"278 FrDceedinys of the Royal Irkh Academy. 



Through, the courtesy of those in authority in the Academy, I 

 have been able to make a close comparison of the handwriting of tlie 

 Academy letter, with the undoubtedly genuine !]kISS. of Bishop 

 Berkeley in the Library of Trinity College. Although I do not aspire 

 to the somewhat dubious distinction of an expert in handwriting, yet I 

 liaYe very considerable familiarity with MSS. of the period in question, 

 and this is not in the first occasion on which I have been called on to 

 decide as to the authorship of documents of the time. So it is with 

 some confidence that I put forward my conviction that the letter in 

 the possession of the Academy is not in the handwriting of Bishop 

 Berkeley. The details on which my conclusion rests are not sufiiciently 

 interesting for publicity, and to be rendered intelligible would require 

 a series of diagrams. Still there are two somewhat peculiar points to 

 which I wish to refer. In the letter, the contraction, y^ is invariably 

 written for tlie ; in the College IISS. of Bishop Berkeley, this 

 contraction does not occiu'. Then again, in both the Academy and 

 the College IISS. the present fonn of the letter e as well as the ancient 

 form are to be found. By the ancient foim I mean, that which looks 

 like a Greek tlieta., written on a small scale and with one continuous 

 stroke of the pen. But though both forms occiu*, there is this curious 

 difference, that in the bishop's writing, the ancient form is the rule 

 and the modern is the exception, while in the Academy letter this 

 relation is exactly reversed. With regard to the general character of 

 the writing there is further this notable difference : Berkeley's writing 

 is remarkably clear and precise. "When once familiarity with the 

 forms of the letters has been acquired, doubt never arises as to the 

 words the bishop intended to record. This cannot be said of the 

 Academy letter. It is but right that the element of weakness in this 

 comparison should be specified. If the date of the letter be 1721 as 

 Prof. Eraser's theory demands, it must be admitted that there is a 

 considerable interval of time between the letter and the College IISS. 

 These MSS. are the rough draft of the "Treatise on Human EJiow- 

 ledge " and two essays that I was fortunate enough to find among the 

 Molyneux Papers. iSTone of these specimens of Berkeley's writiugs 

 are later than 1710, so there is an interval of at least eleven years, 

 during which it is quite possible for changes to take place in the style 

 of writiug. Fui'ther, it is somewhat open to objection that we should 

 base a conclusion, when in the Academy letter we have but a single 

 page of writing as our specimen. Still I feel that I must adhere to 

 what I have before asserted, that this letter is not written by Bishop 

 Berkeley. 



