is the plagiarist?), or did both plagiarize the work of a still unidentified third writer? Those are some of the possible puzzles even when the evidence seems firm.  Most often we rely, at least in part, on what is called internal evidence -- crossing fingers all the time.  Several deletions below challenge Wellesley 's use, particularly in vol. 4, of such evidence.   Sometimes better evidence now either confirms earlier suppositions or gives an article to a different contributor; often, unfortunately, when we question Wellesley 's evidence  we are left with no attribution of authorship.  So be it.  What, however, gives credibility to internal evidence, and what denies it credibility? If we attribute authorship on the basis of an introductory "As we explained in our article on this subject last year ...," are we not ignoring the possibility of a conscientious editor?  An anonymous writer speaks with the voice of the journal, not as "I, John Smith," and the editor effects that merger of writer and journal.  Even well-known pseudonyms do not always belong to a single contributor.  Though Blackwood's "Christopher North" is from the start most often John Wilson, other contributors did write as Christopher North.  Some editors were conscientious and made themselves acquainted with the contents of volumes published before they assumed the editorship.  John Forster asked for earlier volumes of the Foreign Quarterly when he became editor and, perhaps with a lawyer's instinct, familiarized himself with their contents, weaving his issues of the review into the fabric of