240 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 150. 



publication. From that time the letters were 

 republished in most of the London and provincial 

 newspapers, in the magazines, and other periodi- 

 cals : and, as in Junius s supposed Address to a 

 Great Personage, they were on occasions re-issued 

 as pamphlets. 



The first collected edition was that referred to 

 by Junius himself (P. L., No. 4.) : The Political 

 Contest; containing a Series of Letters between 

 Junius and Sir William Draper ; also the whole 

 of Junius' s Letters to the Z> * * * of G ***** * 

 hrought into one View : London, Printed for 

 F. Newbery. 



From the title of this pamphlet it is obvious 

 that it was the contest or controversy with " the 

 Knight of the Bath" which first suggested the re- 

 publication; and therefore it was that Newbery 

 began his collection with the letter of Jan. 21, tJie 

 first to which Draper replied. 



Newbery's speculation was successful, and his 

 pamphlet soon came to a second edition, tlie 

 "advertisement" to which is dated "Aug. 12th." 

 Therein "the editor" announces his intention "to 

 annex whatever may flow from the masterly pen 

 of Junius in future by way of supplement to this 

 collection." A supplement, or, as it is called, 

 "Continuation Part IL," soon followed, and 

 brought down the reprints to Draper's letter of 

 Sept. 25, 1769 ; and it is probable that other con- 

 tinuations were from time to time published, — a 

 fact of which some more fortunate collector may 

 be able to inform you. 



The next pamphlet, so far as I can speak from 

 personal knowledge, was : A Collection of the Let- 

 ters of Atticus, Lucius, Junius, and others. With 

 Observations and Notes. A New Edition, continued 

 to the end of Oct. 17G9. Almon, 1769. 



This " new edition" means, I suppose, " second 

 edition" of the pamphlet ; if so, I should be obliged 

 to any one who will inform me of the exact con- 

 tents of the first edition. I may also observe that 

 the "and others" of the title-page means merely 

 letters published in reply — as those of Cleophas to 

 Lucius, Draper to Junius : the publication being 

 limited to the letters of Atticus, Lucius, and 

 Junius. 



The selection and parade of these names is, under 

 circumstances, curious, and worth a passing com- 

 ment. We are told by the editor of the edition of 

 1812 — a truly oracular person, and now considered 

 as an oracle — that Almon was a vain, precipitate, and 

 incautious man, who affected to know a great deal 

 about Junius, although he knew little or nothing 

 on the subject. This is not altogether just. Almon 

 was a vain man certainly, and knew little more 

 about Junius than the editor; but he was not 

 more precipitate or incautious. True or not, 

 we would ask by what knowledge or ignorance, 

 intuition or instinct, Almon in 1769 selected the 

 letters of Atticus, Lucius, and Junius, and put 



them thus conspicuously together in a title-page ; 

 when it was not until 1812 the public were in- 

 formed that these letters were all written by the 

 same person, and were first so informed by the 

 editor himself? If Almon knew it, he must have 

 known more than the editor gives him credit for ; 

 if he came to that conclusion from internal evi- 

 dence alone, he must have been a very clever 

 fellow. But if we put faith in the assertions of 

 the editor, it is scarcely possible to believe that 

 either critical acumen or chance could have led 

 to all the results ; for strange as this association 

 of names must be considered, the selection of 

 particular letters is still more so. Atticus, for 

 example, was for many years a not unfrequent 

 correspondent of the Public Advei-tiser ; and if 

 Junius were Atticus, it would seem a reasonable 

 conclusion that all the letters in the Public Adver- 

 tiser so signed were written by Junius. Not so, 

 says the editor (vol. i. p. 55.) ; some of them are 

 excellent letters ; exhibit much of our author's 

 style, spirit, and sentiments ; but, " for various 

 reasons," he is convinced they are not the pro- 

 ductions of Junius, and he selects and publishes 

 only four letters so signed as genuine. We regret 

 that he did not favour the public with some of 

 his " various reasons." But let us for the moment, 

 take his word for the fact. How then was it, we 

 ask, that this same ignorant Almon in 1769 made 

 the exact same selection from the letters signed 

 " Atticus " — published the same four letters,. 

 neither more nor less ? 



Again, the editor tells us that Junius was Lucius. 

 I do not mean to question anything the editor has 

 asserted, but simply to notice that Lucius also was 

 a frequent contributor to the Public Advertiser ;^^ 

 and yet the editor has selected only eight letters 

 as written by Junius under that signature. Of 

 these, two are mere fljing shots fired at corre- 

 spondents ; and the six substantive letters — every 

 one of them, and neither more nor fewer — were 

 selected by Almon, and published in this pam- 

 phlet in 1769 ! Could this be chance ? If so, as 

 Junius said on another occasion, it comes " as near 

 to impossible as the highest improbability can go." 

 Or did Almon receive a hint from some of his 

 political friends that such a republication might 

 be judicious and profitable ; without, of course, 

 any intimation that the letters were written by 

 one and the same person, for that would have 

 betrayed a secret ? — or did the editor of the edition 

 of 1812 take a hint from Almon's pamphlet, and, 

 wanting matter to fill his " three vols. 8vo.," put 

 forth, after his daring fashion, a mere conjecture 

 of his own as an undoubted fact ? The question, 

 be it remembered, is not whether the letters, or 

 certain letters, of Atticus and Lucius were writ- 

 ten by Junius — that must be decided on other 

 grounds, — but whether it was by hint or chance 

 that Almon in 1769 hit upon the exact letters. 



