonging to a culture truly alien to our own.

[Safa Karapinar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dinleyicilerin, amacına ilişkin ipucu vermeyen konuşmacıları izleme gayretinden yorgun düştüklerini duymuştum.

Tek kelimeyle söyleyecek olursak alkışa olan susuzluğumuzun doyurulması gerekmektedir. Bu susuzluk, kafalarında asil düşüncelere sahip olanların son acizliğiyken zayıf fikirler taşıyanların ilk acizliğidir; bütün olarak baktığımızda, sıradan bir kişinin en kuvvetli dürtülerini oluşturur bu fikirler. Karşılaşılan felaketler nasıl zevk düşkünlüğünden ileri geliyorsa, gösterdikleri büyük emekler de yine övgü merakının peşine düşmelerinden kaynaklanır.

Bize yükselmeye çalışmayacaksanız, biz sizin seviyenize inemeyiz.

Ancak yazarın değerini - bir değeri varsa- ve vermek istediği anlamı hemen kavrayamayacağınızı bilin. Onlardaki bilgeliği kavramanız uzun bir süre alacaktır. Bu, yazarın söylemek istediği şeyi söylememesinden ileri gelmemektedir; kendini güçlü kelimeler vasıtasıyla ifade etmemesiyle de ilgili değildir. Kendini ifade ederken mümkün olduğu kadar bir şey söylememesinden, daha da garibi kitabı anlamak ve bunun için biraz uğraşmak isteyip istemediğimizden emin olmak amacıyla çeşitli meseller ve kapalı anlatım türlerini kullanmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bunun sebebini anlayamadığım gibi, derin düşüncelerini daima saklayan akıllı insanların kalplerindeki acımasız suskunluğun sebebini de bilemiyorum. Bu insanlar, düşüncelerini bize bir yardım değil de bir ödül olarak sunarlar ve aslında sunmadan önce buna layık olup olmadığınızdan emin olmak isterler.

Çok yazık ki siz neşe ve görev gibi kavramları küçümsüyorsunuz.

Halk daha bir bebektir. Chalmers

Yüce gönüllü ve yüce ruhlu olmak hayatta büyük olmanın ta kendisidir. Buna adım adım ulaşmak, hayatın şatafatlı alanlarından ziyade kendisinde ilerlemek gerçekten "Hayatta ilerlemek" tir. Hayatta ilerleyen insan kalbi gittikçe daha duyarlı hale gelen, zaman içinde daha sıcakkanlı olup zihni hız kazanan ve ruhu gerçek huzura kavuşmuş insandır. Bu şekilde yaşamlarını sürdürebilenler yeryüzünün gerçek kralları ve efendileridir.

Görevdeki hükümetler bazı milletlerin oyuncakları, bazılarının hastalıkları, bazılarının emniyet kemeriyken bazıları için ağır bir yüktür.

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

These two lectures on the nature and role of education from the different and contrasting perspectives provided by gender date from 1865. It was it until the 1880s that compulsory primary education was introduced at primary level. Without this crucial piece of background, the true significance of these two essays would be impossible to understand.

At the time of publication, children were still very much part of the workforce. Though the 1833 labour reforms had called for inspectors to report on cases of exploitation and the act of 1845 set limits on the number of hours a child or a woman might work, that still meant that children and women could be required to work ten hours a day. Here Ruskin suggests that even poor children might benefit from schooling and the education that might be obtained. He even goes as far as suggesting that people from the lower orders might even possess talents which, if developed, might improve the condition of all humanity.

Unlike the fashion of his age, he wanted pupils to concentrate not on dead languages but to learn a skill or trade alongside intellectual activity. It must be noted that he saw fundamentally different requirements for the sexes based on the different economic roles he presumed for men and women in the wider society. He did assume that men would be engaged in analysis and experiment, whereas women’s main role was to support the no-doubt superior activity of men. To a twenty-first century reader this sounds reactionary, sexist and dismissive. But, given the prevailing mores, what Ruskin was suggesting was radical, at least in some of its assertions.

Though Ruskin accepts that not everyone in society was middle class, that not everyone shared the same values, there remained for him a normative assumption that everyone would like to be so. It was, however, the economic security that went with the class allegiance that he expected people to desire.