greater part of October. He was writing a new book-the" Bible of Amiens "-which was to be to the "Seven Lamps" what "St. Mark's Rest was to "Stones of Venice."

Before he returned the secretary of the Chesterfield art school had written to ask him to address the students. Mr. Ruskin, traveling without a secretary, and in the flush of new work and thronging ideas, put the letter aside; he carried his letters about in bundles in his portmanteau, as he said in his apology," and looked at them as Ulysses at the bags of Æolus." Some Some wag had the impudence to forge a reply, which was actually read at the meeting in spite of its obviously un-Ruskinian style and statements:

"HARLESDEN (!), LONDON, Friday.

"MY DEAR SIR, Your letter reaches me here. Have just returned [commercial English, not Ruskin] from Venice [where he had meant to go, but did not go] where I have ruminated (!) in the pasturages of the home of art (!); the loveliest and holiest of lovely and holy cities, where the very stones cry out, eloquent in the elegancies of iambics" (!!) and so forth.

However, it deceived the newspapers, and there was a fine storm, which Mr. Ruskin rather enjoyed. For though the forgery was clumsy enough, it embodied some apt plagiarism from a letter to the Mansfield art school on a similar occasion.1

1 Printed as appendix to a A Joy for Ever. The Chesterfield letter and correspondence are given in extenso in Igdrasil (vol. i., pp. 215, 216).

Not long before, a forgery of a more serious kind had been committed by one of the people connected with St. George's Guild, who had put Mr. Ruskin's name to checks. The bank authorities were long in tracing the crime. They even sent a detective to Brantwood to watch one of the assistants, who never knew nor will ever know that he was honored with such attentions; and certainly neither Mr. Ruskin nor any of his friends for a moment believed him guilty. He had sometimes imitated Mr. Ruskin's hand; a dangerous jest. Fortunately the real culprit was discovered at last, and Mr. Ruskin had to go to London as a witness for the prosecution. "Being in very weak health," the " Times " report said (April 1, 1879), "he was allowed to give evi-• dence from the bench." He had told the Sheffield communists that "he thought so strongly on the subject of the repression of crime that he dare not give expression to his ideas for fear of being charged with cruelty;" but no sooner was the prisoner released than he took him kindly by the hand and gave the help needed to start him again in a better career. That sort of inconsistency in Ruskin I fully admit.

Though he did not feel able to lecture to strangers at Chesterfield, he visited old friends at Eton, on November 6, 1880, to give an address on Amiens. For once he forgot his MS., but the lecture was no less brilliant and interesting. It was practically the first chapter of his new work,

the "Bible of Amiens," - itself intended as the first volume of "Our Fathers have told us: Sketches of the History of Christendom, for Boys and Girls who have been held at its Fonts." The distinctly religious tone of the work was noticed as marking, if not a change, a strong development of a tendency which had been strengthening for some time past. He had come out of the phase of doubt, into acknowledgment of the strong and wholesome influence of serious religion; into an attitude of mind in which, without unsaying anything he had said against narrowness of creed and inconsistency of practice, without stating any definite doctrine of the after life, or adopting any sectarian dogma, he regarded the fear of God and the revelation of the Divine Spirit as great facts, and motives not to be neglected in the study of history, as the groundwork of civilization and the guide of progress.

Early in 1879 the Rev. F. A. Malleson, vicar of Broughton, near Coniston, had asked him to write, for the Furness Clerical Society's meetings, a series of letters on the Lord's Prayer. In them he dwelt upon the need of living faith in the Fatherhood of God, and childlike obedience to the commands of old-fashioned religion and morality. He criticised the English liturgy as compared with mediæval forms of prayer; and pressed upon his hearers the strongest warnings against evasion, or explaining away of stern duties and simple faiths. He concluded: "No man