The Diamond Lens Controversy

An electronic version (off-campus Lehigh access) of this text is available at American Periodicals Series Online, a subscription database of U.S. newspapers from 1740 to 1900 available to individuals and institutions that purchase a license for its use. (Viewing the electronic version of this text will lead you to an external website. Please report dead links to digitlib@lehigh.edu.)

Bibliographic Information

Picton, Thomas. "The Diamond Lens Controversy." New York Times. 27 Feb. 1858: 4.

Type: newspaper ; Genre: letter to the editor, literary criticism

Thomas Picton, former editor of the Sachem, adds his voice to the debate over the originality of The Diamond Lens.

North, William: Thomas Picton asserts that William North was particularly proud of two of his works: The Living Corpse and the unpublished Microcosmos.
O'Brien, Fitz-James: Thomas Picton compares O'Brien to William North stating, "[a]ny person acquainted with the two parties cannot fail to draw a disparaging distinction between the scholastic attainments of the late Mr. North and the Hibernian pretensions of the ever-present and somewhat pertinacious Mr. Fitz-James O'Brien, whose sole merit in Saxon literature must be derived from his apochryphal descent from the Kings of old Erin."

O'Brien, Fitz-James. "Note from Mr. Fitz-James O'Brien." New York Times. 1 Mar. 1858: 4. [more about this work]
[North, William]. "The Living Corpse." Putnam's Monthly. Jan. 1853: 32-39. [more about this work]
[O'Brien, Fitz-James]. "The Diamond Lens." The Atlantic Monthly. Jan. 1858: 354-367. [more about this work]