Red Book. 9.5 × 15.2 cm.

Collation

	Title page of “Harry and Lucy . . . vol. 1” (verso of front endboard) +  frontispiece  (1r) + pp. inaccurately numbered by Ruskin (starting on 1v) as 1–29, [30–31 torn out], 32–45, 44 [sic, i.e., what should be 46], 47–49, 48–49 [sic, i.e., 48–49 given twice], 50–59, 80–86, 88–106 + inside of back endboard.
	Despite the erratic page numbering, no leaves appear to be missing, except for pp. 30–31 as noted above. The leaf with pp. 36–37 was torn out and then reattached to its remaining stub with a glued, perforated sticker. Since the tear line fits the remaining stub, this leaf was evidently not moved here from elsewhere.
	The gummed strip used to mend this leaf—resembling the edge of a sheet of postage stamps—can be found put to a similar use in W. G. Collingwood’s proof sheets for Poems (1891) (RF MS 70), so evidently Collingwood had a hand in the preservation of MS I (albeit using less than archival methods). This makes sense in view of his preparing the first bibliography of these manuscripts, the “Preliminary Note on the Original MSS. of the Poems” (Poems [4o, 1891], 1:261–67; Poems [8o, 1891], 1:262–68).
	A loose leaf (not counted in the collation above) has been inserted between the front endboard and Ruskin’s “frontispiece”; it holds a clipping from Poems (8o, 1891) describing MS I, along with brief remarks possibly in the hand of Alexander Wedderburn. It is not clear whether, for this purpose, an existing notebook leaf was used (e.g., whether Ruskin’s “frontispiece” originally began on 2r, following this leaf), or whether a piece of paper was trimmed to the Red Book’s size and inserted here. The latter is more probable, since similar insertions in other Red Books (e.g., MS III) certainly formed no part of the original notebook.
	Ruskin’s erratic page numbering up through page 50 probably arose from his attempt to correct earlier misnumbering. Erased earlier numbering remains visible starting on the present p. 21 (“19” is the erased number, an error since p. 19 had already appeared) and continuing consecutively through the present second p. 49. Since the latter was written over top of “47,” it appears that, at about this point, Ruskin realized an error, went back to the present p. 21, and began renumbering; however, he made some new errors and possibly deliberately repeated pp. 48–49 in an attempt to bring his numbering in sync with following pages.
	The erratic numbering after p. 50 appears to have resulted from Ruskin writing “80” for “60,” and carrying on without correction. The missing p. 87 is probably a mere oversight.