July 14. 1855.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



23 



(Vol, vi., p. 383.)- Tlaafc it was not the first edi- 

 tion is proved, as you liave sliown, by Junius's 

 own instructions to the printer (Priv. Let., 

 No. 59.) : 



" In. the preface, p. 20. line 7., read unseasonable. 

 „ p. 2G. line 18., accuracy." 



for the words referred to occur in the edition of 

 1772, at lines 7. and 18., whereas in the edition 

 without date they occur in lines 10. and 22. 

 These facts are conclusive : they prove that the 

 edition without date could not have been the 

 edition referred to by Junius, — could not, there- 

 fore, have been the first edition. 



Another fact equally conclusive is, that no edi- 

 tion which contains an " Index " could have been 

 the edition referred to by Junius — the edition 

 first issued. This subject also was heretofore con- 

 sidered in "ISr. & Q." (Vol. vi., p. 383), and may 

 therefore be here briefly disposed of. Junius, in a 

 private letter to the printer (No. 58.), expresses 

 his anger that the book had been issued to the 

 public before copies had been forwarded to him. 



" I was impatient to see the book, and think I had a 

 right to that attention a little before the general publi- 

 cation." 



Copies were immediately sent, with a letter of 

 explanation, to which Junius replies (No. 59.), — 



" Your letter, ivilh the hooks, are come safe to hand . , . 

 If the vellum books are not yet bound, / loould wait for 

 the Index.'" 



This letter (No. 59.) contains the very errata above 

 referred to, and is proof, therefore, that the copies 

 issued to the jiublic, and those suhsequenilij sent to 

 Junius and referred to hy Junius^ were without an 

 index. 



Here then, on the authority of Mr. Home, is 

 evidence that Mr. Georjie Vroodfall did not know 

 which was the first collective edition — did not 

 know the order and sequence, or contents of the 

 editions printed in his father's office (subsequently 

 his owu office) — and did not take the trouble to 

 examine or inquire, yet spoke on the subject with- 

 out hesitation or qualification. 



Mr. Home farther states, also on the authority 

 of Mr. George Woodfall, that "the proof-sh-eets " 

 of the edition without date (or, to give him all 

 possible licence, of the first collective edition) 

 were " corrected by Junius himself," Like state- 

 ments have been made by others ; the fact, in- 

 deed, assumed to be unquestionable ; and certain 

 corrected proof-sheets, as they are called, still in 

 the possession of the Woodfall family, have been 

 referred to as evidence. Under these circum- 

 stances, therefore, I must believe that at that time 

 Mr. George Woodfall was himself of opinion that 

 he possessed the proof-sheets corrected by Junius. 

 His statements to Mr. Home, and probably to 

 others, gave currency to that opinion ; and there 

 is a vitality in error which cannot be trampled 



No. 298.] 



out. Here we have it, reproduced from America, 

 half a century or more after its first circiilation ; 

 and long after it had been shown in " N, & Q." 

 (Vol. vi., p. 261.) that what are called the cor- 

 rected /)n;o/s of edit. 1772, are corrected sheets of 

 one of Wheble's editions, sent as copij. 



The statement, however, is so important, and 

 opens so wide a field for speculation, that it may 

 be well here to consider whether "the proof- 

 sheets" of the edition of 1772 were or were not 

 " corrected by Junius himself." The history of 

 that edition, given in the " Preliminary Essay" to 

 the edition of 1812 (pp. 57. 60.), is, like so many 

 other circumstantialities in that essay, purely spe- 

 culative and imaginative. Where, for example, 

 is authority to be found for the assertion that 

 Junius " unde7-took to superirdend it as far as his 

 invisibility might allow him ?" Junius distinctly 

 told the printer that he would not superintend it. 



" You must correct the press yourself, but I sh'' be glad 

 to see corrected proofs of the 2 first sheets." (Xo. 40.) 

 " In a few days more I shall have sent you all the copy. 

 You must then take care of it yourself, except that I must 

 see proof Sheets of Ded" & Pref., & these, if at r ", I must 

 see before the End of next week." (No. 45.) 



Again, and in the next letter : 



" The inclosed compleats all the materials that I can 

 give. I have done my part. Take care you do yours.'* 

 (No. 46.) 



Nothing can be more clear, I think, than that 

 Junius not only did not undertake to superintend 

 that edition, but, from the outset, he distinctly 

 told the printer that, with the exception of the 

 first two sheets and the dedication and preface, 

 the printer must do it himself. It farther appears 

 from the correspondence that Junius did see 

 proofs of the first two sheets — perhaps the first 

 three — but too late for purposes of correction, as 

 I judge from the "woeful mistake" referred to 

 (No. 44.) not having been corrected ; and that he 

 did not see proofs of the dedication and preface 

 (No. 46.). Why need not be here considered. 



Here the question might rest, but that the writer 

 of the Essay — speaking, of course, on what he as- 

 sumed to be the knowledge of Mr. George Wood- 

 fall, for he had no knowledge of his own — pro- 

 ceeds, after his fashion, into details which startle 

 by their circumstantiality. Thus we are told 

 (p. 63.) that " the difficulties of sending proofs and 

 revises forward and backward were so consider- 

 able " as to delay the publication ! Fortunately, 

 in the very next page (64.) he shows that there 

 could have been no such delay arising from such 

 cause ; for he tells us " the letters at large, ex- 

 cepting the first two sheets, which were revised 

 by the author himself, were, from the difficulty of 

 conveyance, entrusted to the correction of Mr. 

 Woodfall;'''' so that, except the first two sheets,^ 

 there was no sending proofs or revises either 

 backward or forward. Therefore, not only oa 



