Entitled in the fair copy, written as ; untitled in the draft.

Narrative poem, rendering in verse scenes from by Walter Scott.

; .

Facsimiles by permission of , General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. Transcriptions of texts and commentary © David C. Hanson.

A range of 1827–29 is possible. “Book I” and “Book II” may have been composed as early as 1827–28, but more likely in 1828; “Book III” and “Book IV” may have been composed and fair‐copied (not completed) by March 1829.

W. G. Collingwood dated the work from the “early part of 1828” or “first half of 1828”, based on his analysis of the sequence in which Ruskin entered poetry selections in (see Composition and Publication; and see , 1891], 1:262, 272; 1:263, 273; Ruskin, , 2:530). E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn disagreed and ascribed the work to 1827, in the belief that the poem was “a result of [Ruskinʼs] visit to Scotland in that year” (Ruskin, 2:260 n. 1; and see 276 n. 1). Helen Viljoen was initially inclined to accept the earlier date, because she considered the hand in the draft to be “very childish”, but then she decided that Cook and Wedderburn had “no legitimate basis” for correcting Collingwoodʼs date of 1828 (“Helen Gill Viljoen Papers”, box F, transcription of ).

The reasoning by the editors of the seems to stand on the most speculative evidence—namely, Ruskinʼs comment in that he “used to read the at Kinross, and the in Glen Farg” (Ruskin, , 2:260 n. 1; 35:16). While Ruskin may well have associated Walter Scottʼs novels with landmarks along the Ruskinsʼ route to Scotland in the 1820s, the editors neglect to explain why these associations should be tied so specifically to the journey of 1827. It is not known when Ruskin first read Scottʼs or heard it read to him. The case is strengthened, however, by the contents of , the manuscript containing the fair copy of . Immediately preceding Ruskinʼs poem occurs the anthology, , which includes poems describing Loch Leven Castle and Glen Farg—the points along the journey to Perth that, according to , Ruskin connected with his reading of Scottʼs novels. (In fact, it may have been this evidence in that originally prompted Ruskinʼs comment in the autobiography, rather than this evidence independently documenting his memory.) In using this statement in to link to the family journey to Perth in 1827, the editors of the evidently did not base their conclusion on the juxtaposition of the poem with , since they believed the latter to date from 1826 (see Ruskin, , 2:260 n. 1, and see 535). But the poems in do in fact belong to the family tour of 1827, tending to confirm Cook and Wedderburnʼs speculations. Viljoenʼs qualms about a date this early can be resolved by evidence that this tour fell unusually late in 1827—primarily in September and October, with departure sometime in August, and return sometime in November (see Tours of 1826–27).

The evidence is more indirect regarding whether —or at least its first one or two books—should be considered as contemporaneous with the 1827 project, or, as Collingwood contends, an insertion in that place from a later time. As explained in Composition and Publication, the only documented record of Ruskinʼs labor on dates from March 1829, and even that passing reference in a letter is somewhat ambiguous. The statement might mean that, at that time, he was returning to composition and/or fair copy of the poem itself, or that he was working on something in , which he meant to simply identify by its contents—that is, the Red Book known in the family for its containing . Based on the concatenation of evidence in Composition and Publication, it appears likely that, in March 1829, he did compose and/or fair‐copy some portion of —probably, books 3–4 (which he left incomplete)—while books 1–2 date from an earlier period. This period may be as early as between September and December 1827, but more likely date from some time in 1828. The poemʼs associations with travel to Scotland may not derive from the Tour of 1827, but from the sadder occasion of mourning the loss of Ruskinʼs Aunt Jessie, who died in Perth in May 1828.

The fair copy of book 3 shares some handwriting features with Ruskinʼs New Yearʼs 1829 productions, , and . There are also similarities in presentation with a production probably meant for his his fatherʼs 10 May 1829 birthday, the pamphlet . [More to come.]

Previously unpublished in entirety. Brief excerpts were printed in , 1891], 1:272; 1:273; Ruskin, 2:260 n. 1, 276 n. 1.

In a to her husband, Margaret Ruskin remarked on Johnʼs writing “a novel” (, ed. Burd, 185)—presumably referring to his versification of scenes from Walter Scottʼs novel, (1820). In a to his father, John confirmed: “I am trying to get that red book of mine which has in it finished, by the time you come home” (, ed. Burd, 192). Of the surviving Red Books, only contains any portion of this work; and while Ruskinʼs statement is ambiguous, as remarked in Date, respecting whether he was working on the poem or simply in the Red Book containing the poem, Margaret indicated to John James that she saw definite progress on itself: “he has commenced writing a novel & a Sermon both as far as they have gone very tolerable I assure you” ( [, ed. Burd, 185]).

Margaretʼs term commenced is also ambiguous, suggesting that Ruskin began his “novel” at this time; however, in his to his father, Ruskin implies that John James was already familiar with some portion of the versified novel. Initial composition may therefore have significantly predated Ruskinʼs “finishing” of . Physical evidence in the fair copy can be interpreted as reflecting two distinct stages of labor on the poem—a first stage comprising books 1–2, and a second (uncompleted) stage comprising books 3–4.

In , immediately follows a group of poems entitled , which Ruskin fair‐copied no earlier than May 1827, and probably sometime between September 1827 and New Yearʼs 1828 (see : Date; and : Date). There is no physical break between the anthology and the “novel” to indicate a change in genre or project, so it is possible that Ruskin considered to be a continuation of the . Given the inclusion in of travel poems about Glenfarg and Loch Leven, and the juxtaposition of these poems with the verse novel, this portion of bears witness to (and may even have inspired) Ruskinʼs autobiographical recollection that he “used to read the at Kinross, and the in Glen Farg, which I confused with ‘Glendearg’ [the fictional setting of the novel; see Discussion, and see also Glenfarg (place)]”. He “thought”, he goes on, “that the White Lady had as certainly lived by the streamlet [the Farg] in that glen of the Ochils, as the Queen of Scots in the island of Loch Leven” (Ruskin, , 35:16). As further evidence shows, however, while establishes a lower limit in the time of composition for , the two projects were distinct.

If and the Tour of 1827 to Scotland form a terminus a quo for composition of , how much time separated the verse novel from the tour poem anthology? For this question, the only evidence is handwriting. The hand for the verse novel uses print lettering similar to that for , but generally smaller. Size of lettering in fact varies considerably within the anthology itself, the smallest being used for its first poem, . Still, regardless of size, and despite the similarity in formation of letters, there is greater affinity between the lettering throughout the poems in and the lettering used for the original versions of two of its poems, and (as first fair‐copied in a by Ruskin to his father), than between the respective hands for the poetry anthology and for .

The orthography of is distinctive for its studied attention to punctuation, which is largly neglected in the 1827 fair copies of , as well as the poems in . In book 1 and the first eighty lines of book 2, almost every line of ends with punctuation, most frequently a prominent comma formed to look like book print, with a dot and a curl, although the commas hover above the baseline like a swimming tadpole. There are also semicolons, which are almost consistently formed upside down, with the comma above the point. The eccentricity of the punctuation resembles the usage in in . Here, too, the commas are typeface‐like, though they now fall on the baseline; and there are no upside‐down semicolons in , although a new oddity turns up in the form of a two‐point ellipsis, like a colon on its side, its function unclear. ( is also punctuated with colons, but their rhetorical or grammatical function is obscure.) What most tellingly links the punctuation practice in with that in is that, in both cases, the dense but confusing marks abruptly give out altogether after several pages of fair‐copying, suggesting that Ruskin added the punctuation all at once, layering the marks over top of the already fair‐copied text. Evidently, he had not yet learned to integrate punctuation as a rhetorical and grammatical element of writing, but treated it effectively as a decorative feature in fair copy, as if to enhance the imitation of typeface. He used almost no punctuation when drafting the poem, as witnessed by the two draft fragments in , and . (See also , which, in its fair copy, exhibits the decorative rather than rhetorical sprinkling of punctuation marks only at the start of the manuscript, but which also has the colons turned right‐side up, suggesting a slightly more advanced grasp of usage.)

Since Ruskin himself dated as 28 September 1828 (whether he meant the beginning or termination of that project), a timeline takes shape starting with Ruskinʼs first use of pen and ink, which his mother documented in April 1827 (see The Ruskin Family Handwriting). This is the period when Ruskin composed and , and sent the poems in a to his father, in anticipation of the tour of 1827. While that tour was delayed until August–November, its product in is orthographically and thematically more akin to and than to , which shares a style of punctuation and other features with . (The latter two works are also alike in being divided into “books”.) This suggests that, despite the lack of a physical separation between the poetry anthology and in , the projects were separated by a number of months, falling between the Ruskinsʼ return to Herne Hill from Scotland in November 1827 and the composition of in September 1828.

This first stage of composition and fair‐copying appears clearly demarcated in , with books 1–2 extending from the title, , to almost the end of the notebook (pp. 70–80). On p. 80, Ruskin concludes with a colophon, “END OF BOOK SECOND / HERNE HILL / DULWICH”. Inserted above the “END OF BOOK SECOND” is a direction to the reader to “go back to page 52” (since Ruskin had run out of available space at the end of the notebook), and on that earlier page the poem resumes with book 3, and extends through book 4, which breaks off incomplete on p. 58, after 52 lines of verse.

A hiatus in composition would not necessarily have corresponded with the end of fair‐copying book 2, given that, in any case, the fair‐copying was delimited by the physical end of the red book. Nonetheless, it seems probable that Ruskin signaled a significant break at the end of book 2 by adding the “publication” information “HERNE HILL / DULWICH”. No evidence proves when he inserted the direction to “go back to page 52”, but handwriting evidence in book 3 suggests that he took up that phase at a different time and under other circumstances. This division in the stages of composition is further supported by the two separate surviving witnesses of rough draft in , and . The first, which is a draft of a portion of book 2, is written in cursive with pencil; the second, which is a draft of a portion of book 3, is written in cursive with pen and ink. When Ruskin first began to use pen and ink in 1827, he restricted his penmanship to fair‐copying in print letters, while continuing to rely on pencil for cursive script. Later, he transitioned to pen and ink for both draft in cursive and fair copy in print lettering (see The Ruskin Family Handwriting). An example of the former is Ruskinʼs to his father, in which he fair‐copied the poems and , in ink print lettering, but wrote the body text of the letter in pencil cursive. An example of the latter is the 1828–29 handmade pamphlet, , which includes ink cursive draft of and , which are fair‐copied in ink print lettering elsewhere.

Since the first stage of composition probably comprised books 1–2 in 1828, what occasioned the work? A conjecture based on internal evidence, and in keeping with the physical evidence for dating and composition, is the death of Janet (“Jessie”) Richardson, the sister of John James Ruskin, in Perth on 18 May 1828. As internal evidence of this connection, Ruskin condensed and rearranged opening episodes of Scottʼs novel to emphasize its supernatural and spiritual aspects (see Ruskinʼs Arrangement of Episodes from Scottʼs Novel). In addition, as an internal reflection of the immediate consequence of Jessieʼs death—the Ruskinsʼ adoption of the only surviving Richardson daughter, Mary, into the Herne Hill household—Ruskinʼs book 2 is a detailed rendering of an episode that tangentially concerns adoption. In the novel, a benign captain of an English raiding party, Stawarth Bolton, confronts Elspet Glendinning and her two sons, and half‐jokingly offers to adopt either the “blue eyed” and reverential younger brother, Edward, or the “black eyed” and feisty older brother, Halbert. For Scott, the purpose of the episode was primarily to dramatize the English policy, following their victory at the Battle of Pinkie Cleuch, of balancing assurances of protection for compliant Scots, especially Protestants, with threats of destruction against defiant Scots patriots (see Discussion: The Historical Context of Scottʼs Novel).

While the version of Ruskinʼs poem in the fair copy does play out details connected to these political and military themes, the text in the pencil draft, , consists solely of lines 29–62 of book 2, containing the portion of Captain Stawarth Boltonʼs visit to the Tower of Glendearg, in which he offers to Elspet Glendinning to adopt her two sons—first, Edward, the younger, and then Halbert, the elder. This manuscript is therefore focused on the theme of adoption, a topic that would have been on Ruskinʼs mind with the recent adoption of his cousin, Mary Richardson, into the Herne Hill household. For more conjecture about the family events underlying stage one of composition, see Discussion: The Family Context of Composition.

To return to Margaret Ruskinʼs observation on 4 March 1829 that John had “commenced writing a novel & a Sermon” (Burd, ed., , 185)—a resumption, actually, of , although Margaret could reasonably perceive it as a commencement, since perhaps a year had elapsed since the first stage of composition—the second stage of composition can be correlated with sermon materials composed between February–May 1829: the fragments, and , are embedded in the midst of draft of (i.e., between installments of the latterʼs draft witness, ). These writings are associated with Johnʼs infatuation with the Reverend Edward Andrews, a hero worship shared and perhaps instigated by his cousin Mary Richardson, who was now very much at home in Camberwell.

Physical evidence in supports the hypothesis that the second stage of composition comprised books 3 and 4 of . The pages occupied by these two books (pp. 52–58, plus three blanks, pp. 59–61) take up the available leaves in that fall between pages containing a group of poems dated 9 March 1829, the (pp. 36–50, plus a blank, p. 51), and the leaves containing the (pp. 62–70). When Ruskin turned to these interstitial leaves to continue with books 3–4 (having used up the leaves at the end of the notebook to fair‐copy books 1–2), the space occupied by unquestionably presented him with a terminus ad quem for available space, while a terminus a quo was likely already present in the form of the , dated 9 March 1829 by Ruskin—or that group was at least underway.

The inference that the must have been in place or underway cannot now be proven with physical evidence, but that scenario is more persuasive than Ruskin having decided in 1829 to resume book 3 on p. 52 arbitrarily, with nothing in particular framing that space. Rather, one can assume, when Ruskin reported to his father on 10 March 1829 that he was determined to “get that red book of mine [] which has in it finished, by the time you come home”, he had at least begun the with its prominent and repeated datelines “March 1829” and “March 9th 1829” scattered throughout ( [Burd, ed., , 192]). By interspersing the date 9 March 1829 among that group of poems, Ruskin was evidently concerned to demonstrate his success in meeting this deadline (see the commentary on the first poem copied in the March 9 group, ).

But despite his promise, Ruskin left unfinished, with marginal line numbering trailing into unfilled space on p. 58 and three available pages left blank. By this time, his attention must have been diverted from the narrative poem—which, in any case, conceptually presented an endless drudgery, with thirty chapters remaining in Scottʼs novel to be versified, not to mention the novelʼs sequel, —and he was now absorbed in composing a major loco‐descriptive poem for his fatherʼs 10 May 1829 birthday, . Whether Ruskin achieved a form of emotional closure with is another question. He turned aside from a gothic narrative, which for him was entangled with connections in Scotland that had been severed by death, in exchange for a poem in the picturesque mode for his fatherʼs birthday, a poem that reopened a desire for the Lake District that had been thwarted during the Tour of 1828.

There is no surviving draft from the second stage of composing that Ruskin neglected to fair‐copy. A portion that was fair‐copied does survive, however, in , as a one‐sheet manuscript, , containing lines from “Book Third” in . This manuscript exhibits significant revision.

On the verso of this manuscript, a line group starts with “martin took his task as guide”, lines 20–21 as fair‐copied and numbered in the version of book 3. In draft, this couplet is followed by a horizontal rule, and then by lines 14–19 and 22–25 of book 3 (as fair‐copied). The text continues onto the recto with line 26, “come on good horse and let us see”; and the text continues to the bottom of the recto, through line 59 as fair‐copied in . The text continues onto the verso again, with lines 60–62 at the top of the verso, above the line group starting with lines 20–21. Thus, the text of lines 14–62 loop around the two sides of the manuscript.

Physical characteristics of the manuscript do not necessarily lend themselves, however, to a straightforward interpretation of the sequence of composition. The hand is Ruskinʼs cursive throughout, but on the verso, the medium is entirely pencil, including both the beginning of the passage, lines 20–21, 14–19, and 22–25, and the ending lines of the passage, 60–62. On the recto, the medium is entirely ink, lines 26–59. Moreover, the sheet has been sheared and torn at the edges, resulting in loss of portions of the versoʼs pencil text, where the writing had extended into the lost edges, whereas on the recto the ink text did not suffer from the tearing. Rather, on this side, Ruskin appears to have fitted his writing to the margins that were left following the mutilation. Based on the physical evidence, then, one interpretation of the sequence of composition suggests that Ruskin reused the sheet after it was torn—damage that partially obscured the penciled lines on the verso, but leaving him with a blank side, the recto, to compose the subsequent text in ink (see MS IA Apparatus).

This interpretation, which assumes straightforward continuity of composition—from verso, to recto, and back to verso, with intervening mutilation of the sheet—is not contradicted by the three lines (60–62) continued at the top of the verso, since those lines are complete, unaffected by the tearing. This reconstruction does fail to explain, however, why Ruskin would have switched from pen and ink back to pencil for the final three lines on the verso. It seems odd that he would have put down his pen at the bottom of the recto and returned to pencil.

As an alternative explanation, the ink text on the recto may be viewed as representing, not part of a continuous act of composition looping around both sides of the sheet, but a discontinuous intervention. The ink text might represent a copy or new version of a witness, now unknown, that had carried on with the text from the verso, starting from line 26, . The ink text, moreover, contains significant revision in itself, in the form of complex substitutions. These changes are encoded in the witness and discussed in an accompanying textual gloss. If, in addition, the ink text represents an intervention prior to this revision, then the manuscript pays double witness to perplexity that Ruskin encountered in versifying this section of Scottʼs novel. See Anti‐Catholicism in the Ruskin Family