Doth i 
ess of Bi 
TeCeire Ti 
Mo Andy 
35001 By, 
of the oy 
‘eath, ang, 
1S. publ, 
of the din 
Ttmate 
ith g sem 
208107 him 
nossessed g 
ut of the 
chose le a 
the eee 
the oe 
v hatred 0 
onan. 
on of 10 
qriocessd 
sapped 
oy hou 
+f Bade 
hort fie 
Kaspar Hauser, 
01 
and under highly suspicious circumstances, leaving the crown to 
the offspring of a morganatic marriage.” 
The Baden theory began at that time to be talked of so gener- 
ally that even Stanhope could no longer ignore it, and in one of 
his first letters to Feuerbach he wrote that during his stay in 
Mannheim, three persons connected with the Court—Count 
Jenison, Marshal von Roggenbach, and the Chamberlain of the 
Grand-Duchess, Herr von Schakenstein—spoke to him about the 
matter. He did not know whether they were themselves curious 
to hear his opinion, or whether the Duchess had ordered them to 
sound him upon the subject. Stanhope made use of the oppor- 
tunity to try to convince the Grand-Duchess that Kaspar was a 
Hungarian magnate, and promised that the boy should visit her 
on his way to England. 
Early in 1832, Feuerbach’s book, “ Kaspar Hauser, Beispiel 
eines Verbrechens am Seelenlebens des Menschen,” appeared, and 
made a great sensation. That work contains no definite theory as 
to Kaspar Hauser’s origin ; but there is a hint, couched in alle- 
gorical terms, which implies that the secret belongs to high places, 
and is guarded by irresponsible power. 
Stanhope wrote to Feuerbach that the Grand-Duchess had read 
the book with great interest, and in several other letters he said 
many flattering things in praise of the pamphlet. 
In April he alluded to the Baden theory again, and tried to 
throw discredit upon the story by giving full particulars respecting 
the death of the two princes, while he upheld Kaspar’s claims to 
a Hungarian origin, saying he believed that Hickel would eventu- 
ally share his opinion that Kaspar was a Hungarian magnate. 
He wrote again, May 31, to Feuerbach, that he agreed with him 
as to there being nothing to be found in Hungary for Kaspar 
Hauser, as Hickel’s researches had proved conclusively, and said 
he must confess with sorrow that Kaspar Hauser appeared in a very 
unfavourable light as regarded that subject. He then went on to 
review Kaspar’s early history and later conduct, throwing doubt 
and disbelief upon the whole story, criticising Daumer’s testimony,