darkness which enshrouded him disappeared before the rays of light that found entrance into his intellect, it was only to awake to a knowledge of the utter misery of his position.  He then saw himself a helpless orphan, the inferior of all with whom he came in contact, and a dependant upon the charity of others for his support.  He awoke to find that he had lost seventeen years of this beautiful life, seventeen years which he never could recall,—­that he never could take his stand amongst men as their equal, but would always be regarded as an unhappy being meriting their pity,—­much like that felt for the pains of some suffering brute.  Nor was this all.  During the few years that were granted him in our world, persecuted by some unknown person, against whom he was helpless,—­knowing that his life was aimed at by some one, but unable to protect himself, and at last falling a victim to the threatened blow,—­and, worst of all, charged on his death-bed with being an impostor,—­such was the life of Caspar Hauser!

Among the different opinions which have existed in regard to his origin, the most noticeable are those advanced by Stanhope and Merker, and by Daumer, Eschricht, and Feuerbach.  The Earl of Stanhope’s connection with Caspar Hauser was a rather peculiar one.  He made his appearance in Nuremberg at the time the first attempt was made upon Caspar’s life, but took no particular notice of him, and left without having shown any interest in him.  On a second visit, about seven months later, he suddenly became passionately attached to Caspar, showed most unusual marks of fondness for him, and finally adopted him.  He then removed him to Anspach, and remained his protector until his death in December, 1833.  The day after his burial, Stanhope appeared in Anspach, and took particular pains to proclaim then, and subsequently at a judicial investigation in Munich, and in several tracts, his belief that Caspar was an impostor.  This had already been maintained by Merker, the Prussian Counsellor of Police.  The theory which Stanhope now advanced was, that Caspar was a journeyman tailor or glover, from some small village on the Austrian side of the river Salzach.  The reasons which he assigns for his belief in the imposture are all derived from Caspar’s supposed want of integrity and veracity.  They impeach the character of Caspar living, and not of Caspar dead.  Why, then, did Stanhope wait for his death before he proclaimed the imposture?  Why did he remain his protector, and thus make himself a party to the fraud?  His conduct is not easily explained.  On the other hand, there is little ground for Daumer’s conclusions.  These are given at length in his “Disclosures concerning Caspar Hauser,” published in 1859, a book called forth by attacks made upon him by Eschricht.  Considering Stanhope’s conduct, and his endeavor after Caspar’s death to induce Daumer to support his views as to the imposture, and, upon his indignant refusal, making him twice the object of a personal