i6i 



only consulted Mr. Strecker and took his veision without letting 

 me know anything about it, or investigating the facts I could 

 have furnished. One of the first things to be done, if it was 

 intended to get fairly at the facts, was to procure the statements 

 of the principals. But Mr. Hulst, though he had sent me some 

 specimens to determine at that very time, never informed me 

 that, in his forthcoming paper, he was to announce himself as 

 ^'compelled to judge " between Mr. Strecker and myself. It is 

 of a piece with Mr. Hulst's descriptional work, that he dislikes 

 to consult the necessary authorities. This "judge" gives a 

 wonderful series of "reasons" for condemning me unheard, but 

 the whole have the air of an arrangement between Mr. Strecker 

 and the "judge," which detracts fiom the solemnity and impar- 

 tiality of the proceedings. As a specimen of these reasons under 

 which my three species are to be overthrown to rise again under 

 Mr. Strecker's sponsorship, I will repeat one or two of Mr. 

 Hulst's statements. Mr. Hulst prefers, for instance, the name 

 Amestris, to Anna, on the ground, "that" one is "strictly 

 Catocaline (?), while" the other is "not." It appears from this 

 that "Catocaline" is a new euphemism for loose behavior, and 

 that the Rev. Mr. Hulst approves of the names of Swinburne's 

 heroines being applied to a group of moths whose conduct is no 

 worse, so far as I have observed, than their neighbors. To pre- 

 fer the " strange woman " to a prophetess, is singular taste in a 

 clergyman. And then Mr. Hulst clearly states that " Mr. 

 Strecker's names were given prior to those of Mr. Grote," and in 

 the next sentence qualifies it singularly and suddenly by the 

 words: "Presumably so;" and then proceeds with his special 

 pleading. "On the face of it," Mr. Hulst says, that Mr. Strecker 

 is earlier. The "face of it" reads "August," but it ought to 

 read " November." As I do not claim any earlier date than 

 ^' September," why is all this argument given to support Mr. 

 Strecker? The "gentlemen" who saw Mr. Strecker's "proof 

 sheets in August," have, I am told, either disappeared or altered 

 their minds. If Mr. Strecker did not date his number " August " 

 in order to deprive me of priority, what did he do it for? Mr. 

 Hulst says Mr. Strecker's claim has "every evidence of truthful- 

 ness." Well, it can be positively proven that the matter which 

 Mr. Strecker dates "August" could not have gone into the 

 printers hands before "October." For Mr. Hulst's sake Mr. 

 Strecker ought to come forward and deny this and prove his date 

 of " August." 



It will be seen from the above that Mr. Hulst's "reasons" 

 are to far fetched to be accepted, and that he is not a fit 

 ■"judge" in the matter. I cannot, perhaps, successfully appeal 

 from his decision, prejudiced, to Mr. Hulst unprejudiced, 

 but I have collected what outside evidence I can now find and 

 given it to Mr. Hy. Edwards, who, from his own particular 



