Introduction to the Preface of The Crown of the Wild Olive
In the Preface to his famous book, The Crown of the Wild Olive, John Ruskin has taken to task the British statistical economists of that time to argue his case that showing “ciphers” is not an economy and prosperity, rather it “consists of substance” which he calls of having “the final worth” for the human being to benefit from (09). Ruskin starts his argument by describing the devastation of natural water springs and scenery in South England, adding that water wells in the backyards of houses are due to the neglect of labor used somewhere else for profitable purposes. He laments mining saying that it is meant for the “joy and health” (05), but the wreckage of clothes, metal, dust, and slime are left in the open which is injurious to the health of the public (05). He builds his argument that the political economy means profit at the expense of health hazards and destruction of natural scenery which is against the teachings of the Bible as well as ethics of the heathens.
Description of Destruction in The Preface of The Crown of the Wild Olive
Giving horrible destruction of the water sources and nature in the Southern England, Ruskin, in the preface of The Crown of the Wild Olive, says that it is very easy to dispose the remains of the mining by just “Half-a-dozen men, with one day’s work” (5) but the problem is that this labor is capital driven that is done only for installing railing outside of the houses of the rich and then re-railing through iron bars which rust with the passage of time and has no final value. However, the problem with the factory owners and capitalists is that they want profit by producing needs and then products in a way that the life of laborers is spent in producing a “valueless piece of iron” instead of “medicinal fresh air, and pure war” (06) which would prove healthful for the general public. However, the problem is that there is no profit or money involved, the reason that the refuse and remains of mining of iron are left as they are.
Belief System in the Preface of The Crown of the Wild Olive
Presenting his argument by comparing this work of wiping out refuse with that of a religious person, Rusk argues that exactly like the belief system, corporations and factories work on practical basis and not on the basis of “this assumed belief” of making the world beautiful though the profit makers accept this argument that this is a religious beliefs are correct and do not deny them (10). However, if all the Christians believe in the teachings of the Bible and adhere to it teachings, they may resort to making the world a place worth living instead of reaching out to needless products or selling such useless products. However, the argument arises that life is too short and that it must be used practically. Then, he says, the question looms large that it does not mean “wasting the space” (12). What he means is that the Biblical teachings of “what a man soweth that shall he also reap” (13) could make them to see their follies of this great avarice of money making at whose alter they are destroying the environment.
Symbol of Olive in The Crown of the Wild Olive
He even links it to the Grecian heathens who used to award an olive branch to the winners of the Olympics and that they did not want money which he ironically attributes to their gods that they did not have gold or any other precious metal to offer to the winners. That is why it is in the title of th book, The Crown of the Wild Olive. In other words, his argument is that that olive branch means the preservation of nature on which the whole of humanity lives and enjoys. If that is done, it means there is “free heartedness, and graciousness, and undisturbed peace” (15), which he states is not possible in the current state of economic thoughts of earning profit only. He declares by the end that these “may be riches; untormenting and divine” (15) which would serve others in life on this earth. This also serves in the context of work, which should be done for the welfare of the people, traffic that should not be used to collect money and the weapons that should not serve to destroy the earth.
Conclusion
Concluding the argument of the preface of The Crown of the Wild Olive, it could be said that Ruskin has tried to awaken the religions conscience of the readers by stating that political economy is too much dependent on things that have no final value, and are only produced to create needs and then produced to meet those artificially created needs. If this production of objects and commodities continue, it means the destruction of the natural resources and also the use of laborers at the behest of the few profit-making factory and mining owners. However, this would have little value for the common public. Contrary to the religion beliefs, this does not fit into the Biblical teachings though life is to face death, but it does not mean that one should just fulfill his desires of making money at the expense of natural destruction and pure sources of health. his three lectures too argue the same principle of peace, love and service to the public. His argument of the Grecian olive branch too hold weight in that it was a symbol of the preservation of nature to satisfy one’s pride and not greed and that is also the major point of his argument for work, traffic and war weapons.
Works Cited
Relevant Questions About The Crown of The Wild Olive: Ruskin’s Criticism of Political Economy
- In the Preface to The Crown of The Wild Olive: Ruskin’s Criticism of Political Economy, what key insights does Ruskin provide regarding the shortcomings of political economy as a discipline?
- How does the Preface in The Crown of The Wild Olive: Ruskin’s Criticism of Political Economy set the tone for John Ruskin’s critique of political economy, and what are the main ideas or arguments he foreshadows in this introductory text?
- What historical and intellectual context is essential to understanding the significance of the Preface in The Crown of The Wild Olive: Ruskin’s Criticism of Political Economy in relation to John Ruskin’s broader criticism of political economy in the 19th century?