Lar Hag r 
“TR i 
hn bes 
i Ue be 
Sil Aaa : 
ot Hog 
, tm. 
wh - wok 
ZT Fork 
Cay is, 
LI ta Lo 
¥ Ameen 
PO ET 
-r 
a3 
eI 
Sas den 
hor mn 1 
Te, 
- anne 
Trea, 
Caen! 
TET Lea 
rt Cla 
dng 
Ke mpgs 
aT 
Sr Hee 
NZ Hive 
TEL 
a 
seam! 
temeriay 02 
ER 
VCs 
SE MN 
TE 
a a 
eran dE 
ii 
3 bu ie 
Let Wn 
vl Oa le 
Ce RI 
J 
Pdi 
Bo 
ns 
esd fin 
Kaspar Hauser, 
155 
that work the story of the abduction of the Prince. The French 
pamphlet accuses Stanhope, Hickel, and Meyer of being the chief 
bribed agents in the crime. Von Tucher wrote about this 
pamphlet in 1872, and considered its contents important. 
In 1872 Dr. Julius Meyer, son of Kaspar Hauser’s teacher in 
Ansbach, published a work (‘““ Authentische Mittheilungen iber 
Kaspar Hauser”) which he himself evidently believed to contain 
all that there was to be said upon the much vexed question. He 
must have been very soon undeceived, however, as to this opinion ; 
for his book called forth a torrent of contradiction, correction, and 
counter statement which proved conclusively that his extremely 
partisan {reatment of the subject could not stand the test of in: 
telligent criticism. 
Professor Daumer, Baron von Tucher, and many other in- 
quential and well-informed writers hastened to expose the falsity 
and injustice of Meyer's statements. It was shown that he had 
manipulated his father’s manuscripts to suit his own purposes, and 
had actually omitted important legal documents which contra- 
dicted his own assertions. Throughout the work it is noticeable 
that whatever can be told to Kaspar Hauser’s injury is discussed 
at length, and the strongest points are printed in capitals, while 
opposing evidence, which cannot be entirely ignored, is given as 
little space as possible, and printed in small type as a note at the 
bottom of the page. 
At the close of the book Meyer announces triumphantly that 
his account is the last which the public can expect to receive, as 
most of the persons who knew Kaspar Hauser are dead, and it is 
not likely that the few remaining ones can find anything new to 
relate. He sums up what he considers the evidence by declaring 
that Kaspar Hauser’s story of himself is false, and that the early 
witnesses—Daumer, Von Tucher, Dr. Preu, Dr. Osterhausen, and 
sthers—are romantic dreamers whose assertions are of no value, 
while the statements of Weichmann, Beck, and others, given under 
the influence of Lord Stanhope, four years after the occurrence, 
and in frequent contradiction of their previous testimony, are to