Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

BY SIR HARRIS NICOLAS.

On the general question of the authorship of Junius's Letters my views coincide with those so ably expressed in the Edinburgh Review, that though the happiness of mankind may not be materially interested in its determination, and though it may not involve any great or scientific truths, yet, as a point of literary history, it ranks very high; and the fact of the community having long taken so extraordinary an interest in the subject, as to have given birth to at least a hundred volumes or pamphlets, besides innumerable essays and letters in magazines or newspapers, and that a great and universal curiosity is still felt to know who wrote the Letters, seem quite sufficient to justify a good deal of pains in the research, and satisfaction on the discovery. Perhaps we might add, that the obscurity in which the point is still involved, seems a reflection upon the critical acumen and literary industry of those who have investigated the subject; for it is almost incredible that means should not exist for removing the veil in which Junius has for nearly eighty years been shrouded. It has long been our conviction that the materials for ascertaining who Junius really was have not been so carefully nor so impartially examined as they might be; and that a mass of facts could be obtained from the Letters, which, when brought together and classed, would be found of infinite value to future investigators of this perplexing question. Though the Letters have been repeatedly read by all writers on the subject, two mistakes seem to have been committed. First (and which is fatal to almost any inquiry), the Letters have been critically examined by various persons, not to ascertain who the author might have been, but to establish some preconceived theory; and thus the same passages have been cited as conclusive proofs of totally different facts. Secondly, the passages and statements chiefly relied upon are such as Junius would naturally have used for the mere purposes of argument or illustration,-to give greater force to his attacks,―or to divert attention from himself. With these objects he evidently feigned representations of his own character, situation, and feelings; simulated disapprobation of men and measures; attacked or defended individuals, and expressed opinions according as the interests of his party or his own political views dictated, and which accounts for the contradictions and inconsistencies that appear in some of his writings.

To deny that Junius was a consummate actor, if even a stronger term would not be still more applicable, would be to deny that he wrote from political or party motives, and that he availed himself of the weapons which then disgraced party warfare. It is not, therefore, in studied phrases, elaborate metaphors, or well-turned periods; nor in the attacks upon or praise of individuals, that the author is to be traced. These were the materials of his business-the tools of his art-and are, consequently, of little other value for his identity, than as they afford evidence of his powers of composition. But even in this point of view their utility is materially lessened by the immense labour with which the Letters were written, and by the improbability of finding any other of his compositions after that time on which so much care was bestowed. But though great reliance should not be placed on those finished productions bearing the signature of Junius, they nevertheless afford some materials for identifying their author.

But Junius's private correspondence with Woodfall seems a far safer guide for tracing him; for though he was probably almost as desirous of concealing himself from his publisher as from the public, and may have taken nearly equal pains to mystify both, yet those letters were necessarily of a much more personal nature than the others; and they consequently exhibit many peculiarities of thought, feeling, temperament, and style, besides affording other facts of considerable importance for his identification.

Yet the difficulty of determining what passage or statement in any of his letters was true, is so great, that too much hesitation cannot be shown in fixing upon any one, as being the certain representative of a fact, unless it be supported by some corroborating circumstance. All inquirers into

Junius's identity, must, we apprehend, have felt this difficulty; for we find them adopting some parts of the Letters as true, and regarding others as feigned, though the grounds for belief in the selected passages seem equally uncertain.

For these reasons a complete analysis of the letters appears to be one of the most likely modes of ascertaining their author; for it is scarcely possible that some indications of the man should not be found in the dissection of several hundred of his letters, extending over nearly six years, and treating not only of all the political and party transactions of the period, but containing a quantity of personal matter altogether unprecedented in any political writer.

Hypocrisy cannot be consistent for a long period and under a great variety of circumstances; nor can any one, be his skill what it may, altogether conceal the idiosyncracies of his nature when called into active life, whether as a speaker or an author. Though for these reasons we should place little weight on the tests usually relied upon for discovering Junius, yet his public as well as his private letters contain some minute peculiarities, as well as some statements, which are deserving of attention. Identity of an anonymous writer lurks in favourite words; in repeated allusions to objects or sentiments with which he was familiar in early life, or which became habitual from professional avocations; to feelings inspired by an unconscious but predominant passion; in national or provincial phrases; in dates and localities; in accidental references to inconveniences, personal or local, arising out of his immediate labours, and which fall unconsciously from the pen; in punctuation; in the use of capital letters; and, indeed in those numerous small but marked peculiarities by some of which each writer is distinguished from another, and which are rarely attempted to be concealed or suppressed, because he himself is usually unconscious of their existence.

Another equally strong, if not stronger peculiarity is handwriting; and we think it as impossible for a person to disguise his writing in an effectual manner, as to change his features or his voice, unless, indeed, he be a professed mimic or ventriloquist. Most of Junius's notes to Mr. Woodfall, together with the corrected copy of Wheble's edition of the Letters, from which the first authorized edition was printed, are fortunately preserved.

It is here proper to remark that so far from having any theory of our own on Junius's identity, we are as entirely free from bias on the subject, and confess ourselves as profoundly ignorant of the authorship of those celebrated Letters, as if, instead of having for many years constantly had the question in our mind, and having read, we believe, nearly everything that has been

We

written on the point, we had never bestowed a thought on the matter. have indeed a strong impression that Junius was not any one of the numerons persons heretofore so confidently brought forward*; and we may at the conclusion of these papers, perhaps, "sum up" the evidence arising out of our analysis of the Letters, with the view of showing what facts must, in our judgment, meet in Junius. Our readers will have the goodness to bear in mind that our sole object is to bring together materials not hitherto collected, and parts of which only have hitherto been used, and then only to support some preconceived opinion. Having, on the contrary, no opinion to establish, we view the Letters, and the other circumstances which will be mentioned, as a mass of raw material, shall use them with the hope of enabling other inquirers to obtain from them some certain result. However startling the idea may be to the many pseudo-discoverers of Junius on both sides the Atlantic, we found much of the claim of our observations to attention in the very fact of our having no Junius of our own, and on our disbelief in each of theirs.

The analysis of Junius's Letters will consist of

1. The dates and signatures to all the letters in Woodfall's edition in 3 vols. 8vo, 1814 (now re-published in 2 vols.), arranged in chronological order. 2. Extracts from, or references to, letters containing indications of

Personal dislike to individuals.

Personal approbation of individuals.
Disapprobation of public measures.
Approbation of public measures.

3. Indications of intimate knowledge of the proceedings of, or other matters relating to

The court,

The ministry,

The army.

4. Collection of statements as alleged facts, connected with Junius's identity, consisting of allusions to his own taste, opinions, proceedings, pursuits, habits, temper, age, movements, &c.

5. Indications of Junius being, if not a regular author, at all events a practised writer for the press.

6. Indications of his

Dislike of certain professions, country, &c.

7. Peculiar words or phrases, metaphors, style, &c., orthography, &c. 8. Remarks on the handwriting of Junius.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST of all the LETTERS attributed to JUNIUS, with the dates, signatures, and principal purport, distinguishing the private from the published Letters; and referring to the volume and page of Woodfall's edition wherein they occur. All the Letters were addressed" to the Printer of," or "for the Public Advertiser," except where otherwise stated:—

I.-1767, April 28. "Poplicola."-A severe attack upon Lord Chatham, accusing him of aiming at arbitrary power, and charging him with having *This essay was written in 1843.

"sacrificed" his brother-in-law, Lord Temple, and of promoting his "rancorous enemy," the Duke of Bedford. Lord Camden, the Chancellor, is called an apostate lawyer, weak enough to betray the laws of his country."(ii. 451.)

[ocr errors]

II.-1767, May 28. "Poplicola."-A reply to Sir William Draper's defence of Lord Chatham, and supporting the charges against him.-(ii. 458.) III.-1767, June 24. "Anti Sejanus, jun."-An attack on Lord Bute, and on Lord Chatham, for his "base apostacy." "I will not censure him for the avarice of a pension, nor the melancholy ambition of a title”—“ but to become the stalking-horse of a stallion"-[Lord Bute, then suspected of connection with the Princess of Wales] which is again alluded to in Letter V.— (ii. 465.)

IV.-1767, Aug. 25. St. James's Coffee House. "A Faithful Monitor." -Censuring the appointment of Lord Townshend as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and of his brother, the Hon. Charles Townshend, as Chancellor of the Exchequer." I have been some time in the country."-"I am not a stranger to this par nobile fratrum. I have served under the one, and have been forty times promised to be served by the other." Calls Lord Townshend a boaster without spirit, and alludes to his affairs with Lord [quær. Albemarle] and Mr. ——," in which he set out with unnecessary insolence, and ended with shameful tameness."—(ii. 468.)

V.-1767, Sept. 16. "Correggio."-On Lord Townshend's talents in caricaturing, and suggesting subjects for his pencil from the ministry, viz. the Duke of Grafton, Mr. Conway, Lord Camden, Lord Chatham, Lord Shelburne, Lord Northington, &c. Several lacunæ occur in this letter.-(ii. 470.)

66

VI.-1767, Oct. 12. Moderator."-In reference to a controversy respecting Lord Townshend's courage, and supporting the attack on that nobleman. -(ii. 475.)

VII.-1767, Oct. 22. (No signature.)—" Grand Council upon the affairs of Ireland, after eleven adjournments." A satirical paper on the instructions to be given to Lord Townshend, as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The speakers are, Lord Northington, President of the Council; Lord Camden, Chancellor; Conway and Lord Shelburne, Secretaries of State; and Lord Townshend himself, whose supposed want of personal courage is frequently alluded to, and he is made to say, "I will consult Lord George Sackville, as he loves to be in the rear as well as myself." This paper, which was imputed to Burke, was reprinted in the Political Register, where the coarse expressions given to Lord Northington occur at length. The Chancellor observes of the Irish, that it "is their claim and birthright to talk without meaning, and to live without law."-(ii. 483.)

VIII.-1767, Oct. 31. (No signature.)-Noticing another version of the Grand Council, which had appeared for the purpose of attacking Burke, offering to produce proofs which will gall "a Correspondent's patrons" that Lord Townshend could not obtain any instructions, and pointedly alluding to a conversation between Lord Townshend and one of the Secretaries on the subject. (ii. 493.)

IX.-1767, Dec. 5. "Y. Z."-Sending a copy of Mr. Burke's speech against the Ministry, but which the printer was afraid to insert, who apologized to his "valuable correspondent C." for the omission.-(ii. 498.)

X.-1767, Dec. 19. (No signature).-Censuring the conduct of the American Colonies, and the repeal of the Stamp Act; and on the state of the

« PreviousContinue »