1 Clemens’s “note” has not been found. Horace Bushnell (1802–76) was the minister of Hartford’s North Church of Christ (later Park Congregational Church) from 1833 to 1859. He was also the author of a number of controversial but influential theological works and volumes of sermons, many written in his retirement, notably Christian Nurture (1861), which urged the religious training of children, and The Vicarious Sacrifice (1866), which formulated his theory of the “moral influence” of Christ’s Atonement. Bushnell was both friend and mentor to Twichell: it was Bushnell who in 1865 recommended Twichell for the pastorate at the newly formed Asylum Hill Congregational Church, and whose unconventional theological views—with their rejection of strict Calvinism and emphasis on perceiving spirituality in man and in nature—Twichell soon embraced (Trumbull, 1:389–90; Strong, 47, 57–59; Andrews, 25–30).

2 Twichell had somehow confounded Clemens’s attempt to give a book to Bushnell (see the enclosure with this letter). Clemens here rectified the situation by enclosing the money for Twichell to purchase the book. The present letter has been assigned a date of 20 December or shortly thereafter, since Clemens probably wrote to Twichell soon after receiving Bushnell’s letter.

3 On 29 November (26 Nov 72 to JLC and PAM).

4 Only a fragment of Clemens’s “(bogus) protest” has survived, in a manuscript of just over five pages, written on the blue-lined wove paper (bearing an “e. h. mfg. co.” embossment) which Clemens used from December 1872 to May 1873. Clemens had the publishers address Congress as follows:

Clemens was apparently reacting to recent efforts to pass a more comprehensive copyright law. On 11 December 1871, a bill “for securing to authors in certain cases the benefit of international copyright, advancing the development of American literature, and promoting the interests of publishers and book-buyers in the United States” had been introduced in the House by Samuel S. Cox, representative from New York (Congressional Globe 1872, 2:29). It was referred to the House Library Committee, which solicited the views of prominent American publishers. Despite significant disagreement among themselves, the publishers were able to draft a document recommending that foreign authors be allowed to obtain copyright “upon the same terms and conditions as are now required of an American author” (“The International Copyright Movement—Meeting of Publishers—Appointment of a Committee to Go to Washington,” New York Times, 7 Feb 72, 8). The copyright bill languished in committee throughout 1872, however, and was finally reported adversely in February 1873: “In the opinion of the committee such legislation was inexpedient. . . . The committee was discharged from further consideration of the subject” (Congressional Globe 1873, 2:1164).