Liber Studiorum series, (placed here temporarily)

512  Norham Castle, sunrise, B&J, cat. 512, pl. 498,

515 Sunrise,  a Castle on a Bay : “Solitude”, cat. 515, pl. 501,

7.   Sunrise with a  Boat between Headlands, pl. 502, cat.

518        The Ponte delle Torre, Spoleto,  cat. 518, pl. 504,

521      Mountain  scene with Lake and Hut,cat. 521,  pl. 506,

522         Mountain  Landscape, cat. 522,  pl. 507,

532   A river seen from a Hill, cat 532, plate 512,

531  Landscape with Water, pl.519, cat 531


509  Landscape  with a River and  Bay in the Distance, pl.495, cat. 509, now in the Louvre, Paris,




510 The Fall of the Clyde, pl. 496, cat. 510, now in the Lady Lever Art Gallery, Port Sunlight,

J.M.W.Turner, R.A., Publications

J.M.W.Turner, R.A., Publications

Prices at 1 January 2003


J.M.W.Turner, R.A. 

A journal, appearing irregularly, devoted to Turner’s international place in the arts, to John Ruskin, and to the support of the Committee for the Instatement of Turner’s Gallery.

Edited by Selby Whittingham and Robert Walmsley.

No.1.   19 December 1988.  86 pages.     £12.00

No.2.   19 December 1993.  230 pages.  £20.00


An Historical Account of the Will of J.M.W.Turner, R.A.

By Selby Whittingham.

2nd edition, 1993-6, in 5 fascicules, 415 pages.  ISBN 1 874564 01 9.   £40.00

1.  Text £12;   2-5. Documents:   2. The Will, £8;    3. In the Courts, £8;    4. In Parliament, £8;    5. The Lords Committee, £8.


The Fallacy of Mediocrity:  The Need for a Proper Turner Gallery

December 1992.  In 3-4 fascicules.   ISBN 1 874564 00 0.

1. Text, 208 pages, £18.00;      2-4. Appendices, Series 1-3:    2.  Appendices 1, 82 pages, £9.00;     3.  Appendices 2,

146 pages, £14.00;     4.  Appendices 3, forthcoming.


Ruskin as Turner’s Executor

By Selby Whittingham.  Essay and documents.  8 February 1995.   70 pages.  ISBN 1 874564 22 1.  £9.00.


Turner Exhibited 1856-61

By Selby Whittingham.

Critiques of the Turner Bequest pictures, 1856-61.  8 February 1995.  78 pages.  ISBN 1 874564 07 8.  £9.00.


The World Directory of Artists’ Museums

By Selby Whittingham.

Lists some 500 museums, houses, monuments, libraries, including those which no longer exist.

10 January 1995.  148 pages.  ISBN 1 874564 02 7.   £12.00    (New edition in preparation).


Of Geese, Mallards and Drakes:  Some Notes on Turner’s Family.

By Selby Whittingham, with contributions from others.

In 4 parts, 1993-9.  New editions of   1 and 2 in preparation.  Parts 1-3 £14.00 each.  Part 4  £27.00.

1.  The Danbys.   May 1993.  138 pages.                                     ISBN 1 874564 27 2.

2.  The Turners of Devon, 23 April 1995.  134 pages.  ISBN 1 874564 32 9.

3.  Mrs Booth of Margate, 14 September 1996, 144 pages.              ISBN 1 874564 42 6.

4.  The Marshalls & Harpurs, October 1999, 290 pages, in 2 fascicules.    ISBN 1 874564 37 X.


Turner Walks

By Selby Whittingham.

Series 1, first published by Tibor Gönye, April 1997. A5.  £3.50 each, £10.00 for 4.   Most out of print.

1.  Kensington, 17 pages, ISBN 1 874564 47.7.    2.  Chelsea, 9 pages, ISBN 1 874564 52 3.   3.   Covent Garden &         Bloomsbury, 17 pages, ISBN 1 874564 57 4.  4.  Mayfair and St James’s, 21 pages, ISBN 1 874564 62.0.

Series 2, published 1999, illustrated, A5,    £3.50 each or £10.00 for 4.

5.   Marylebone, ISBN 1 874564 67 1.   6.  The City (South-East), ISBN 1 874564 72 8.  7.  Clerkenwell and Smithfield,  ISBN 1 874564 77 9.  8.  Islington.  ISBN 1 874564 82 5.

Series 3,  forthcoming, A4. £9 each.

9.  Southwark & Bermondsey.   10.  Oxford & District.      11.  Tonbridge & District.


Ruskin’s Guide to the Turners in the Clore Gallery

Edited by Robert Walmsley and Selby Whittingham.

ISBN 1 874564 12 4.   Out of print.   Any new edition will depend on the future of the Clore Gallery.


Prices include postage.  Those not paying in sterling should add £7.00 to cover cost of conversion.


J.M.W.Turner, R.A.,  Turner House,  153 Cromwell Road,   London SW5 OTQ,   Great Britain.


Some Opinions on J.M.W.Turner, R.A., Publications


J.M.W.Turner, R.A.


“You won’t find a chunkier or more combative Christmas read than ‘J.M.W.Turner,R.A.’” (Maev Kennedy, Diary, The Guardian).


“I think it is very desirable that your opinions and arguments should be made available to our readers.” (The Librarian of the Tate Gallery, London).


“It is very well put together and crammed with new information … It’s refreshing to find an academic journal that speaks out.”  (John Lewis Bradley,  Emeritus Professor of English, Universities of Durham and Maryland)


An Historical Account of the Will of J.M.W.Turner, R.A.


“It is an extremely complicated story but you have managed with careful detail to make it lucid even to the non-specialist.  And on your main conclusions I find myself very much in agreement.”  (Professor Norman Gash, FBA, FRSL, Emeritus Professor of History, University of St Andrews).


“Your masterly work about Turner’s will.”  (Leolin Price, CBE, QC).


“A masterly work indeed.”  (Alec Samuels, JP, Barrister, former Reader in Law, University of Southampton).


“A brilliant piece of work.”  (Kenneth Hudson, OBE, FSA, Director of the European Museum Forum).


The Fallacy of Mediocrity:  The Need for a Proper Turner Gallery


“Your marshalling of evidence is totally convincing – the disaster of the Clore Gallery, the endless ‘economies with the truth’ from scholars & directors who should know better & the total total inactivity of the Trustees to look into it – always leaving the room saying ‘Oh we leave it to the Director.’  What are they for?”  (Sir Hugh Casson, CH, KCVO, Past President of the Royal Academy of Arts).


“So scholarly and encyclopedic an investigation … should be permanently on sale in the Tate Gallery …   Your polemic [is] wholly justified  … It was … necessary that it should be written.”  (Brian Sewell, art critic of the Evening Standard).


“Like my father [Lord Clark of Saltwood, OM], I am entirely persuaded by your case.”  (Rt.Hon. Alan Clark, MP).


Of Geese, Mallards and Drakes:  Some Notes on Turner’s Family


“I am enormously impressed by the dedication and care you are giving to unravelling so many strands of Turner’s life.  Scholars in the future will be profoundly indebted to you.”  (Revd. Anthony Symondson, SJ, architectural historian and descendant of Sarah Danby).


“The riddle of the man [Turner] should be read by the key of this munificent testament  …  The treatment of the works of which he has made the nation his heirs is nothing less than a matter of national import.”  (Tom Taylor, art critic of The Times and sometime Editor of Punch, writing in 1856)

A DOZEN DECEPTIONS about the fate of Turner’s “bequest” for his “gallery”


about the fate of Turner’s “bequest” for his “gallery”


  1. 1.  In 1855 the Director of  the National Gallery, Sir Charles Eastlake, said “the possession of them [Mr. Turner’s pictures] for the purposes of exhibition would be strictly consistent with the objects of the National Gallery” (to the Special Examiner of the Court of Chancery, 5 July).  But they were not.   The objects of the National Gallery he defined as “to improve the Public Taste” and “to give artists and others opportunities of studying the best works of former or present Times.”  But the general view, in which Eastlake shared, was that some of Turner’s finished pictures could not be classified as “best” or as improving the public taste.


  1. 2.  In 1861  Eastlake said “I have a great respect for the wishes of testators” (to the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Turner Bequest, 18 July, § 43).  But he did not.  He said at the same time, “if the testator’s directions were to be literally fulfilled …, great inconvenience would be the result …” (§ 21).  (He might have thought of that six years earlier, when he was trying to get the bequest for the National Gallery!).  What he wanted was freedom to do what hethought was right.  The Committee did not support him, and unanimously said that Turner’s wishes should prevail.


  1. Turner made some bequests contingent upon the Turner Gallery not being erected as he wished.  In 1861 those potential beneficiaries were told they had no claim to those bequests, as Turner’s condition that room(s) for his bequest be built had been fulfilled.[1]But the National Gallery had not constructed any rooms for it, and so the Turners had no fixed or adequate space at the National Gallery.


  1. In 1882-3 a Bill was introduced to allow the conditions of donors to be disregarded after 25 years when they forbad the dispersal of collections by loan.  (J.S.Mill had advocated the granting of such licence after 50/60-90/100 years, and today the period is fixed at 50 years for the National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery and Tate Gallery, but in 1882 that was too long for a Bill aimed against a bequest received 26 years earlier).  The need for the Bill, which was passed in 1883 after hardly any debate, was attributed to (a) the wish of the provincial museums to borrow, and (b) the lack of space at the National Gallery (Viscount Hardinge, chairman of the National Gallery Trustees, in the House of Lords, 17 August 1882;  cf. 15 March 1883).  But that was only half the truth.  The National Gallery had thought from the start that some Turners were inferior and had wanted to dispose of those in this way;  and some thought that there were too many relative to the number of works by other artists.  But to admit that would raise the question of why the gallery had been so keen to accept the collection in the first place, and indeed a much larger quantity of works than the artist had willed to it.


  1. In 1890 The Times in an editorial wrote:  “It cannot be denied that a large proportion of such gifts as those made by Mr.Sheepshanks, Mr.Vernon, Mr.Jacob Bell – shall we add, by the great Turner himself?  –  were not such as would have been accepted if the Director at the time had been free to act with a fastidious regard for the interests of the Gallery” (13 March 1890, 9d).[2]But Eastlake had willingly accepted not only what Turner left to the National Gallery, but a great deal more (and he and other curators had also welcomed the other gifts named, but later found inconvenient).


  1. In 1908, on announcing the Duveen wing for Turner at the Tate Gallery, the Minister, the Hon. Lewis Harcourt, said “by doing this we shall have attained to the nearest possible fulfilment of Turner’s desire … to have all his works gathered together in one Gallery so that they might form a collected whole” (to he National Art-Collections Fund, 6 May).  But it would have been possible, as some then advocated, to show the whole lot together at the National Gallery or at the Tate Gallery.  Splitting the collection was disregarding what everyone has agreed was Turner’s prime wish:  “Keep them together.”

When the Duveen wing opened in 1910, The Burlington Magazine said that “the works which this great painter bequeathed to the nation will be for the first time exhibited as a single collection” (Editorial, August 1910; cf. August 1907).  In fact the works bequeathed to the nation (excluding the separate bequest of two to hang with Claudes) had been shown together 1856-83, but have never been since, except for six months in 1987.


  1. The fiction was maintained by the National Gallery, Law Officers and Minister that the transfer of Turners to the Tate (then part of the National Gallery) was only a loan (as sanctioned by the 1883 Act), whereas the patent purpose of the Duveen wing was to provide a permanent home for the bulk of the bequest, as it more or less remained until 1987 and the Duveen’s Clore replacement, by when the Tate was a separate entity from the National.


  1. In 1980, with the announcement of the Clore Gallery, Martin Butlin, Keeper of the British Collection at the Tate Gallery, said, “all of the oil paintings will be available without formality, either in the main galleries or in a reserve …” (Turner at the Tate, p.18).  That has not been the case.  Many of the unfinished oils and up to half the finished ones have often been unavailable without prior appointments or even with such.


  1. In 1987 at the opening of the Clore Gallery the Queen referred to “his bequest of pictures brought together, at last, and on display as we would have wished” (1 April).  At the same time Evelyn Joll, then or later on a Tate committee, said that “the dying wishes of Britain’s greatest painter are realized at last … The contents of Turner’s studio [engravings excepted] are now reunited under one roof” (The Times, 26 March).  But Turner had stipulated that his bequest be kept together under one roof “constantly” not once in 100 years.  And in 1983-4 Martin Butlin had admitted that the National Gallery would keep some of the pictures.  The showing of them together for six months was then a ploy to give a specious credibility to the claim that Turner’s wishes were being met.  That the Clore “relates only tenuously to his [Turner’s] stated wishes” was admitted by its curator, Andrew Wilton (Illustrated London News, April 1987).


  1. In 1999 Nicholas Serota, Director of the Tate Gallery, said that “Turner never stipulated that all his paintings should be exhibited together;  he had in mind a rotating display of selections from his hundred or so finished works” (2 February).   This was untrue and contradicted the Tate’s earlier claim.

In 1988, according to the Turner Society (committee minutes, 6 October), the “integrity of the Turner Bequest as a single collection … was only not being met in respect of the paintings from the Bequest hanging in the National Gallery.  However, the Gallery had promised to change these from time to time, returning them to the Clore and taking another selection in their place.”  However this has never been done;  the occasional loan of a work from the Tate to National does not constitute the rotation implied.  In 2002 the Chairman of the National Gallery Trustees, Peter Scott, has said that “we have been conscious of the public’s familiarity with the whereabouts of much-loved paintings.   We therefore do not anticipate any significant increase in exchanges in the near future.”  Whether the authors of this deception – which deceived journalists on The Independent and other papers – were the National Gallery or Turner Society is unclear. That such rotation is undesirable, as Mr Scott says, and does nothing to meet Turner’s intention does not alter the fact of the deception.


  1. In 1992 advertisements for reproductions by Lawrence & Turner and the Tate Gallery claimed that since 1987 “all the artist’s magnificent bequest has been made accessible in its entirety for the first time” (February).  Other claims were that “it was not until the opening of the Clore wing of the Tate Gallery in 1987 that this breathtaking bequest was to find a permanent home” (February 1993);  and that the Clore wing “finally fulfilled Turner’s wishes for a permanent gallery solely devoted to his works” (June 1993).  But all these “firsts” are bogus.  The Clore is basically a repetition of the Duveen solution, and the drawings in fact became less accessible than before for “a shameful period” (Martin Butlin, after retirement from the Tate, in The Oxford Companion to J.M.W.Turner, 2001, p.327) and even subsequently.   Likewise the claim that at the Clore “the vast majority of Turner’s Bequest has received an unprecedented level of conservation, care, scholarly attention and public exposure” (ibid., p.384) is exaggerated.  There has been an unprecedented rate of loss of finished pictures (two loaned contrary to Turner’s wishes and stolen) and there have been times in the past when the finished pictures, Turner’s main concern, have had more public exposure.The watercolours were regularly exhibited long before the Clore opened.


  1. 12.  Since 1993 the aforementioned advertisements dropped those claims, but after 1993 they called the Tate Gallery the “custodian of the Turner Bequest.”  And the Tate Gallery’s press release announcing the first refurbishment of the Clore Gallery referred to its rooms “which house the Turner Bequest” (16 March 1994).  These phrases – repeated in a notice in the Clore Gallery in 2001 – imply the century-old falsehood – that the “bequest” is united at the Tate Gallery.



Note:  These deceptions only concern the terms of Turner’s main bequest to the National Gallery and the cover-ups used to disguise their non-fulfilment.   (Other deceptions have been employed with regard to the Royal Academy’s Turner Fund).  The artistic and practical failures over the display of the “collection”, the mistakes in conservation etc. are outside the scope of these remarks.


J.M.W.Turner, R.A., Publications


1st published April 1994;  revised August 2002.




[1]   “Mr Turner R.A. died … bequeathing to this Hospital £500 to be paid out of the sale of his finished pictures, provided the Trustees of the National Gallery did not, within the space of ten years, construct a room or rooms to be added to the National Gallery for the public Exhibition of the said pictures.  The Secretary understands that the Trustees of the National Gallery have recently carried into effect the wishes of the Testator and therefore the contingency is at an end”  (Thomas Coram Foundation, Minutes of the General Court, 1 January 1862).

R.N.Wornum, Keeper of the National Gallery, wrote, “the conditions of the painter’s will are now fulfilled” (The Turner Gallery [1861-2] p.xxii).

[2]   In 1954 Nigel Nicolson MP similarly said that the 1883 Act was to allow the National Gallery to rid itself of worthless pictures “wished on it by unscrupulous testators.”


Critiques of the Clore Gallery


Critiques of the Clore Gallery 


  The Clore Gallery was created as a wing of the Tate Gallery (now Tate Britain) 1980-7 with £6 million from the millionaire Sir Charles Clore (1904-79) and his daughter Mrs Vivien Duffield and £1.8 million from the government.  It was to house the Tate’s Turner collection, comprising the lion’s share of the Turner Bequest and its Turners from other bequests, in place of the 1910 Duveen wing.


  The Clore was designed by Sir James Stirling.   Some people praised it as architecture, even if it was not one of his best designs.  As a showcase for Turner, however, all agreed that it failed.  Sir Roy Strong gave some praise for the interior, but none for Turner’s pictures (Diaries, 1 April 1987).  Mrs Duffield had told him (Diaries, 7 December 1983) that “she felt rather uninvolved in the … project as she had no feeling for Turner or for modern art.”  The architect had as little sympathy with the artist.  He and the Turner curators violently disagreed, especially about colours.  The Director of the Tate, Sir Alan Bowness was ineffectual, but generally sided with the Trustees and architect.  The sorry saga is related by Mark Girouard in Big Jim:  The Life and Work of James Stirling, 1998, pp.217-23.  At a press conference to discuss the design Richard Cork “realised with a sense of foreboding, that nobody had actually talked about what kind of building would best suit Turner’s paintings” (The Listener, 4 April 1987).  Later he said:  “the entire scheme had been conceived as Stirling’s work of art, rather than as the most fitting vessel for Turner’s long-abused bequest to the nation” (The Times, 30 November 1991).  Gavin Stamp wrote:  “I …have the strong impression that an architect is showing off at the expense of England’s greatest painter” (Daily Telegraph, 4 April 1987).


  “Great Paintings, Pity about the Building,” was the heading of that review in the Daily Telegraph.    The future Chairman of the Turner Society, Eric Shanes, commented, “It’s diabolical. It’s dire.   None of the colours in the building relate to Turner at all,” (Sunday Telegraph, 29 March 1987). 


   The Approach and Site.  If one comes via Pimlico underground station, one passes at the exit a crude and deteriorating reproduction of a Turner, bisected by the handrail (emblematic of the bisected Turner Bequest).  Contrary to the Tate’s claim that the Clore is a prominent feature by the river, “it is possible to walk down Millbank without even noticing it” (Martin Pawley in The Guardian, 1 April 1987).  The grave-shaped pond is neither picturesque, beautiful or sublime.  Very few visitors use the Clore entrance to access the galleries.  Approach from inside the Tate has invariably been through rooms devoted to artists with no connection with Turner.


  Staircase.  The emphasis on Turner’s “least favourite colour,” “a particularly virulent green” (Evelyn Joll in The Times, 26 March 1987) and other hues discordant with Turner’s make the approach more unsympathetic. “These fun colours,” wrote Marina Vaizey (Sunday Times, 29 March 1987) “are not fun;  they are shocking in the wrong sense.  They are vulgar … The most subtle colourist in British art is defiantly shouted down.” The staircase is brightly lit and with hardly any interval gives on to an exhibition room, which is more dimly lit.  This reverses Turner’s principle of having a dark anteroom and stairs so that the pictures will seem all the brighter.


  Main Rooms – Colours.  In 1987 nearly all the critics agreed that the light walls “drain the pictures of colour” (John Russell Taylor, The Times, 1 April) or destroy “the luminosity of the paintings” (William Feaver, ARTNews, Summer 1987).  “The beige carpet is a disaster, and by the end of the opening week was grubby and stained.  The wall colour too is disastrous … The walls too are already distractingly grubby” (Marina Vaizey, The Architect, June 1987).  The carpet has now gone and the walls in 1999/2000 “have been painted a shade of red somewhere between salmon, terracotta and condensed tomato soup which …did nothing for the paintings …” (Cecilia Powell in Turner Society News, 84, March 2000).  They were next repainted in darker colours, which some have praised.


  Lighting.  Colours and lighting have to be planned together.  The architect’s elaborate system for lighting by daylight has never worked, and was comprehensively dismissed by an expert, Dr William Allen CBE, a member of the Scientific Committee of the National Gallery, in an unpublished report.  Now virtually all natural light is excluded in the main rooms, as they were in the reserve ones.  John Spurling referred to “the dispiriting hotel-conference-room environment of the Clore’s galleries, gloomily lit …” (The Spectator, 8 April 2000).  Julian Spalding, a former gallery director, remarked that Turner was a painter of light.  “Here, if ever, was a chance to design a gallery as a hymn to light.  Sadly, however, the Clore Extension immediately dampens one’s spirits upon entering.  The light in it is so subdued that the paintings look drained of colour, and all the life and love has gone out of them” (The Poetic Museum: Reviving Historic Collections, 2002, p.94).   In the original watercolour room contemplation of the works was “rendered painfully difficult by reflections of the overhead lamps” (R.S. Miles in Museums Bulletin, August 1987).  The artificial lighting remains patchy and poor.  


  Main Rooms – Proportions.  Once the mouldings came too far down, so that the larger pictures had to be hung too low.  “If you want to gain a sense of Turner’s rendering of space in these pictures, you have to sit or lie on the floor” (Michael Kitson in Turner Society News, August 1987).  The central room is too narrow for large works.  “Like a well upholstered bomb shelter,” said John McEwen, “its proportions are almost all wrong and mostly discomforting” (Art in America, July 1987).


  Plan of Main Rooms.  “Everywhere visitors are left to guess how the collection is arranged, how to visit it.”  “Full and orderly coverage of paintings in rooms with separated entrances and exits … requires visitors to loop the loop, and of course some visitors loop in one direction and some in the other, with chaotic results.  Room 107 with its four doorways is really stacking the odds against visitors …” (R.S.Miles, 1987).  The plan was based on a misconceived imitation of Dulwich Picture Gallery, which Soane designed for history pictures, not landscapes, on a plan that has been altered.  After  several rehangs the illogicality of the room sequence remains. 


  The Hang.   This has been changed more than once.  The shortage of space allowed presents the curator with a dilemma:  either consign even more pictures to store (already the original prospectus has been dishonoured by consigning over half) or crowd them together too much.  “Ruskin knew that Turner’s magnificent pictures look best in isolation, but the perpetual tendency of art historians to aggrandise themselves at the expense of their subject results in a crowded confusion of hanging which violates quiet enjoyment of great art” (Stephen Bayley in The Architect, June 1987). 


   Since 1987, despite changes, no year has gone past without more slashing criticisms – by Stephen Games, David Lee, Brian Sewell, Waldemar Januszczak, Martin Gayford… Mrs Duffield too was unhappy.  An exception was Stephen Greenberg, but even he suggested a change of use for the wing (Architects’ Journal, 11 April 1990).  Museologists were also critical.  Kenneth Hudson OBE, Director of the European Museum Forum, said American students he took round were confused; comparable galleries abroad were much better.  Dr Peter Cannon-Brookes said, “the environment for the paintings finally achieved is seriously at variance with them.  In this James Stirling is in many ways also a victim” (The International Journal of Museum Management & Curatorship, March 1987).  Dr Maurice Davies, Deputy Director of the Museums Association, was even more forthright (“Turner betrayed?” Tate magazine, 5, Spring 1995, pp.32-5). 


  From the Duveen wing experiment all that was learnt was that, after the Tate flood, pictures should be kept above ground level, a print room was needed and room size matters: the central Clore one was made too small in reaction to the too large Duveen one.  Otherwise the concept of each wing was identical.  No heed was paid to foreign innovations, to my proposal for study rooms freely open to all, to Al Weil’s critiques and championship of Turner’s prints (cf. New Statesman, 10 April 1987).    


  The main faults of the Clore – of size, plan and site – are ineradicable.  Other faults are correctable only at the expense of Stirling’s design.  Some have wrongly tried to make Stirling the scapegoat.  The Tate’s aim was to kill the campaign to reunite the Turner Bequest, to grab the Clore money, and provide a vehicle for Stirling.  Turner’s wishes, ideas and “collection” came a poor fourth.  “The ideal Turner Gallery is still a dream” (Dr David Gervais, The Cambridge Quarterly, XIV, 1,1988).


Selby Whittingham,   January 2003.   















In 1848, in a codicil to his will of 1831, Turner bequeathed his  finished pictures to the curators of the National Gallery, on condition that a room or rooms be  added to the present National Gallery, and that once built, it or they be called “Turner’s Gallery”


Various explanations have been put forward for this bequest.


1.            A room of his works at the National Gallery, like the similar Rubens room at Munich, or rooms, would be a substantiel monument to his fame, with which, we are told by his contemporarles, he was much concerned.  A scattering  of pictures would not be the same.


2.            This would allow him to show off his mastery of all styles and subjects.


The examination of the hang  of Turner’s gallery in Queen Ann street at the moment of his death shows both that it contained most of his own favorites and also a wide variety of sizes, subjects and treatments.  A picture like Harvest Dinner, Kingston Bank had the vital function of illustrating Turner’s range from the humble to the exalted.

We would like to suggest another, which is not exclusive of the others ?

Ruskin reported in MP 5, Part IX, ch. XI, §30, that  “Turner appears never to have desired, from any one, care in favour of his separate works. The only thing he would say sometimes was, “Keep them together.” He seemed not to mind how much they were injured, if only the record of the thought were left in them, and they were kept in the series which would give the key to their meaning.”

This may constitute one of the reasons Turner had felt it necessary to make his bequest.

The following essay is an attempt to put forward a hypothesis concerning a possible  overall meaning of the paintings in the Bequest, or at the least, of a significant   part of them.

It seems to us that a clue to these other meanings may be found in the first and simpler bequest of 1829.



In 1829, in the first draft of his will, Turner bequeathed two of his works to the National Gallery : Dido Building Carthage, or the Rise of the Carthaginian Empire and The Decline of Carthage, provided they were deemed worthy to be and were placed by the side of two pictures by Claude.


Turner seems to have had this bequest in mind for a considerable time, as he repeatedly refused to sell “Dido Building Carthage”, despite continuous offers.


The Decline of the Carthaginian Empire ... exhibited 1817 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851


Turner added the following explanation to the title of the second of these pictures :”Rome being determined on the overthrow of her hated Rival, demanded of  her such terms as might either force her into war, or ruin her by compliance : the Enervated Carthaginians, in their anxiety for peace, consented to give up their Arms and their Children.”


The following verses by Turner also appeared in the catalogue


“At Hope’s delusive smile,

The chieftain’s safety and the mother’s pride

Were to th’ insidious Warrior’s grasp resign’d;

While over the western wave th’ensanguin’d sun,

In gathering haze a stormy signal spread,

And set portentous.”


These two pictures were obviously conceived as companions.


Such comparisons of the rise and fall of Empires and their application to the contemporary situation were a commonplace in the eighteenth and early ninteenth centuries, as in Oliver Goldsmith’s Roman History and Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. !BJ ?)


This theme is also to be found in James Thomson’s long poem Liberty, published in 1734-1736, Thomson being a poet often referred to by Turner.


The then well known guide to Italy, J.C. -Eustace’s Classical Tour through Italy of 1813 draws a parallel between Carthage and England.


Turner seems to have identified, if only momentarily, Carthage with England, in the particular case of this painting of the Decline of Carthage, according to the various drafts of the poem, in terms of the situation after the defeat of Napoleon and the falsities of the imposed peace.  Rome taking over the treacheries of Punic faith, “Held forth the peaceful but round the stem insidious twined the asp”-“Revengeful twined the asp” … (CXL 3, 4, 7a, 8, 11, Ila, in pencil, quoted by J. Lindsay).


The bequest of these two particular pictures, to a gallery called the National Gallery, being such, seems to justify the hypothesis that Turner meant his gift to be a possible constant incitement to the Nation to meditate on the lessons of History, to self-examination and reflection on the theme of possible decline or décadence.


In the 1831 version of his will, Turner substituted Sun rising through Mist for The Decline of the Carthaginian Empire.


In a codicil of 1832, Turner asked that a special gallery be built to contain the totality of his work, next to a charitable institution for artists at Twickenham.

If this turned out to be impossible, the Gallery in Queen Ann street was to serve the purpose, and to be called ‘Turner’s Gallery”.


Finally, in the third codicil of 1848, as already mentioned, Turner bequeathed his finished pictures to the National Gallery, with the attendant conditions.

No provision was made for the other works.

We believe that the same fundamental meaning, in an expanded and more complex form, can be found in the final Bequest as in the original Bequest of the two paintings of 1829.



a. The late “unfinished” pictures



            Let us  start this overall examination of Turner’s in the Bequest  with a examination of a series of late works, which constitute a sort of enigma in Turner’s production and which have given rise to some controversy.



            This series of late works consists of two contrasting series : the Liber Studiorum series of an elevated pastoral character, and the wild seascape series.

            The first sub-group involves  16 pictures  with a peaceful pastoral character, many of them being connected more or less closely with  engravings published in the Liber Studiorum many years earlier.

Eight are in the Turner Bequest in the “Clore Gallery”.

These are :

Norham Castle, sunrise,  B&J, cat. 512, pl. 498, c.1835-40 (!)

Norham Castle, Sunrise c.1845 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851


            Sunrise,  a Castle on a Bay : “Solitude”, cat. 515, pl. 501,  

Sunrise, a Castle on a Bay: 'Solitude' c.1840-5 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851


            Sunrise with a  Boat between Headlands,  cat. 516, pl. 502,

Sunrise, with a Boat between Headlands c.1840-5 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851

The Ponte delle Torre, Spoleto,  cat. 518, pl. 504,

Mountain  scene with Lake and Hut,cat. 521,  pl. 506,

Mountain  Landscape, cat. 522,  pl. 507,

A river seen from a Hill, cat 532, plate 512,

Landscape with Water, pl.519, cat 531



To these may be legitimately added the following 8 stylistically and thematically  related pictures, which disappeared  from Turner’s Gallery, and the Bequest :


Landscape  with a River and  Bay in the Distance, pl.495, cat. 509, now in the Louvre, Paris,

The Fall of the Clyde, pl. 496, cat. 510, now in the Lady Lever Art Gallery, Port Sunlight,

Landscape with Walton Bridges, pl. 497, cat 511, now private coll., (H.S. Morgan), New York,

Landscape : Woman  with   Tambourine, pl. 499, cat 513, now in private coll., (Fergusson).

Europa and the Bull, pl.500, cat. 514,  Taft Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio,

Landscape with River and Distant  Mountains, pl 503, cat. 517, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool,

Monte Rosa, pl. 505, cat 519, Yale centre for British art, Paul Mellon  collection.

The Val d’Aosta, pl. 508, cat. 520, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne


How the pictures left Turner’s Gallery is an unsolved mystery.

According to Effie Ruskin, they may have been stolen during the controversy over Turner’s will.

In a letter written by Effie Ruskin to her mother  in August 1852, she tells her that Ruskin had

renounced the executorship of Turner’s Will  as he was sickened by  the dispute over it, and includes the declaration that “certain it is that Turner’s lawyer has stolen a bag of drawings”.


Two of the series, (cat. no. 511 an 513), were sold at Christie’s in 1865 from the collection of John Pound, the son by her first marriage of Mrs. Sophie Caroline Booth, Turner’s house keeper in Margate and Chelsea. They may have been given either to Mrs Booth or to her son by Turner but there is no evidence of this.


All the others  turned up at sales years after Turner’ death and the settlement in 1856 of his will.

Cat no. 509 and 520 were  by 1890 in Camille Groult’s collection; no. 510 and 514 first reappeared in a sale at Christie’s  in 1871; no. 517 first reappeared in a private collection ‘not long after 1876’; no. 519 appeared in a private collection by 1894.



All these pictures seem to us to obviously possess a distinct stylistic character,

and they cannot therefore, be described or classified simply as “unfinished” works.

Rodin used the distinction between “inachevé” and “nonfini”, taking the last in a stylistic sense.  It is unfortunately not possible to make the same distinction in the english language.

Moreover, thematically, they constitute a coherent sub-series, opposed to the sub-series of wild seascapes, which fits in logically into our hypothetical  overall scheme of the Bequest, taken as a whole,  and which, it seems to us,   forms the only coherent overall scheme that can be suggested.


This overall  scheme is the only one that accounts for their very large number.


These informal  wild seascapes include, from the Bequest, as it survives, the 11 following paintings :



Rough  sea with wreckage, cat. 455, pl. 438, dated 1830-35,dated

Rough Sea with Wreckage c.1840-5 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851

Stormy sea with Burning wreck, 1843  

 Breakers on a flat Beach, cat. 456,  pl. 454,

Waves breaking against the wind, car. 457, pl. 440,

Waves breaking on a Lea Shore, cat. 458, pl. 441,

Waves breaking on a Shore, cat.459, pl. 455,

Fire at Sea, cat. 460, pl.439, pl. 449,

Stormy Sea with Blazing Wreck, cat. 462, pl. 449, rep. below,

Stormy Sea with Dolphins, cat. 463, pl. 442

Margate(?) from the Sea, cat. 464, pl. 443,

Seascape, cat.465, pl. 456

Seascape with Storm coming on, cat. 466, pl. 444




To these may be added the following 5 paintings outside the Bequest, for the reasons given above.


The Beacon Light, cat. 474, pl. 460,  National Museum of Wales, Cardiff

Off the Nore: Wind and Water, cat. 476, pl. 462, present whereabouts unknown.

Waves breaking on the Shore, cat. 482, pl. 464, Yale Centre for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection.

Off Deal, cat. 483, pl.  465, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm,

Cat. no. 474 and 476  appeared in public for the first time at the John Pound sale at Christie’s in March  1865.

Cat. no. 482 appeared for the first time in 1889, in England,  when it was bought by an american collectors, Mr. and Mrs. Franklin MacVeagh of Chicago.

Cat. no. 483 appeared in 1909 at a sale at Christie’s.


To these may, with less certainty, be added the following :

The Storm,  cat.480, pl. 463, now in the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff

A label on the back of this picture states that this and the companion picture, (cat. 481, “the Day after the Storm”,) were given by the artist to Mrs. Pounds (sic) (i.e. Mrs. Booth).

Which may or may not be the case.

The point ought to be further examined.

If the inscription is  not in Turner’s handwriting, there might be some legitimate doubt.


There is a passage from Ruskin’s Stones of Venice which, it seems to us, aptly applies to these two series.

                        The passage is from volume 3 of Stones of Venice, chapter III, §41-43

It comes from  Ruskin’s famous development on the “Nature of Gothic”


In this passage, Ruskin opposes  what he considers the genuine gothic grotesque, with the grotesque of the Renaissance.

The gothic grotesque contains elements of fear or terror as against the Renaissance grotesque. Ruskin analyses this element of fear in the general divine economy of the human mind.

Though the context is different, the same concepts seem to apply perfectly well.


He argues that the Deity  has appointed two principal passions to rule the life of man which he describes at first, as : the love of God and the fear of sin, and of its companion-Death and that it is the purpose of God that we should often be affected by fear.  He goes on about the “array of scenic magnificence by which the imagination is appalled in myriads of instances” and expatiates on “the effect of a thunder-storm…the preparation for the judgment, by all that mighty gathering of the clouds; by the questioning of the forest leaves, in their terrified stillness, which way the winds shall go forth; by the murmuring to each other, deep in the distance, of the destroying angels before they draw forth their swords of fire; by the march of the funeral darkness in the midst of the noon-day, and the rattling of the dome of heaven beneath the chariot wheels of death,” which so impresses the spectator, and in which  “the expressions of the threatening elements are so strangely fitted to the apprehension of the human soul!”  And so on about  many other phenomena of nature, “ the blasted trunk, the barren rock, the moaning of the bleak winds, the roar of the black, perilous, merciless whirlpools of the mountain streams, the solemn solitudes of moors and seas. ”

These, argues Ruskin, proclaim the existence of Hell by a thousand spiritual utterances, as clearly as  that of Heaven is proclaimed by beneficent phenomena of Nature, such as  “the unfolding of the flower, …the falling of the dew, and the sleep of the green fields in the sunshine.”

Ruskin further argues that since “the thoughts of the choice we have to make between these two ought to rule us continually, not so much in our own actions (for these should, for the most part, be governed by settled habit and principle) as in our manner of regarding the lives of other men, and our own responsibilities with respect to them; therefore, it seems to me that the healthiest state into which the human mind can be brought is that which is capable of the greatest love and the greatest awe”, explaining thus the existence of these innumerable awe-inspiring phenomena in the world as well as the benevolent ones.


It seems to us that Turner’s series of wild seascapes can be understood as a further example of these negative, destructive  type phenomena of Nature, meant to strike terror in the heart of the spectator, and remind him of the existence of Hell, as sharing with Heaven his futurity, and giving him continuous thought  and being continuously with him in his manner of regarding the lives of other men.

In the case of these two series of paintings by Turner, the destructive element is represented by the stormy sea.

The positive element are not ““the unfolding of the flower, …the falling of the dew, and the sleep of the green fields in the sunshine,” but a dream-like evocation of misty, paradisical like scenery.

The connection of this scenery   with the idea of Paradise has been made before,  by the painter Carel Weight in his picture dating from the year 1989, called “Turner goes   to Heaven”, in which we see a figure representing Turner ascending to Heaven, with one of these late paintings,  Norham Castle, tucked under his arm.




This seems to us to be the final, but most original embodiment or

representation  by Turner of an idea or complex of ideas  which are present  throughout the rest of Turner’s work.



The key picture  in this hypothesis is : “The Angel standing  in the Sun”.

The Angel Standing in the Sun exhibited 1846 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851

II b  THE ANGEL STANDING IN THE SUN,  cat. 425, B&J pl. 405

Exh. 1846.


This painting was accompanied in the R.A. catalogue by the following passage from the Book of Revelations :

                                    “And I saw an angel standing in the sun ; and he cried               with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly


in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves

unto the supper of the great God;

That ye may eat of the flesh of king’s, and the flesh of

captains and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of

horses, and of them that sit on them, both free and

bond, both small and great.’-Revelation,xix, 17, 18.


and also a quotation from Samuel Roger’s Voyage of Columbus :

              “The morning march that flashes to the sun;

The feast of the vultures when the day is done’                     

In the centre of the picture is the Angel ‘standing in the sun’, placed vertically above the chained serpent, presumably the serpent of Revelation xx, 1-2, and symbol of evil.

On the left are the figures of Adam and Eve. They seem to be represented  both as figures cast out of Paradise and as lamenting over the body of Abel. Cain flees to the left.


In the foreground, on the left,  Adam and Eve lament over over the dead  body of Abel and, on the right,  Judith stands over the decapitated body of Holophernes, perhaps one of the  captains mentionned in the quotation from The Book of Revelation.


It is natural that , once he had decided to involve the Apocalypse, that Turner should choose an episode from the Apocalypse  involving the Sun in vue of the importance of the Sun in Turner’s work.

Turner could count on his  public having  a  good knowledge of the Bible.

They  would have automatically had in mind that the Apocalypse is mainly concerned with the idea of the last judgement, (the ultimate consequences of choosing between good and evil, )

In earlier verses of chapter xix, the chapter which contains the passage quoted by Turner, “the fowls that fly in the midst   of the heaven” are invited   to feast “on  the flesh of (those) of the nations who have been smitten  with the sword of the angel called Faithful and True, (who) in righteousness doth judge and make war…, (verse 11), whose “eyes were as a flame of fire”, (v. 12),   who is “clothed with a vesture dipped in blood”, (v. 13), “out of whose mouth goeth a sword, that with it he should smite the nations,”  the horseman who treadeth the winepress of the fearceness and  the wrath of the Almighty God”, (v. 15).


This is sufficient to involve the main idea of the The Apocalypse, that is the Last Judgment.

The angel is sent by Christ to remind humanity of his coming, which will result in the punishment or destruction of evil-doers or sinners.


                                                                        If our interpretation  of these last works is correct, Turner as artist and overall designer, through his bequest, sees himself as an interpretor of Nature, and shaper of his Nation’s conscience or mind,  much as Ruskin describes him in a passage in the first edtion, of 1843,  of the first volume of  Modern Painters , which Ruskin was led to omit from later editions,  as it was criticised as being blasphemous. The passage, from Modern Painters I,  is the following :


“And Turner—glorious in conception—unfathomable in knowledge—solitary in power—with the elements waiting upon his will, and the night and the morning obedient to his call, sent as a prophet of God to reveal to men the mysteries of His universe, standing, like the great angel of the Apocalypse, clothed with a cloud, and with a rainbow upon his head, and with the sun and stars given into his hand.”, LE iii, 254

(This reference was omitted from subsequent editions of Modern Painters I,  as it was considered blasphemous.)


II c                     The Aeneas and Dido pictures. 

                                   Backing up this hypothsis  is a narrative sequence of four pictures about Dido and Aeneas, taken from Vergil’s Aeneid, exhibited  at the Royal Academy in 1850, the year before urner’s death, and which may constitute Turner’s definitive “testamentary” work.

Turner had allready treated  themes from the Aeneid 6 times.


The 1850 series  confirm the hypotheses concerning the question of violence or excess of power and the role of nature.  The first of these pictures is :






“Aeneas relating his tale to Dido”, cat. 430, destroyed, formerly TB,  Online 297 ? ,

accompanied with the verses


‘Fallacious   Hope beneath the moon’s pale crescent shone,

Dido  listened to Troy being lost and won.’

-MS., Fallacies of Hope.


the second is :


The Visit to the Tomb exhibited 1850 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851




“The visit to the Tomb”, cat. 431, pl. 417, Online 298 ?

accompanied with the line :


‘The sun went down in wrath at such deceit.’

-MS., Fallacies of Hope.

the third is


Mercury Sent to Admonish Aeneas exhibited 1850 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851

Mercury sent to Admonish Aeneas”, cat 429, pl. 416, online 299 ? accompanied with the line :


“Beneath the morning mist,

Mercury waited to tell him of his neglected fleet.”

-MS., Fallacies of Hope,


the fourth is


The Departure of the Fleet exhibited 1850 by Joseph Mallord William Turner 1775-1851

The Departure of the Fleet”, cat. 432, pl. 418, online 300 ?

accompanied with the lines :


“The orient moon shone on the departing fleet,

Nemesis invoked, the priest held the poisoned cup.”

-Ms., Fallacies of Hope.




To redo :

From our point of view,  the most important one is the 2nd, “The visit to the Tomb”, with the caption


“The sun went down in wrath at such deceit.”


The deceit is dual : that practised by Dido on her husband and that of the “pious Aeneas”, loyal to the destiny of Rome, on Dido.



Dido reacts. A curse on you, she cries, (“Nemesis invoked”).

With this she is in harmony with the  setting sun, (“The sun set down in wrath at such deceit”).


It might be well to recall that the Aeneid is based on the legend that Aeneas, after the fall of Troy and long wanderings, founded a settlement in  Latium, that was to become the source of the Roman race. The poem was designed to celebrate  the divine origin and growth of the Roman Empire.

It glorifies the roman people, and their chief families, by representing their ancestors in the heroic age,  and recounts, by the device of prophecy, the historical triumphs of Rome and Augustus.

It is said that Vergil, on his deathbed, ordered   it to be destroyed.

It was nevertheless published, and became the great classic we know.


In classical antiquity Aeneas’s behaviour, his abandoning Dido in the interest o fulfill his higher mission of founding Rome  was felt to be fully justified.

With the coming of Christiany, another interpretation of the story became current.

The fate of Dido was felt to be unjust. Aeneas had behaved like a cad.   This was taken to be not a good omen for the later fate and development of the “Empire”.

               ( It may  be interesting  to recall a later modern interpretation of the Aeneid, which develops this theme

               This is to be found in Cyril Connolly’s “The Unquiet Grave”, dating from 1944.

               The title of the book refers to the grave of Palinurus, Aeneas’s pilot , who fell into the sea as Aeneas’s fleet was reaching Sicily, in mysterious circumstances.

               According to an interpretation of the Aeneid referred to by Connolly, that of W.F.J.Knight, in Cumean Gates, (representing the ultimate form of this Christian interpretation of Vergil), Palinurus’ death was a suicide. Palinurus  had been particularly struck and ultimately horrified by Aeneas’ callous treatment of Dido. He concluded that that Aeneas could not be the “Messiah” or the saviour he pretended to be. In loathing and disgust he casts himself into the sea.    


                                                    (But even apart from this somewhat extreme interpretation,))                      the incident can be clearly seen as a  case of abuse of power, which is to be found amongst those mentioned by Thomson.



Aeneas turns out to be another of those captains referred to in the quotation from the  “Apocalypse” accompanying  “The angel in the Sun”.

We are   back to this picture, which, we said, is the central work in this hypothesis.




This hypothsis cannot be absoluteley proved. It seems to us  nevertheless that it is sufficiently plausible that it ought to be taken into account, in legal terms,

no matter what  one may think of it sur le fonds, in religious terms.

It indicates that if Turner requested, in the terms of his  Bequest,  that his Gallery was to be part of the National Gallery, this could have been partly in view of what the ultimate meaning of the Bequest was, as exposed herein. It was natural, that if there was this  message to the Nation, as exposed herein, that the works should exhibited in the National Gallery.  In this respect, the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory and is yet another point in which  Turner’s wishes and conditions have been ignored.

Somerset House could have arguably been an acceptable compromise, in view of its architectural and national importance. But this was not to be, for what appear to have been unfounded reasons.

Yet another deception and disapointment.


Robert Walmsley







1 Harvest Dinner, Kingston Bank

2 Dido Building Carthage, or the Rise of the Carthaginian Empire (own slide ?

3 The Decline of Carthage,

4 Sun rising through Mist

5  Norham Castle, sunrise, B&J, cat. 512, pl. 498,

6 Sunrise,  a Castle on a Bay : “Solitude”, cat. 515, pl. 501,

7.   Sunrise with a  Boat between Headlands, pl. 502, cat.

8.       The Ponte delle Torre, Spoleto,  cat. 518, pl. 504,

9.         Mountain  scene with Lake and Hut,cat. 521,  pl. 506,

10.       Mountain  Landscape, cat. 522,  pl. 507,

11.A river seen from a Hill, cat 532, plate 512,

12. Landscape with Water, pl.519, cat 531


13. Landscape  with a River and  Bay in the Distance, pl.495, cat. 509, now in the Louvre, Paris,


14.The Fall of the Clyde, pl. 496, cat. 510, now in the Lady Lever Art Gallery, Port Sunlight,

(c) Lady Lever Art Gallery; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

      15. Landscape with Walton Bridges, pl. 497, cat 511, now private coll., (H.S. Morgan), New York,

16. Landscape : Woman  with   Tambourine, pl. 499, cat 513, now in private coll., (Fergusson).

      17. Europa and the Bull, pl.500, cat. 514,  Taft Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio,

      18. Landscape with River and Distant  Mountains, pl 503, cat. 517, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool,

      19. Monte Rosa, pl. 505, cat 519, Yale centre for British art, Paul Mellon  collection.

20. The Val d’Aosta, pl. 508, cat. 520, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne







Rough  sea with wreckage, cat. 455, pl. 438, dated 1830-35,

                         Breakers on a flat Beach, cat. 456,  pl. 454,

Waves breaking against the wind, car. 457, pl. 440,

Waves breaking on a Lea Shore, cat. 458, pl. 441,

Waves breaking on a Shore, cat.459, pl. 455,

Fire at Sea, cat. 460, pl.439, pl. 449,

Stormy Sea with Blazing Wreck, cat. 462, pl. 449, rep. below,

Stormy Sea with Dolphins, cat. 463, pl. 442

Margate(?) from the Sea, cat. 464, pl. 443,

Seascape, cat.465, pl. 456

Seascape with Storm coming on, cat. 466, pl. 444






The Beacon Light, cat. 474, pl. 460,  National Museum of Wales, Cardiff

Off the Nore: Wind and Water, cat. 476, pl. 462, present whereabouts unknown.

Waves breaking on the Shore, cat. 482, pl. 464, Yale Centre for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection.

Off Deal, cat. 483, pl.  465, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm,




The Angel standing  in the Sun”








“Aeneas relating his tale to Dido”, cat. 430, destroyed, formerly TB,  Online 297 ? ,


“The visit to the Tomb”, cat. 431, pl. 417, Online 298 ?

Mercury sent to Admonish Aeneas”, cat 429, pl. 416, online 299 ?

The Departure of the Fleet”, cat. 432, pl. 418, online 300 ?



It is to be noted that Ruskin apt from the first two pictures mentioned, gave little or no attention to the others mentioned