J.M.W. Turner: Sketchbooks, Drawings and Watercolours

There is a streak of black paint or ink at top left on the front cover.

The ‘R BARNARD’ paper in the book is also found in the similarly sized Scarborough 2 and Aqueduct books. The three books appear to be the first occurrence in the Turner Bequest of papers from Richard Barnard of Eyehorne Mill, Kent2 and the books were probably acquired at the same time. The second paper in the present book, watermarked ‘JOHN HAYES 1812’ is perhaps unique in the Bequest.3 It is perhaps worth noting that Turner’s own labelling of the sketchbooks numbers Scarborough 2 ‘99’, Aqueduct ‘100’ and the present book ‘101’ but this does not correspond to the order in which they appear to have been used.

The sketchbook is bound in one quire and seems originally to have consisted of one gathering of folios folded once and stitched through the centre. As the book is presently constituted there are four spurious leaves of a later off-white wove paper, added during some unknown restoration. These leaves have not been numbered either by Finberg or in the present compilation, but are noted under the preceding folios in this catalogue. If these are subtracted it may be possible to say that the original book had 32 leaves, that is sixteen sheets folded in half and stitched through the centre, and it might be possible by marrying up watermarks continuing through the stitching to formulate some notion of the original composition and sequence. The number of leaves suggests that the book is complete, albeit with some augmentation, although almost certainly, the present order of the pages does not correspond to the original (see notes to D11917; Turner Bequest CL 3).

Finberg noted an ‘Endorsement on wrapper, possibly by John Ruskin, “168. Scarborough Pencil. 11 leaves taken out and nothing left of value”’. The wrapper was presumably a paper cover provided when the original schedule of the Turner Bequest was compiled but it does not appear to have survived. It is not recorded which leaves were removed, but this must have been in connection with early displays of the Bequest organised by Ruskin. Finberg further noted: ‘Most of the leaves were distributed. As no record was kept of their original order, it has been found impossible to reconstitute the book.’

One might thus surmise that he found the sketchbook in its paper wrapper, together with the eleven separate leaves that had been removed early for display. He was obviously at a loss to know where the loose leaves should be reinstated, but it seems likely that the order of the leaves still in the sketchbook as he found it was original, at least relative to one another. It is not clear from Finberg which leaves were in the sketchbook and which separate, but he does seem to have attempted to restore the book to some kind of order and the two sets of numbers on the pages, one inscribed in ink and the other stamped can be safely associated with his work.4 To complicate matters further, the present page order differs completely even from Finberg’s, but it is not apparent when the reordering took place, or on what grounds. There appears to be evidence in several pairs of sketches (Tate D11927 and D11929, D11916 and D11917, D11931 and D11932; Turner Bequest CL 11 and 12, CL 2a and 3, CL 14 and 15) to suggest that at least some of the folios were in their original (relative) order when Finberg numbered them.