The editor of the _Grenville Papers_ has alluded to some "very judicious
and pertinent remarks in the 'N. & Q.'" respecting the Letters of Atticus,
and as most of your readers will probably agree with him that the
authenticity of these letters is "a curious and interesting question, and
one that deserves _very particular attention_," I beg to correct an error
into which he and others have fallen, as to the date when Junius ceased to
write under the signature Atticus. The Atticus forwarded by Junius to
George Grenville on the 19th October, 1768, was, there is every reason to
believe, the _last_ from the pen of that writer, who was then preparing to
come before the public in a more prominent character. When another
correspondent adopted the signature Atticus, Woodfall gave his readers
warning by inserting the following notice into the _Public Advertiser_:
"The Address to the Freeholders of the county of Middlesex, signed
_Atticus_, in our next. The Printer thinks it his duty to acquaint his
readers that this letter is not by the same hand as some letters in
this paper a little time since, under the signature _Atticus_."--_Pub.
Ad._, March 19, 1769.
The printer took the like course when writers attempted to "impose upon the
public" by using the signatures Lucius and C., and then freely inserted
their letters; but when the same trick was tried with Junius, the printer
did not scruple to alter the signature, or reject the contribution as
spurious.
The genuine Letters of Atticus have had a narrow escape lately of being
laughed out of their celebrity by writers in some of our most respectable
periodicals. The authenticity of these letters up to the 19th October,
1768, is now fully established. The undecided question of the authorship of
Junius requires that every statement should be carefully examined, and (as
far as possible) only well-authenticated facts be admitted as evidence in
future.