(Vol. v., p. 125.)
The experience of a pretty long life has taught me never to believe a
Junius "rumour"; never to believe in any story of a coming Junius, no
matter how confidently or circumstantially told, which is not _proved_;
and I think the short experience of the Editor of "N. & Q." must have
convinced him that what is asserted on men's personal knowledge--the
evidence of their own eyes and ears (see case of ÆGROTUS, Vol. iii., p.
378.), may possibly be untrue, on the proof that it was impossible. Out
of respect, however, to "N. & Q.," I will say a few words on the rumours
to which JUNIUS QUERIST refers.
One of your correspondent's rumours is to this effect, that an eminent
bookseller was lately called in to value certain MSS., and thus
accidentally discovered who "Atticus _or_ Brutus was, and _consequently_
who Junius himself was." This _consequently_ is certainly a most
astounding _non-sequitur_ to those who are reasonably well-informed as
to the present state of the Junius question. But let that pass. Still I
must observe that your correspondent is dealing with a rumour; that the
rumour does not tell us whether the discovery is inferential or
positive--relates to Atticus or Brutus: nothing can well be more vague.
Now my "rumour" said the discovery was of the writer of the letters of
Lucius. Under these circumstances it would be idle to waste another line
in speculation: enough for the information of your correspondent, if I
add, that in one case the discovery _might_ help us to a _conjecture_
who Junius _was_; in another, might prove who he was _not_.
As to the "rumours" about the scents contained in the _Grenville
Papers_, they would fill a volume. They have been buzzing about for more
than a quarter of a century. The nonsense of one-half was demonstrable
by any intelligent person who would have taken the trouble to examine
and test them: but nobody did take such trouble. "N. & Q." was not then
in existence. The most plausible, and seemingly, from its
circumstantiality, best authenticated version, was given by Mr. Barker,
in 1828, to the effect that three letters had been discovered, one of
which had a fictitious signature; another asked legal advice of Mr.
Grenville as to publishing the letter to the King; and the third
enclosed a copy of Junius's letter to Lord Mansfield, signed with the
author's initials, and with a reference therein to a letter received
from Mr. Grenville.
The publication of the letters will soon put an end to "rumour."
Meanwhile the few following facts will dispose of Mr. Barker's
circumstantial fictions, and perhaps satisfy your correspondent.
There are amongst the _Grenville Papers_ three letters, dated Feb.,
Sept., and Nov., 1768; the _last_ therefore before the _first_ Junius
was published.
_Two_ of these letters are signed with the initial C.; and, on the
similarity of the handwriting, it is assumed that the _three_ letters
came from the same person. The writer of the _unsigned_ letter claims to
have written many of the letters which had latterly appeared in the
newspapers, and, amongst others, a letter signed Atticus, a copy of
which he encloses. This is according to my recollection; but I will not
say positively that he does not claim to be the writer of the _letters_
signed Atticus. The question, therefore, at present stands thus:--The
connexion of these letters with the writer of Junius's letters is an
inference or assumption, not a fact. It remains to be proved: and, for
anything I know to the contrary, it may hereafter be proved by the
editor of the _Grenville Papers_,--a diligent and careful man,--that the
unknown writer of the unsigned letter is worthy of belief; that he was
the same person who wrote the two letters signed C.; that Mr.
Grenville's correspondent C. in 1768, was Woodfall's correspondent C. in
1769; and then, whether Mr. Grenville's Atticus was the same Atticus
whose four letters were published as written by Junius, by Mr. _George_
Woodfall in the edition of 1812. Simple as this last question may
appear, and naturally as most persons would come to a conclusion on the
subject, I think it well to mention as a warning, that there were, as
admitted in the _Public Advertiser_, two persons who about the same time
wrote under that signature, and I think clear evidence of a third
writer.