<provenance>
<!-- The provenance page for each manuscript should consist of <head1>The Provenance of the Major Manuscripts followed in every case by <head2>General Introduction <provenance_introduction>. Then follows a set of links (each head3) as appropriate to a given manuscript, e.g. <Sotheby_1930> -->

Was anything in the Ruskin Centenary Exhibition 1919, at the Royal Academy (1 Oct - 22 Nov) and Coniston (21 July - 20 Sept)?

<provenance_sale>
<head2>The Sales
Following the Brantwood years, the provenance of most <major manuscripts> of the early manuscripts is accounted for in the two Sotheby’s sales of Ruskin manuscripts removed from the house, held respectively on 24 July 1930 (<Sotheby’s 1930>) and 18 May 1931 (<Sotheby’s 1931>). Most remaining early manuscripts were probably sold during the final dispersal sale at Brantwood itself on 28, 30, and 31 July 1931 (<Brantwood Dispersal>).

Authorized sales defined as those approved by the Ruskin executors...? What started the sales?
[make this a 2 column table, slipcase identification and contents]
"RUSKIN / MS. / *HARRY & LUCY / POEMS / &C*" (MSS I, II, III, IIIA, and IV).
"RUSKIN / MS. / JUVENILIA" (MSS IVA, IVB, and IVC).
"RUSKIN / MS. / POEMS / 1829–32 / 1902" (MS V).
"RUSKIN / MS. / ITERIAD / &c / 1902" (MS VII).
"RUSKIN / MS. / POEMS / ETC. / 1831–38." (MS VIII).
"RUSKIN / MS. / POEMS / 1833." (MS IX).

<sotheby_1930>
<head3>Sotheby's 1930
part of the "large and highly important collection of . . . works, extending from 1827 to the end of Ruskin's working life in 1889" that made up the sale (<Sotheby & Co., Catalogue [1930], p. 18>
The 24 July 1930 sale at Sotheby’s included several manuscripts of juvenilia as lot 112, "Early Poems and Juvenilia," as described in the <Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Remaining Library of John Ruskin> (pp. 20-21). Lot 112 consisted of items I–VI, each item contained in a blue-morocco covered slipcase. (Some items) This lot ended up at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University, where until 199? the manuscripts remained in their original slipcases (in 199?, the curators decided to remove the manuscripts because ??? [explain reasons]). At the same sale, Yale acquired lot 110, six blue morocco volumes of family letters (including MS XI, as remarked above in “The Roman Numeral Designation of the Major Manuscripts”). The two lots would have appeared to form a set in their matching blue morocco, as compared with the red buckram coverings that characterize bindings of other early manuscripts (see <Sotheby's 1931> below).
	The slipcases included in Sotheby’s lot 112 and their contents follow. The titles enclosed in quotation marks are stamped in gilt on the spines; the parenthetical identifications are mine.
	While there is no difficulty matching lots 110 and 112 as described in Sotheby Cat. 1930 with the manuscripts presently at Yale, conflicting clues obscure the manuscripts’ journey between London and New Haven. Lot 112, according to Charles Beecher Hogan, was “purchased by Mr. Charles Goodspeed,” the Boston book dealer, “and in turn purchased by Yale.” The volumes of letters, lot 110, Hogan goes on to remark, “were purchased by Yale at the Sotheby auction of July 24, 1930.” The latter comment suggests that Yale did not go through Goodspeed for the letters as they did for the juvenilia. Curiously, in his memoirs, while Goodspeed acknowledges acquiring the manuscripts of The King of the Golden River, Praeterita, and a portion of Fors Clavigera at the 1930 auction, he fails to mention the juvenilia. “Praeterita I kept myself,” from this sale; “the others I sold,” he summarizes (YB 267). If Hogan is correct, the “others” must have included lot 112 of the juvenilia, as well.
	Goodspeed may not have attended the sale himself, since, according to a handwritten notation in the copy of Sotheby Cat. 1930 at Yale, the sale of lot 112 (the juvenilia) was awarded to “Allen” for £260, and of lot 110 (the letters) to the same person for £520 (pp. 18, 20). “Allen,” as James Dearden has suggested to me, was probably Hugh Allen, a son of Ruskin’s publisher George Allen. Hugh Allen’s part in these sales can be gathered from a letter to J. H. Whitehouse, the collector, from Whitehouse’s agent, Ralph Brown, on the occasion of a later sale at Arthur Severn’s London home (15–16 July 1931, 9 Warwick Square): “we are having the benefit of the assistance of our friend Mr Hugh Allen, and his help has been invaluable,” as compared with “the lack of interest shown by the Severn family in all matters pertaining to Ruskin” (RBB, 87).
	If Hogan is correct that Goodspeed took some part in these transactions, his role must have been minimal, in comparison with Allen’s. The earliest report on Yale’s acquisitions from the July 1930 sale, published only five months later in January 1931, treats the juvenilia as a single “collection” along with the letters, which Allen purchased directly for Yale. One wonders, in fact, whether Hogan can be correct about Goodspeed’s involvement, for if Allen bid on lot 112 for Goodspeed, why did he not act for the Boston dealer also in acquiring the manuscripts of King, Fors, and Praeterita—the manuscripts that Goodspeed acknowledges in YB, and that Hogan lists as coming to Yale through Goodspeed and Sotheby (pp. 65, 68)? These, rather, were knocked down to “Stevens B. F.” (Sotheby Cat. 1930, annotated copy at Yale, pp. 21, 24, 25).	Somewhat confusingly, Hogan (67, n. 4) says that the Proserpina manuscript and studies “were sold at Sotheby’s on May 18, 1931, and came to Yale by purchase from Mr. Goodspeed.” To be more precise, the Proserpina studies and part of the manuscript were sold as lot 117 in 1930 (Sotheby Cat. 1930, 24), and the remainder of the Proserpina manuscript was sold to Goodspeed as part of lot 29 in 1931 (Sotheby Cat. 1931, 7); apparently, the two lots combined went to Yale. This is B. F. Stevens, Ralph Brown’s firm. It is quite possible that B. F. Stevens was able to represent Goodspeed at the sale, and not the firm’s rival customer Whitehouse, since Whitehouse himself attended and bid in his own name (RBB 49; Sotheby Cat. 1930, annotated copy at Yale, e.g., 19, 22, 24). To all appearances, however, Hugh Allen acted directly for Yale respecting both lots 110 and 112, and Hogan is mistaken about Goodspeed’s involvement. Without further documentation, the question must remain open.
	Another item in the 1930 sale that falls within the scope of this edition is Ruskin’s 1835 diary, which formed part of lot 111, and which was acquired by Whitehouse. Dearden has sorted out the complicated identification of the diaries in RBB (49–50, 103).
	Throughout this edition, the provenance of all these manuscripts is noted in shorthand as Sotheby’s 1930.
	Sotheby’s 1931.—Much clearer documentation traces juvenilia included in lot 27 of the second Sotheby’s sale, 18 May 1931. Item I of lot 27 is MS VI; item II is MS IA; item III is MS X; item IV is MS XB; and item V is MS IVD (Sotheby Cat. 1931, 6). (A significant item formerly in MS X, the 1830 diary, had been separated prior to the sale. See TLC, 4; RBB, 49; and Sharp below.) In his memoirs, Goodspeed mentions purchasing the items in this lot (YB 267–68), and he later issued an undated catalog of Goodspeed’s Book Shop listing the entirety of lot 27 as “manuscripts 1825–1840” (Goodspeed, Cat., items 79–83, pp. 18–22). Goodspeed was a major bidder at the 18 May sale, buying not just “one or two more manuscripts” (RBB, 138) but at the very least lots 27–29 and 31, with each of these lots comprising numerous and varied manuscripts.
	Three of the early manuscripts that came into Goodspeed’s possession (MSS IVD, VI, XB) were sold in 1939 to the Princeton University Library, along with several other items that he had acquired at the 1931 sale—a quite ambitious purchase by the library.	The final item in Thorp’s description consists of six notebooks, including two containing studies for The Seven Lamps of Architecture. I have not been able to examine these, and they are difficult to trace in the published accounts. I find no such specific listing in Goodspeed, Cat., unless the six were included in item 40, sixteen “Sketch Books” (p. 11); however, only eight of the sixteen were known to have remained to Goodspeed in 1933, when the dealer offered them along with all his Ruskin drawings to Whitehouse, and Whitehouse is believed to have acquired this lot in 1936 (RBB 138–39). I am also unable to find a listing specifically matching the Princeton notebooks in the Sotheby’s catalogs. They might have formed part of lot 122, “Miscellaneous Note Books,” from the 1930 sale, of which Hogan lists only nine as coming to Yale through Goodspeed (pp. 67–68; and see n. 31, above). The notebooks might also have derived from the 20 May 1931 Sotheby’s sale of Ruskin drawings, at which Goodspeed was represented by Ralph Brown (RBB, 138; and see, e.g., Sotheby & Co., Catalogue of the Collection of Pictures and Drawings, formerly the property of the late Professor John Ruskin . . . , 20 May 1931, item 9). Prior to the Princeton purchase, Goodspeed had offered all his Ruskin drawings to Whitehouse, who finally agreed to a purchase in 1936 (RBB, 136–39). Although the correspondence suggests that Goodspeed sent all the drawings in his possession for Whitehouse’s approval and that Whitehouse retained the entire lot, in 1944 Goodspeed was still able to donate fourteen “drawings and paintings” to Yale, following the dealer’s 1941 fire.
	A decade after the Sotheby sale, the items remaining from lot 27 that were not sold to Princeton remained in Goodspeed’s house when it caught fire in February 1941 (Hogan, 69). Having rescued many books and manuscripts from the catastrophe, Goodspeed began making gifts of Ruskin manuscripts to Yale, starting in March 1941 with the manuscript of Praeterita. The items remaining from the 1931 purchase of juvenilia (MSS IA, X) were also fortunately rescued, and these were donated to Yale in 1942 and 1943. The contents of MSS IA and X had been disassembled from Wedderburn’s bindings, many individual items had been charred around the edges, and a few may have been destroyed completely.	These acquisition notices in YULG mention only one other manuscript, the Laws of Fiesole, of those that Goodspeed purchased in 1931 and that have not been otherwise accounted for in the preceding discussion (see also part 2, MS IA, “Description”). . . . [information to come] The reconstruction of the contents of MSS IA and X, before and after Goodspeed’s fire, requires detailed discussion, which is provided in part 2.
	Throughout this edition, the preceding discussion is designated in shorthand as Sotheby’s 1931.
	Viljoen.—The provenance of the so-called Sermon Books (MSS IIA–E) is not involved with the Sotheby sales, whose catalogs do not list the handmade booklets. Their provenance first emerges when the third of the five booklets was deposited in the Ruskin Museum in Coniston, the village across Coniston Lake from Brantwood. Presumably, the booklet was donated as part of the village museum’s core collection since the booklet was already there when W. G. Collingwood facsimilied one of its pages in 1903, only two years after the museum’s founding. Today, the museum copy has been replaced by a photocopy and the original moved for safekeeping to the Cumbria Record Office in Kendal.
	The remaining four Sermon Books came into the possession of J. S. Ladd-Thomas, a prominent Methodist churchman and dean of the School of Theology at Temple University, Philadelphia, from 1943 to his retirement in 1958. Ladd-Thomas collected manuscripts in religion, many of which he left to the School of Theology Library, an interest that probably attracted him to the Sermon Books. Welsh by birth, and educated at University College in London, Ladd-Thomas emigrated to America in 1897, but, according to his obituaries, he frequently returned to Europe to serve his church in various capacities. On one of these occasions, he must have made the visit to Brantwood that led to his acquisition of the Sermon Books.
	Remarks by Ladd-Thomas preserved among Helen Viljoen’s papers suggest that he obtained the manuscripts prior to the Sotheby auctions and the following 1931 dispersal sale at Brantwood. The remarks, however, raise more questions than they answer since Ladd-Thomas remembered only “that these mss. were sent him after he visited Coniston and met someone he describes as one of Ruskin’s neighbors—not Mr. Collingwood, though this neighbor lived about a mile down the road. Around 1930, this man sent Dean Thomas this material as a gift. Dean Thomas did not recall his name” (HGVP, file labeled “Ruskin’s Sermons as a Boy”). James Dearden has suggested to me that nearby neighbors likely to have had access to Ruskin manuscripts, other than the Collingwoods, might have been the Hilliard family. Mrs. J. C. Hilliard, a sister of Pauline Trevelyan and married to the Reverend J. C. Hilliard, became a “chief comfort” to Ruskin in his later years. She was given the penultimate manuscript of Modern Painters II, so it seems logical that Ruskin might also have made her a gift of the Sermon Books, which contained the doctrine of his youth supporting that volume. Mrs. Hilliard’s Modern Painters manuscripts was inherited by Frederick, the eldest son of the family (Works, 4:361), who also possessed other manuscripts relevant to religious topics or to reminiscence of Ruskin’s childhood—portions of St. Mark’s Rest, Deucalion, and Fiction, Fair and Foul (Works, 24:lviii, 26:xlvii, 34:xxxv).
	That the four Sermon Books had remained with the Hilliard family would explain why Cook and Wedderburn seem to have been aware of only the one booklet in the Coniston museum (see Works, 38:206). Possibly the Hilliards were responsible, too, for donating the one booklet to the Coniston Museum. The problem with this suggestion is that the dates do not chime with Ladd-Thomas’s account. Frederick lived with his sister Ethel at Tent Cottage, which does fit the description of a home “about a mile down the road” from Brantwood; however, Frederick cannot be the “man” of Ladd-Thomas’s acquaintance around 1930, since he died in 1913, and, in any case, he and his sister had vacated Tent Lodge in 1908. If the Hilliard family is credible as owners, one must imagine Ladd-Thomas striking an acquaintance earlier than 1930—a bond established on the strength of Ladd-Thomas’s church connections, Hilliard Sr. having been a clergyman—and Ladd-Thomas being sent the Sermon Books much later. (Ethel was still alive in 1930, at which time she moved from Ascot to Uxbridge.)
	If the Sermon Books did not come from Hilliards, suspicion points to Myles Wilkinson, the Brantwood factotum who is known to have made unauthorized gifts and sales of Ruskin materials (RBB, 48, 196). But Brantwood Lodge, where Wilkinson presumably lived with his aunt and uncle, cannot by any stretch be described as “a mile down the road.” The affair remains mysterious, above all that Ladd-Thomas would have forgotten the name of a person, who was on sufficiently familiar terms to make him a present of Ruskin manuscripts.
	The Sermon Books first gained serious scholarly scrutiny when Ladd-Thomas loaned them to Helen Viljoen, who later acquired them outright as the gift from Ladd-Thomas’s daughter, Mildred Durling, presumably following the dean’s death in 1959. When Viljoen received the booklets, they had been docketed as “Sermons Written by Ruskin as a Child” and, on an accompanying envelope, as “Reports of Sermons, written by John Ruskin as a child. One specimen is in the Coniston Museum.” Ruskin himself did not entitle the Sermon Books.
	Recognizing that the Sermon Books represented Ruskin’s first extended, mature religious exercise, Viljoen prepared an edition of the sermons, which she entitled as “Ruskin’s Sermons on the Pentateuch and His Religious Life.” The edition was intended to complement her Ruskin’s Scottish Heritage, and the two books together would provide a foundation for her full-scale biography of Ruskin. She was unable to publish the edition of the Sermons, however, so it awaited pairing with the biography, which itself never reached completion. On Viljoen’s death, the Sermon Books were donated as part of the Sharp Collection to the Pierpont Morgan Library. Her own papers were bequeathed to Van Akin Burd, who published her conclusions about the Sermons in an article-length summary account (“Ruskin’s Testament”). Burd has since passed on all the Viljoen papers to the Morgan Library.
	The provenance of manuscripts owned by Viljoen (but not originally owned by Sharp) is designated as Viljoen.
	Sharp.—The principal local Lake District dealer to profit directly from Brantwood, both before and during the final dispersal sales of late July 1931, was T. H. Telford of Grasmere; and the most important collector of the juvenilia to acquire from Telford, as well as from Brantwood directly and from other sources, was F. J. Sharp, a craftsman, teacher, and disciple of Ruskin’s socialist theories. Sharp’s career has been described most recently and extensively by Van Akin Burd in an article for the Book Collector, and the collector’s shrewdness and discernment have previously been established by such testimonials as Helen Viljoen’s catalog for her 1965 exhibition of the Sharp Collection at Queens College in New York. In RBB, Dearden tells the story of Sharp’s quarrel with Whitehouse and of the dispersal of the collection after Sharp’s death (182–86).
	As remarked earlier (“Approaches to Bibliography and Editing of the Early Manuscripts”), collecting Ruskin juvenilia seems to have been a peculiarly American preoccupation during the earlier decades of the century. The exceptions were Haddon Clifford Adams and, especially, F. J. Sharp. Sharp was the only English collector to acquire significantly in the early manuscripts and, it is worth noting, the major English collector to work apart from the inner circle of Ruskinians. For Viljoen, Sharp’s pride in concentrating on the juvenilia and his “recognition of their importance” provided a special “token of his insight.”
	Included in Sharp’s large collection were many of Ruskin’s childhood books, drawings, some stray juvenile manuscripts, and, most importantly, MSS IB and XA, and the 1830 diary formerly included in MS X (for this manuscript’s former association with Joan Severn, see above, Sotheby’s 1930; and part 2, MS IB, “Provenance”). Sharp bequeathed his collection of manuscripts to Helen Viljoen, and she was also given books and drawings from the collection. Viljoen supplemented and finally entrusted the larger portion of the Sharp collection, including the juvenile manuscripts, to the Pierpont Morgan Library. Viljoen gave the books owned by Ruskin, including his childhood books, to the Beinecke. The provenance of manuscripts originally owned by Sharp (as opposed to items, such as the Sermon Books, that Viljoen added to the Sharp Collection) is designated throughout this edition as Sharp.
	Huntington.—Only two early manuscripts are held by the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery in San Marino, California, the “Practical Geometry” (MS XIA) and the Fragment on the Expedition of Darius into Scythia (part 1, “Undatable,” no. C). A third, a group of autograph letters to Edward Clayton published in part as Letters Addressed to a College Friend, begin in 1839 and therefore lie just beyond the scope of this edition. Owing to the obscurity enshrouding the provenance of these and other manuscripts that form the core collection of Ruskin at the Huntington, a general introductory note proves more convenient than discussing the provenance of the two manuscripts separately.
	The earliest date when MS XIA can be definitely proved to have been in the Huntington Library—i.e., a date for which a record exists of the manuscript having been charged out—is 1955, at least twenty-five years after its presumed acquisition. In “A Checklist of Pre-Raphaelite Manuscripts in the Huntington Library,” Sara S. Hodson describes the provenance of MS XIA as “unknown, but acquired before 1930.” The basis for this upper limiting date is not specified, which Hodson assigns also to some other items in the Ruskin collection. In any case, given that limiting date, the following possibilities can be hazarded on the basis of what can be more definitely established about the provenance of the core collection of Ruskin at the Huntington.
	A centerpiece of the core collection is Ruskin’s 1872–87 correspondence with his Coniston neighbor, Susanna Beever, along with other letters and documents relating to the publication of that correspondence as Hortus Inclusus, edited by Albert Fleming. This collection cannot be proved to have any association with MS XIA. I have searched Ruskin’s letters to Beever in vain for clues that he might have given her the juvenile notebook. He does frequently mention loaning her other books, pictures, and manuscripts, however; and the filial, even infantile, stance that Ruskin adopted toward Beever suggests a greater likelihood that juvenilia was associated with this collection than with the library’s other pre–1930 acquisitions.
	If we entertain a possible connection with the Ruskin/Beever collection, the acquisition of MS XIA may be pushed back even further than 1930. According to the Huntington’s earliest summary report of the Ruskin Collection, the 874 pieces in the Ruskin/Beever collection “have been in the Library since 1925. No source is known.” At a later, unspecified time, an unknown person scored through this remark and corrected, in ink, “Purchased from Goodspeed’s, September 1923.” This document makes no mention of MS XIA; “874 pieces” seems to refer only to letters. For that matter, however, the summary report fails to list any Ruskin manuscript besides the Ruskin/Beever correspondence as forming the “John Ruskin Collection,” even though the core collection is known to have included other manuscripts, such as several that were purchased from W. S. Allen in 1925 and from William Bixby in 1918. Thus, omissions from the earliest summary report prove only that the library’s Ruskin materials remained uncataloged for many years.	Thus, the Huntington’s summary report of the Ruskin collection proves only that cataloging proceeded very slowly. Other manuscripts besides the Ruskin/Beever correspondence must have been present in the library when the first two-page summary report was prepared, since Hodson lists, for example, several items that were purchased from W. S. Allen in 1925 (“Checklist,” 194–96 [items 390, 392, 398, 402, 404]). One suspects, in fact, that it was a confusion with the Allen lot that led the author of the original summary report to claim that the Ruskin/Beever letters “have been in the Library since 1925.”
	Regrettably, no record of a 1923 Goodspeed transaction can presently be found. In one respect, the year 1923 is surprising, since, in his autobiography, the Boston book dealer mentions no acquisitions of manuscripts prior to the Sotheby sales of 1930 and 1931. Goodspeed does remark, however, that, for many years during trips to England, he routinely stocked up on Ruskin first editions to supply a steady market in America (YB, 262). Perhaps during one of these expeditions, he was able to acquire the Ruskin/Beever collection. In another respect, September 1923 is not surprising as the date of acquisition, since Albert Fleming, the heir of Beever’s Ruskin correspondence and the editor of Hortus Inclusus, died on 21 March 1923 at his home in Skelwith Bridge near Ambleside.
	Prior to coming (putatively) into Goodspeed’s hands, the Ruskin/Beever correspondence is last known to have been owned by Fleming, who removed the letters from Beever’s home. Although letters and manuscripts related to Hortus have ended up widely scattered among collections in England and America, the Huntington obviously holds the main lode that belonged to Fleming, since it includes his own correspondence and other documents concerning the publication and revision of Hortus.	Fleming did turn over the letters to E. T. Cook for editing in the Library Edition, but, especially in view of his thorny relations with Cook and Wedderburn, it is highly unlikely that he would have relinquished ownership. In his introduction to the volumes of letters for the Library Edition, Cook is careful to specify that Beever “bequeathed her Ruskin letters” to Fleming, who “has some nine hundred of them” (Works 36:cviii).
	The Lake District connection with Fleming is highly suggestive for the provenance not only of these letters but also of Ruskin juvenilia that might have accompanied them in a sale. Another collector who depended largely on Lake District sources to amass his Ruskin collection, Haddon Clifford Adams, owned a holograph preface to Hortus Inclusus as well as some juvenilia (RBB 198, and see MS IC, “Provenance”). This is not to imply that Adams might have served as Goodspeed’s source for the Ruskin/Beever collection, for Adams would surely have kept such a find for himself. Rather, the intersection between the Adams collection and Goodspeed’s putative 1923 sale to the Huntington points to Lake District sources. These could include Fleming himself, who might have made arrangements for the collection before he died; an Ambleside dealer, Arnold Varty, who is definitely known to have offered Ruskin/Beever material—Beever’s sketchbook—although Dearden suggests that Varty would have acquired this sketchbook later than the time I am discussing, at the 1931 Brantwood sale (RBB 118–19); T. H. Telford, the Grasmere dealer, who did acquire materials from Brantwood prior to the sales of the 1930s, and who is known to have held at least a few Ruskin/Beever letters (RBB 212–13); and, at Brantwood itself, Violet Severn and the Wilkinson family, who sold items directly to collectors, including Adams, prior to the authorized auctions (see above, Viljoen and Sharp).
	If the Huntington’s Ruskin juvenilia did not come to the library along with the purchase through Goodspeed of the Ruskin/Beever/Fleming materials, it might have been connected with other sources of the Ruskin collection acquired “before 1930.” The most intriguing of these is one listed by Hodson as “William K. Bixby, 1918, through George D. Smith” (“Checklist,” 197, 198, 201 [items 406, 408, 421 442–43]). Bixby was a St. Louis industrialist and collector, who, probably in 1902, acquired from George Allen the important manuscripts of The Seven Lamps of Architecture; two essays of Unto This Last; and, most significant for our purposes, twenty-four autograph Ruskin letters to Edward Clayton, twenty-two of which were published in 1894 as Letters Addressed to a College Friend. These were sold as part of Bixby’s private collection to Henry Huntington in 1918.	Bixby’s ownership of these manuscripts is confirmed by the Library Edition, if sketchily, although here Bixby’s source is identified as George Allen, rather than as George D. Smith (of Smith, Elder, Ruskin’s publisher prior to Allen), named in the Huntington record. For the Clayton letters, Bixby is identified by name as the owner, while the seller is not identified, although Allen was the publisher of the 1894 volume (Works 1: 400; see also Sidney M. B. Coulling, “Two Unpublished Letters of John Ruskin to Edward Clayton,” Huntington Library Quarterly 27 [1963]: 87–92). The reverse is the case in the Library Edition volumes of Seven Lamps and Unto This Last, where the “American collector” is left anonymous, while Allen is identified as the seller (Works 8: 278, 17: cxiii). The editors attach a specific date of sale, 1902, only to the Seven Lamps manuscript.
	Bixby’s group of Clayton letters provides the nearest relative in the Ruskin collection to the prose translation from Herodotus, the Fragment on the Expedition of Darius into Scythia, whose provenance is otherwise “unknown; in library 1961” (Hodson, “Checklist,” 195 [item 395]). As discussed in the note on dating this manuscript in part 1 (“Undatable,” no. C), the fragment may have been written between 1837 and 1840 at Oxford, where Ruskin’s study of Herodotus inspired the composition of such poems as “The Tears of Psammenitus,” which he discusses in the Clayton letters (Works 1:434–44). The topics and dates of the fragment and the Clayton letters roughly correspond, although no documentation establishes a shared provenance.
	Other pre–1930 provenances of Ruskin material at the Huntington furnish no clues about early manuscripts. Most prominent is a 1925 lot acquired from William S. Allen. He had been disposing of his family’s Ruskin inheritance since the second decade of the century (RBB 34), and, were it not for the attribution of the Ruskin/Beever collection to Goodspeed, the Allens could be considered a logical source of that collection, since George Allen published Hortus Inclusus. The Allen sale to the Huntington, however, appears to be solidly established as consisting of manuscripts of the 1850s and afterwards, not letters or earlier manuscripts.

Severn sale 25-26 July 1921. See Newsletter 12 (spring 1975): 2. What was the unsold "Studies in Horace"?