Feb. 14. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



159 



expression in the authorised version appeared to 

 him objectionable, he has removed or changed it. 

 Where entire verses, or a whole chapter, seemed 

 little fitted for family reading, he has placed such 

 portions in the lower part of the page, and has 

 printed them in Italics by way of distinction. He 

 lias also added a lineal arrangement of numerous 

 passages which seemed peculiarly fitted to exhibit 

 the characteristic features of Hebrew poetry. 

 - Altogether, it appears that Mr. Alexander's 

 object was most praiseworthy, his learning con- 

 siderable, and his diligence very great ; and it is 

 to be hoped that the remaining portions of his 

 work are not lost, but that they may yet be made 

 available in some manner for the pious purpose 

 which the author had in view. H. Cotton. 



Thurles, Ireland, 



JUNIUS humours. 

 (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 

 Low confidently or circumstantially told, which is 

 Tiot 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 

 «ase of JSgrotus, 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 con- 

 sequently 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 corre- 

 spondent 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 specula- 

 tion : enough for the information of your corre- 

 spondent, 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 Mans- 

 field, 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 putan 

 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 thejirst Junius was published. 



Two of these letters are signed with the initial 

 C. ; and, on the similai'ity 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 any- 

 thing I know to the contrary, it may hereafter be 

 proved by the eJitor 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 ad- 

 mitted in the Public Advertiser, two persons who 

 about the same time wrote under that signature, 

 and I think clear evidence of a third writer. 



J.E. 



WADY MOKATTEB NOT MENTIONED IN NUM. XI. 26.^ 



(Vol. iv., p. 481. ; Vol. v., pp. 31. 87.) 

 Your pages are not suited to the discussion of. 

 topics like this : I mean, that to enter fully into all 

 the points raised by Mr. MARGOLiouTn, would 



