There is (1) the mention of a Paduan adventure, the basis of the plot, a thing that Sprot is very unlikely to have invented. With all my admiration for Sprot, I do think that the Paduan touch is beyond him. This occurs in Letter IV, ‘the good sport that M.A., your lordship’s brother, told me of a nobleman in Padua. It is a parasteur’ (? _à propos_) ‘to this purpose we have in hand.’ This appears in Letter I, ‘reckless toys of Padua,’ and in Letter V, ‘bid M. A. remember on the sport he told me of Padua.’ 2. The constant applause of Bower. This is in Letter IV, and in I, III, V, and the torn letter. 3. Meeting with Alexander Ruthven. This is in IV, and in I and V. 4. The meeting at Fastcastle, which is to be quiet and well-provisioned. This is in IV, and in I, III, V. 5. Lord Home and Mr. Rhynd are to know nothing. This is in IV, and in I, and V, and the torn letter, utterly needless repetition. 6. The King’s hunting, the opportunity for the plot. This is in IV, and in I, but that is natural. 7. Directions as to returning the letters. These are in IV, in I, III, V, and the torn letter. 8. Injunctions of secrecy. These are in IV, and I, III, V, and in the torn letter. 9. Logan will be true, ‘although the scaffold were already set up.’ This is a phrase of Letter IV, and recurs in Letter III and in the torn letter. 10. Logan’s elevation of heart on receipt of Gowrie’s letter. This occurs in IV and in V. Who can doubt that Letter IV is the source, followed servilely by the forger, of the torn letter and I (?), III, V? If Sprot could invent the substance of IV, why was he so chary of invention in all the other letters? It is clear, moreover, that the Unknown himself is derived from a line in Letter IV: ‘I have already sent another letter to the gentleman your Lordship knows, as the bearer will inform you of his answer.’ The bearer is always Bower, so the ‘gentleman’ is to be conceived as in Gowrie’s neighbourhood, or on the route thither, as one bearer serves both for Gowrie and the gentleman. Therefore, before July 5, Sprot (who had no idea as to who the gentleman was) identified the ‘gentleman,’ the Unknown of I, III, V, with the laird of Kinfauns, near Perth, or with the Constable of Dundee; but he withdrew these imputations, craving the pardon of the accused. Thus it stands to reason that I (?), III, V, and the torn letter are forged on the model of IV. Sprot introduces no novelties in I, III, V, or the torn epistle. He harps eternally on the strings of IV. The only variation is (V) the mention of ‘one other man with you,’ in the proposed sail to Fastcastle. It is not easy for criticism to evade the conclusion that I (?), III, V, and the torn letter are, indeed, forgeries modelled on IV. And what is IV?