I have not read any of the Philadelphia papers since I came to England, and do not know the tone of the attacks upon me, but judging from your friendly letter, I feel assured that the pen that traced them must have been dipped in venom more noxious than that which flows from the jaws of the rattlesnake! To you, my dear Friend, I solemly affirm that however unnatural my observations may _appear_, they are all _facts_, without a word of exaggeration. My fate in this instance differs not from that of many others, but believe me, will differ widely from that of the illustrious Bruce; those attacks will not make me die of sorrow! With this, my dear Friend, I will close the subject, giving you meanwhile full liberty to use this letter in any manner that may best suit your feelings, and I will now pass on to other things. My success in the mother country continues to augment apace. I have many most valuable friends and patrons, and discovered soon after my landing that Science has no particular country. The 5th. number of my work is now published, & completes my labor for 1827. During my progress I have often received letters from highly distinguished characters, expressive of the highest approbation, & I hope by regular industry to be able to go on with the performance, with credit to myself & benefit to my family. I shall leave this town for London in a few days, when I will convey your wishes to Robert Sully, & [when] there I hope to see the picture which you have sent to the Marquis of Wellesley.... The attack referred to in the letter just quoted was called forth by Audubon's unfortunate paper on the Rattlesnake,[56] which was read before the Wernerian Society of Edinburgh in the winter of 1827 and published by Robert Jameson in the _New Philosophical Journal_ in April of that year. The controversy then started was long and bitter, while the merits of neither side were ever fully established; in the history which follows we shall see that the naturalist was, on the whole, more sinned against than sinning.