clearly upon what they are based to clear them of the possibility of plagiarism. It is possible they are of an earlier date than when they first came to be spoken of; it is possible they are enlargements on conversations held with Phineas Quimby by the patients who made the transcriptions; it is possible they are emended Mary Baker writings.
But unless originals exist, how can these copybook writings be authenticated? Yet the copybook manuscripts with their uncertain dates, the “copies of copies,” are all that is meant when critics of Christian Science refer ambiguously to Quimby’s writings. These copybooks have been evasively exhibited in lieu of the original Quimby notes, and the owner of the copybooks has allowed books to be written from them on the philosophy of Quimby, has given out photographs of their pages as facsimili of Quimby’s manuscripts, and has generally led the world to believe they were the writings of his father. He appears himself to be a victim of the Quimby manuscript tradition.
If the copybook manuscripts themselves were published, illustrated with original Quimby notes, illiterate scrawls it may be, yet the genuine pencilings of Phineas Quimby, some interest might be evoked for them. But until this act of sincerity be performed, so far as the evidence goes Quimby left no writings.
