 |
 |
 |
Ruskin writes of being ‘here in Verona’ on page Notebook M2 p.115 above. On page Notebook M2 p.117 he writes of what he saw ‘today’ in Vicenza.
The date of 1851, at Notebook M2 p.1 and at Notebook M p.118, is written in a version Ruskin’s hand, but in a different ink; it is presumably a later addition, apparently in the same ink and the same hand in both places. There seem to be good reasons for believing the date to be a mistake.
First, M2 starts at Notebook M2 p.1back, and is dated 6th October, Dijon. The reference on that page to Vitteaux and Notebook N p.9L suggest that this refers to 1849, the day before the first entry in M, also in Dijon. Moreover the substance of that entry reads as a preliminary analysis of the nature of Gothic, drawing on ideas and examples from Seven Lamps of Architecture. It argues a case which derives from the functionalism of Willis’ approach to the analysis of Gothic and which belongs to the thinking before the research in Venice reported in the Notebooks.
Secondly M and M2 became interchangeable in the use, with an overlap exemplified by the relationship between Notebook M p.186 and the bottom of Notebook M2 p.89. The one continues directly from the other in an analysis of the Ducal Palace Series of Capitals of Lower Arcade. This was indeed 1850 in the winter of 1849/50, presumably sometime after 30th January 1850, the date of Notebook M p.161 and before 8th February 1850, the date of Notebook M p.191.
Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence is at Notebook M2 p.140. The reference there to the Gorham judgment resulting from the meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 8th March 1850 would be impossible more than a year after the event.
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]