| 1876. | £ | s. | d. | |
| April 16. | Balance | 1511 | 10 | 1 |
| May 1. | Half-year’s Stipend of Slade Professorship | 179 | 0 | 0 |
| 1690 | 10 | 1 | ||
| 464 | 11 | 0 | ||
| Balance, May 16th | £1225 | 19 | 1 [[197]] | |
| April 20 | and 30. Self | 200 | 0 | 0 |
| 20. | Downs | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| 22. | Photographs (Leucothea and Lippi) | 16 | 5 | 0 |
| 25. | Tailor’s Account | 33 | 6 | 0 |
| May 1. | Oxford Secretary | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| 1. | Raffaelle for May and June | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| 15. | Burgess | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| £464 | 11 | 0 |
III.
“Hastings, May 15.
“My dear Ruskin,—I enclose two extracts, cut from the same day’s paper, which contain so grimly humorous a parallel between the ways in which the ‘Protestant Church’ and ‘the world’ are engaged in ‘obliterating all traces of the Virgin Mary,’ that I thought you might possibly use them in ‘Fors’ or elsewhere.
“Yours affectionately,
“C. Patmore.”
(The following are the two extracts. Before giving them, I must reply to my greatly honoured and loved friend, that both the Bristol destroyers of images and New York destroyers of humanity, are simply—Lost Sheep of the great Catholic Church; account of whom will be required at her hand.)
“Iconoclasm at Bristol.—Our Bristol correspondent writes: The removal of the ‘imagery’ from the north porch of Bristol Cathedral has created considerable excitement in the city and in Clifton. As a member of the capitular body who is known to strongly object to the figures was seen near the Cathedral late on Wednesday night, the clerk of the works employed ‘watchers,’ his intention being to refuse admission to other than his own workmen. On Thursday morning he had occasion to leave the works to go to the quarries at Corsham, and while he was absent a gang of men, under the orders of the chapter clerk, entered the gates, and before the clerk of the works, who was telegraphed for, could [[198]]return, hauled down the four statues and obliterated all traces of the Virgin Mary, doing much damage to other carving in the process of removal. The last has by no means been heard of this affair. The statues cost over £100 each, but the money value of the ‘imagery’ is not considered by the Restoration Committee. Their contention is that, until the work was completed and handed over to the Cathedral body, it belonged to the Restoration Committee; and it is believed that the right of the Chapter to act as they have done will be tested in a court of law. Feeling is so strong against the action of the Dean and Chapter that plenty of money would be forthcoming to prosecute such an inquiry.”—Pall Mall Gazette, April 7, 1876.
“One of the latest ‘sensations’ in New York has been a ‘female boxing match,’ aptly described by the New York Times as a ‘novel and nonsensical exhibition.’ The combatants—or ‘lady contestants,’ as they are called in the report of the proceedings—were two ballet-girls, of the kind known as ‘variety dancers.’ One, Miss Saunders, wore a white bodice, purple knee-breeches, which she had borrowed from an Ethiopian serenader, red stockings, and shoes. The other, Miss Harland, was attired in blue trunks and white tights. Both appeared nervous, were very pale, tried to blush, and ‘partially succeeded.’ When the fighting began, Miss Harland ‘did not know what to do with her hands.’ Miss Saunders, however, had her fists more at command, and, after some preliminary sparring, succeeded in striking her opponent ‘square in the face.’ Miss Harland, on her side, ‘by a vicious blow from the shoulder,’ managed to disarrange Miss Saunders’s back hair. Both ladies then smiled. In the end Miss Harland lost the match, ‘owing to her confirmed habit of swinging her hands around in the air.’ Miss Saunders was declared the winner, and carried off a prize of 200 dols. and a piece of silver plate; Miss Harland received [[199]]a ten-dollar bill from an amateur who thought she deserved consolation; and the two ‘lady contestants’ left the stage arm-in-arm.”—Pall Mall Gazette, April 7, 1876.
IV. In last Fors, though I thought I knew my ‘Old Mortality’ well enough, I carelessly wrote ‘Elspeth,’ for ‘Elizabeth,’ (meaning Bessie Maclure); and the misprint ‘Arannah’ for ‘Araunah’ escaped my eyes three times over. The more grotesque one of ‘changes’ for ‘charges,’ in p. 168, line 25, was I suppose appointed by Fors to chastise me for incurable flirtation. I wish I knew who these two schoolgirls are, whom I’ve got to finish my letter to if I can, this time.
My dears, will you please, for I can’t rewrite what I’ve said so often, read, when you have opportunity, the letter to a young lady in Fors 34, pp. 29, 30.[6] Respecting the third article in that letter, I have now a few words to add; (read also, if you can, what is said of the Word of God, in Letters 45 and 46). I told you in last Fors that you would have great difficulty in getting leave from English society to obey Christ. Fors has since sent me, in support of this statement, a paper called ‘The Christian,’—the number for Thursday, May 11,—in the fifteenth page of which is an article on young ladies headed “What can they do?” from which I take the following passage:—
“There have been times of special prayer for young men and women. Could there not be also for the very large class of young ladies who do not go out into society? They have no home duties to detain them, as many in a humbler condition; they have hours and hours of leisure, and know not how to spend them—partly from need of being directed, but more so from the prejudices [[200]]and hindrances in their way. Their hearts are burning to do something for Christ, but they are not allowed, partly because it is considered ‘improper,’ and for a variety of reasons.