 |
 |
 |
Works, 10.395 ‘Vincrilis’ E.T. Cook suggests that ‘INVINCIBILIS’ is a better reading. Whether that emendation is accepted or not it is interesting to trace the shift in Ruskin’s perceptions of the 9th and 29th capitals to conform with his preconceptions as he moves from Palace Book 42L, to Notebook M p.184, and to the published version at Works, 10.395. In the published version the point he wishes to make depends on the reading ‘virilis’, and that this is the only reading given. This does not seem to be good practice by Ruskin. Compare the way in which he deals with ‘temperantia’. Again he seems to ignore evidence which does not fit his conclusions.
|
|
|
[Version 0.05: May 2008]