Shakespeare did not, but that Francis Bacon did, write the
plays and poems. It presents a critical view of the personal
history of the two men, their education, learning, attainments,
surroundings, and associates, the contemporaneousness of the
writings in question, in prose and verse, an account of the
earlier plays and editions, the spurious plays, and ‘the true
original copies.’ It gives some evidence that Bacon was known to
be the author by some of his contemporaries. It shows in what
manner William Shakespeare came to have the reputation of being
the writer. It exhibits a variety of facts and circumstances,
which are strongly suggestive of Bacon as the real author. A
comparison of the writings of contemporary authors in prose and
verse, proves that no other writer of that age, but Bacon, can
come into any competition for the authorship. It sifts out a
chronological order of the production of the plays, and of the
several writings of Bacon, ascertaining the exact dates, whenever
possible, and shows that the more significant parallelisms run in
the same order, and are of such a nature, both by their dates and
their own character, as absolutely to preclude all possibility
of borrowing, otherwise than as Bacon borrowed from himself. It
is amply demonstrated that mere common usage, or the ordinary
practice of writers, can furnish no satisfactory explanation
of these parallelisms and identities. There is a continuous
presentation of parallel or identical passages, throughout the
work, with such commentary as was deemed necessary or advisable
in order to bring out their full force and significance; and
twenty pages of minor parallelisms are given in one body, without
commentary.”
“It gives some extensive proofs that Bacon was a poet, and
suggests some reasons for his concealment of his poetical
authorship. There is some indication of the object and purpose
the author had in view in writing these plays. It is shown that
the tenor of their teaching is in keeping with Bacon’s ideas upon
the subject treated in them. The latter half of the book presents
more especially the parallelism in scientific and philosophical
thought, with a view to show the identity of the plays and the
writings of Bacon, in respect to their philosophy and standard
of criticism; and in this there is an endeavor to show that the
character and drift of the philosophy of Bacon (as well as that
of the plays) was substantially identical with the realistic
idealism of the more modern, as of the more ancient writers on
the subject.”
“It is recognized that the evidence drawn from historical
facts and biographical circumstances, are not in themselves
alone entirely conclusive of the matter, however suggestive or
significant as clearing the way for more decisive proofs, or as
raising a high degree of probability; and it is conceded, that,
in the absence of more direct evidence, the most decisive proof
attainable is to be found in a critical and thorough comparison
of the writings themselves, and that such a comparison will
clearly establish the identity of the author as no other than
Francis Bacon.”
We have been recently assured by Judge Holmes, that he has seen
nothing in any new fact, criticism, or discussion of the subject,
that has in the least degree shaken his convictions.
(Hon. NATHANIEL HOLMES is a graduate of Harvard University, in the
class of 1837. Since 1839 he has practiced law in St. Louis for the
greater part of the time, but was, from 1865 to 1868, Judge of the
Supreme Court of Missouri, and from 1868 to 1872, a Professor of Law
in the Law School of Harvard. He has now retired from professional
life, and resides at Cambridge, Mass.)
33 NOTICE OF JUDGE HOLMES’S WORK. In _The Nation_, New York, March
29, 1866, p. 402.
_Pro-Sh._
34 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes’s _Authorship_
in the Brooklyn (N. Y.) _Daily Eagle_, October 24, 1866. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
35 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE? Review of Holmes’s _Authorship_
in the _Round Table_, New York, October 27, 1866. 4 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
36 HYPOTHESES OF SHAKESPEARIAN CRITICISM. In the _Home Journal_, New
York, October 27, 1866. 3 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
37 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes, in the _Jewish
Messenger_, New York, November 2, 1866. 1 column.
_Pro-Sh._
38 SHAKESPEARE. WAS HE HIMSELF OR SOMEBODY ELSE?
_a_--Article in the Springfield (Mass.) _Republican_, November 7,
1866. 2½ columns.
_b_--In same paper, a letter from its Boston correspondent, November
3, 1866.
_Pro-Sh._
39 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A communication from RICHARD J.
HINTON, of Washington, D. C. In the _Round Table_, New York, Nov. 17,
1866. 3 columns.
_Anti-Sh._
Mr. Hinton writes this to call the attention of the public to the
position taken by Mr. O’Connor in his _Harrington_ novel.
40 BACON VS. SHAKESPEARE. An article in review of Judge Holmes. In
the New York _Methodist_, November 17, 1866. 1½ columns.
_Pro-Sh._
41 WAS LORD BACON AN IMPOSTOR? In _Fraser’s Magazine_, London,
December, 1866.
_Unc._
There are incidental allusions to the authorship on pages 718,
721, 730, and 731. It was answered by Baron LIEBIG, in _Fraser_ of
April, 1867, under the same title, without special reference to this
question.
42 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. [By A. G. SEDGWICK.] In _North
American Review_, January, 1867. 2½ pages.
_Pro-Sh._
43 HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In Literary Notices, _Harper’s
Magazine_, January, 1867, p. 263. ½ page.
_Pro-Sh._
44 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. A letter from JAMES H. HACKETT. In the
_Evening Post_, New York, January 26, 1867. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
45 WAS BACON THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE? Two articles by MARMONTEL, in
the _Christian Observer and Presbyterian Witness_, Richmond, Va. The
first dated February 7, 1867. 2 columns each.
_Pro-Sh._
46 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. A review of Holmes in the
_Athenæum_, London, February 23, 1867, page 249.
_Pro-Sh._
47 THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. An article in review of Holmes, in
the _Saturday Reader_, Montreal, Canada, April 6, 1867. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
48 COMMUNICATIONS in the _Daily Gazette_, Birmingham, England.
_a_--By T. H. P., May 27, 1867.
_b_--By William Henry Smith, July 1, 1867.
_c_--By T. H. P., July 1, 1867.
_Unc._
49 DELIA BACON. By SIDNEY E. HOLMES. [Mrs. SARAH E. HENSHAW.] In _The
Advance_, Chicago, December 26, 1867. 1½ columns.
_Unc._
A tribute to the memory of Delia Bacon, including a mention of her
theory, by a former friend and pupil.
“Delia Bacon was a woman of a genius rare and incomparable.
Wherever she went, there walked a queen in the realm of mind. To
converse with her was to be carried captive. The most ordinary
topic became fascinating when she dealt with it, for whatever
subject she touched, she invested with her own wonderful wealth
of thought and illustration, and association, and imagery, until
all else was forgotten in her magical converse.”
* * * * *
“Her theory of Shakespeare has been accepted by some able minds.
Had _she_ lived to advocate it, it is not too much to say that
it would have deeply impressed the literary world. But while
she was in the midst of her researches, that fine intellect,
overwrought and too highly sublimated, fell into confusion, and
henceforth was to be, as was that of the Hamlet which she had
so often analyzed, ‘like sweet bells jangled, out of tune, and
harsh.’ Thus discredit was thrown upon her favorite theory, and
a melancholy key afforded to some of her later experiences. ‘O!
What a noble mind was here o’erthrown!’ Alas! Alas! Who would
have thought that these words, so often read and dwelt upon in
her study of the great dramatist, were but the prophecy of her
own tragical end?”
50 DID WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? Chapter XIII,
in _The Shakespeare Treasury of Wisdom and Knowledge_. By CHAS. W.
STEARNS, M. D. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1869 and 1878. See
pages 394-413.
_Pro-Sh._
Assuming that there is no possible question as to the authorship
of the poems, Dr. Stearns shows the parallelisms in thought and
expression between the poems and the plays, as conclusive evidence in
favor of Shakespeare.
51 DID BACON WRITE SHAKESPEARE? An anonymous article in the New York
_Clipper_, May 1, 1869. 1½ columns.
_Unc._
52 A CONFERENCE OF PLEASURE, Composed for some festive occasion
about the year 1592. By FRANCIS BACON. Edited from a Manuscript
belonging to the Duke of Northumberland. By JAMES SPEDDING. London:
(Privately-printed) 1870. 4to pp. xxxi, 54.
_Pro-Sh._
This was edited by Mr. Spedding from a portion of the Northumberland
MSS. referred to by Judge Holmes (see pages 657-682, edition of
1876). These MSS. were found in 1867, in a box of old papers, which
had probably lain for nearly a century unopened, in the library of
Northumberland House in London. With them was a MS. title-page,
indicating that the paper book which it covered had once contained,
in addition to the four speeches composing the Conference of
Pleasure, several other of Bacon’s orations and essays. Also,
_Richard II_, _Richard III_, _Asmund and Cornelia_, Thomas Nashe’s
_Isle of Dogs_, and papers by other authors. Of these, only a part
remained, when the document was discovered, the Shakespeare plays
being amongst the missing. The MSS. were in bad condition, from fire
and the ravages of time--the edges being badly burned, probably from
a fire which occured in Northumberland House in 1780.
Accompanying Mr. Spedding’s book is a fac-simile of this MS.
title-page, and it is on this that the interest turns. It shows, in
addition to the original table of contents, a mass of scribblings,
written all over the sheet, containing a variety of names, phrases,
quotations, idly and carelessly written, apparently by some copyist
or clerk. Amongst these scribblings occurs the name of _Frauncis
Bacon_ several times, and that of _William Shakespeare_ eight or nine
times repeated. As to its date, Mr. Spedding says: “All I can say
is that I find nothing, either in these later scribblings, or what
remains of the book itself, to indicate a date later than the reign
of Elizabeth.” Further, that he finds no traces of the handwriting of
Bacon.
The reference to this question is to be found in the introduction,
pages xxii-xxv.
Mr. Spedding discovers nothing in these MSS. to disturb his belief in
the Shakespearian authorship, and regards it as a simple coincidence
that the productions of Shakespeare and Bacon should be copied in
the same book, and their names scribbled on the title-page. “At the
present time,” he says, “if the waste leaf on which a law-stationer’s
apprentice tries his pens were examined, I should expect to find on
it the name of the poet, novelist, dramatic author, or actor of the
day, mixed with snatches of the last new song,” etc. * * * “And that
is exactly the sort of thing we have here.” Judge Holmes, however,
ventures the suggestion that they may have been made in Bacon’s own
study, by his own amanuensis; that this fact would account for the
two names being scribbled on the title-leaf by one in the secret;
and that Bacon himself may have destroyed the missing Shakespeare
plays before his death, by way of suppressing the evidence of his
authorship.
These MSS. are especially interesting from the fact that if the
scribblings are of a date contemporary with Shakespeare and Bacon, it
is believed to be the only place where their names have been found
mentioned together in anything written in that age.
53 NOTICE OF HOLMES’S AUTHORSHIP. In the Minneapolis (Minn.)
_Tribune_, of March 23, 1870. 1 column.
_Unc._
This article refers to a lecture delivered in Minneapolis in the
winter of 1872-73, by Hon. IGNATIUS DONNELLY, of Minnesota, taking
the position that the pro-Bacon argument was a strong one, but not
conclusive; in short, that the verdict must be the Scotch one, “not
proven.” It is understood that Mr. Donnelly is now engaged upon a
work, in which, after further thought and study of the question, he
takes the ground that Bacon was the author of both the plays and
poems. It is expected that it will be published soon.
54 THE BACONIAN ORIGIN OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS, being some facts and
arguments going to show that the dramatic works imputed to William
Shakespeare were not, and could not have been, written by him, but
were the production of Lord Bacon. By Rev. A. B. BRADFORD, of Enon,
Pa. A lecture, printed in the _Golden Age_, May 30, 1874. Also, in
the _Argus and Radical_, Beaver, Pa., December 29, 1875. 6 columns.
_Anti-Sh._
The author is a strong Baconian. He follows mainly the same line of
argument as Judge Holmes.
55 SHAKESPEARE AND LORD BACON. By “COLLEY CIBBER.” [JAMES REES]. A
series of six articles in the _Sunday Mercury_, Philadelphia, for
June 7, 14, 21, and 28; and July 5 and 12, 1874. 9 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
The writer takes for his motto: “Mingle no matter of doubtful with
the simplicity of truth,” from Ben Jonson’s _Discoveries_. The
articles cover the whole range of the subject.
56 AUTHENTICITY OF SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS. By “GALLERY CRITIC.” A series
of twelve articles in the _Sunday Republic_, Philadelphia, for June
28; July 5, 12, 19, and 26; August 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; September 6
and 20, 1874. 20 columns.
_Anti-Sh._
Written in answer to “Colley Cibber” above, and fully as
comprehensive. The author is unknown.
57 THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON CONTROVERSY. Two short notices in the
_American Bibliopolist_, New York, for July and August, 1874.
_a_--Letter from Hibernicus.
_b_--Did Bacon write Shakespeare?
_Pro-Sh._
58 WHO WROTE “SHAKESPERE?” By J. V. P. [J. V. PRICHARD]? In _Fraser’s
Magazine_, London, August, 1874. (Reproduced in _Littell’s Living
Age_, October, 1874). 10 pages.
_Anti-Sh._
This is a noted article in the controversy. On it were founded the
series of opinions, interviews, etc., appearing soon after in the
New York _Herald_, and frequent reference to it will be found in the
writings on the subject. The article itself is devoted mainly to a
very full and complete summary of Judge Holmes’s book, with many
extracts and references.
The name of the writer has not generally been known. Mr. Wilkes, in
his book, speaks of the paper as an “exceedingly ingenious article,
written by a young American,” whom he met in London at the time of
the publication; but does not give his name. We have sufficient
reason, however, for crediting it to Mr. J. V. Prichard.
59 NOTES AND QUERIES. London. FIFTH SERIES.
_a_--From C. A. Ward, II, 161, August 29, 1874.
_b_--From Jabez [Dr. Ingleby], II, 246, Sept. 26, 1874.
_c_--From H. S. Skipton, II, 350, Oct. 31, 1874.
_Unc._
60 SHAKESPEARE--AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In
the New York _Herald_, September 6, 1874.
_a_--Letter from London, embodying a copy of the “J. V. P.” article
in _Fraser’s Magazine_.
_b_--Did Bacon write Shakespeare’s Plays? an editorial article.
_Unc._
The commencement of the interesting series of
articles--communications, interviews, editorials, etc.--appearing in
the _Herald_ during September and October, which will be found in
subsequent titles. It has not been thought necessary to add to them
many notes or explanations, as the head-lines have been liberally
copied, and serve to explain their general tenor.
61 WAS SHAKESPEARE A DUMMY? Opinions of Live Dramatic Authorities on
the subject. The Press and Public taking up the discussion. Baconians
rather rare. In the _Herald_, Sept. 8, 1874.
_a_--Who wrote Bacon? by Franklin.
_b_--Shakespeare as a Stage Manager, from the Brooklyn _Eagle_.
_c_--Let Shakespeare Alone, from the Philadelphia _Press_.
_d_--Shakespeare and Bacon, an editorial.
_Unc._
This article also gives interviews with Dion Boucicault, Howard
Paul, Bret Harte, Richard Grant White, Nym Crinkle [A. C. Wheeler],
and Lester Wallack. It is proper to say that Mr. White disavows the
interview.
62 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? Commentators, Quidnuncs, and Annotators. In
the _Herald_, September 9, 1874.
_a_--Views of men who have studied the subject.
_b_--The Elizabethan Era, by A. M.
_c_--Letters from “Old Punch Writer” and “Garrick.”
_Unc._
This issue comprises interviews with John Brougham, A. Oakey Hall, E.
C. Stedman, and Mayor Havemeyer. Mr. Hall gives the opinions, also,
of William E. Burton, James T. Brady, and “Falstaff” Hackett.
63 SHAKESPEARE. Explanations as to why the authenticity of the plays
are doubted. The origin of the Baconian theory. In the _Herald_,
September 10, 1874.
_a_--Views of Horace Howard Furness.
_b_--Bacon did not write Shakespeare, by R. Davey.
_c_--Editorial article.
_Pro-Sh._
64 A SHAKESPEAREAN MARE’S NEST. In New York _Times_, September 10,
1874.
_a_--The Intellectual Department of the _Herald_, etc., in
Philadelphia _Evening Bulletin_, September 8, 1874.
_b_--The Hogs Again. In Philadelphia _Press_, September 7, 1874.
_Pro-Sh._
All of these are editorials, and devoted mainly to the humorous
disparagement of the _Herald_ articles.
“The voice of the interviewer is still heard in the land. * *
* His mind is racked as to the authenticity of Shakespeare’s
works. * * * The great absurdity of the fancy or notion (for it
does not attain to the dignity of a theory), is that, starting
from the point that it is incredible to believe that Shakespeare
could have written his plays, so astonishing are their evidences
of knowledge, and of mental power, it adds these plays to
the wonderful offspring of Bacon’s mind, thus seeking to set
aside one fact assumed to be monstrously incredible by setting
up another, still more monstrous and still more incredible.
Shakespeare is impossible, but Bacon _plus_ Shakespeare is
possible!”--_Daily Times._
“The intellectual department of the New York _Herald_ has begun
to devote its energies to the settlement of the authorship of
Shakespeare’s plays, and in pursuance of its purpose it has
obtained the opinions of several eminent citizens of New York
upon the subject. A feeling of sadness, perhaps of gloom, will
overspread the world when the fact becomes public that the
person known as ‘Nym Crinkle’ has expressed the conviction that
Shakespeare did not write the dramas in question. * * * * In the
meantime, while these giant minds in New York are wrestling with
the great subject, the vast multitude of us sit here in the outer
darkness, unable to scale the intellectual heights reached by
Crinkle and the rest, but waiting with nervous anxiety the result
of their deliberations.”--_Evening Bulletin._
65 SHADOWY SHAKESPEARE. A graphic interview with the disembodied
Bard. He admits being a Boucicault. Lord Bacon’s wraith refuses to
tell his secret. In the _Herald_, September 11, 1874.
_a_--Opinions of Judge Pierrepont, John E. Owens, and Daniel
Dougherty.
_b_--Shakespeare a spirit medium. By J. B. Burgess.
_c_--Did Shakespeare write Bacon? By J. E. T.
_d_--A Poser from Scotia. By Th. Ainslie.
_Unc._
This contains an alleged interview with the spirit of Shakespeare,
through Foster, the medium, with the result as above. Bacon was also
assumed to be present, but “would not talk.”
66 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? In the _Herald_, September 12, 1874.
_a_--Et tu, Brute? by T.
_b_--Bacon never claimed them, by Ylon.
_c_--Sir Walter Scott’s idea, by Hibernicus.
_d_--A word for him, by Solferino.
_e_--Puzzling Facts, from the Boston _Post_.
_Unc._
67 SHAKESPEARE VS. BACON. A JUDICIAL LUMINARY SUMS UP THE CHARGES. In
the _Herald_, September 13, 1874.
_a_--Interview with Recorder Hackett.
_b_--A New View of Shakespeare.
_c_--The Value of the Shakespearian Discussion, an editorial.
_Unc._
68 THE SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY. In the _Herald_, September 14, 1874.
_a_--Comparison of the Events of Shakespeare’s and Bacon’s Lives, by
Addison B. Burk.
_b_--No one person ever wrote them, by R. S. G.
_c_--Bacon’s learning a point against his authorship, by T. L. W.
_Unc._
69 AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the Oakland (Cal.) _Daily
Transcript_, September 15, 1874. 2 columns.
_Pro-Sh._
70 SHAKESPEARE’S AUTHORSHIP. In the _Herald_, September 19, 1874.
_a_--Views of Henry Ward Beecher on the new Criticisms of the
Baconian School.
_b_--Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, by C. G. G.
_c_--A Question for the Baconians, by W. V.
_d_--Bacon’s Lifetime--Pursuit of Philosophy and Politics
Irreconcilable with the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays, by J. E.
Tuel.
_e_--The True Authorship Discovered, by Bloxon.
_f_--Another triumph, from the Indianapolis _Sentinel_.
_g_--Shakespeare. Who is he? from the Lebanon (Pa.) _Courier_.
_h_--Journalistic Enterprise, from the Milwaukee _News_.
_Unc._
71 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. THE RELATIONS OF SHAKESPEARE TO THE MODERN
STAGE. The Great Authors Contrasted and Reviewed. In the _Herald_,
September 20, 1874.
_a_--Opinion of Prof. Hiram Corson.
_b_--Interview with L. Clarke Davis, of the Philadelphia _Inquirer_.
_c_--Shakespeare and the Stage, an editorial.
_Unc._
72 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. In the _Herald_, September 21, 1874.
_a_--Did Shakespeare write the Novum Organum? by S.
_b_--Shakespeare’s Soliloquy.
_Unc._
73 CARLYLE ON SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. By AMICUS. In the _Herald_,
September 25, 1874.
_Pro-Sh._
The writer calls attention to Mr. Carlyle’s views, in _Heroes and
Hero Worship_--Lecture III.
“It is unexampled, I think, the calm, creative perspicacity of
Shakespeare. _Novum Organum_, and all the intellect you will find
in Bacon, is of quite a secondary order--earthly material, poor
in comparison with this. Amongst modern men, one finds, with
strictness, almost nothing of the same rank. Goethe alone, since
the days of Shakespeare, reminds one of it.”--_Carlyle._
74 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. TWO OPPOSITE KINDS OF GENIUS. In the
_Herald_, September 26, 1874.
_a_--Shakespeare’s Blunders an Argument against the Baconians.
Opinion of Prof. O’Leary, of Manhattan College.
_b_--The Internal Evidence of the Plays, by The Doctor.
_Pro-Sh._
75 WHO WROTE SHAKESPEARE? In the _Herald_, September 27, 1874.
_a_--The answers of leading Corkonians to the Query.
_b_--A few objections answered--a novel theory refuted, by D.
_c_--The Shakespeare Controversy, an editorial.
_Unc._
76 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. CONTRAST OF THE TWO MINDS, by M. D. In the
_Herald_, Sept. 28, 1874.
_Pro-Sh._
77 SHAKESPEARE AND BACON. In the _Herald_, October 5, 1874.
_a_--Intellectual Distinctions, as classified by McDermott.
_b_--The Literary Test, by S. N. Carvalho.
_c_--Shakespeare not a borrower, by B. J. A.
_Pro-Sh._
78 SHAKESPEARE OR BACON? In the _Herald_, October 11, 1874.
_a_--Opinion of Professor John S. Hart.
_b_--The Progressive Development of Shakespeare’s Education in the
Plays, by Franklin.
_c_--One more Baconian heard from; letter from Index.
_d_--What the old actors thought, by David Pollock.
_Unc._
79 THE SHAKESPEARE CONTROVERSY. An editorial article in the _Herald_,
October 11, 1874.
_Pro-Sh._
With this number, the _Herald_ supposed the discussion in its columns
closed (though, as it will be seen, there was one more article), and
gave an editorial summary of its conclusions. Extract:
“Up to this time we have declined to interpolate our own opinion
upon the authorship; but now, in closing the discussion, after
yielding ample time and space to those who wished to take part
in it, we must say that the weight of testimony is altogether
against the claim made for Bacon. Nothing new has been advanced
in behalf of the Holmes theory, while on the contrary, the
internal evidence of the plays, and the facts of history, have
been overwhelmingly shown to be in favor of Shakespeare as the
author. * * * * We believe, in short, that nothing has been said
in this debate to weaken our faith in Shakespeare, while much
has been shown which strengthens it. William Shakespeare is,
therefore, in our opinion, the author of the plays which in his
own day, and ever since, have been attributed to him by universal
consent, and the plea made for Bacon is of ‘such stuff as dreams
are made on,’ a theory which has for its chief use to make the
fame of Shakespeare more glorious.”
80 SHAKESPEARE. In the _Herald_, October 19, 1874.
_a_--A letter to the editor of the _Herald_, from the writer of the
_Fraser_ article, [J. V. PRICHARD]? dated London, October 1, 1874.
_b_--A New Point in the Discussion, an editorial.
_Unc._