224 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[No. 149. 



of England, especially of the coif, now so much 

 diaiinished from its original size ? J. H. 



[For notices of the coif, consult Du Cange, v. Cufa: 

 Spelman, v. Birretum album, Coifa: Strutt, 237. See 

 also the article Coif in Enci/. Metropol., vol. xvii. p. 2., 

 which states that much curious matter respecting the 

 degree of the coif will be found in a work by the late 

 Serjeant Wynne, entitled Observations touching the 

 Dignity of the Degree of Serjeant-at- Law, 1765. This 

 work, however, is seldom to be met with, as only a few 

 copies of it were printed for private circulation.] 



W>.t^\iti, 



LETTERS OF JUNIUS. 



(Vol. v., passim.') 



Thanks for referring me to the editions in the 

 London Library, which are thus described in the 

 Catalogue : 



"11944. Junius. The Genuine Letters of, to 

 which are prefixed Anecdotes of the Author, 8vo. 

 Piccadilly, 1771. This first spurious edition contains 

 several letters not included in the genuine edition of 

 1771, or in Woodfall's last edition. The authorship is 

 fathered on Mr. Burke." 



" 1 1 945. Junius, the Letters of, First Genuine 

 Edition, 2 vols. 12mo. ; H. S. Woodfall, London, 

 1771." 



I was at first disposed to believe that there was 

 simply a typogi'aphical error as to the date of 

 Xo. 11945, and that it should have been 1772; 

 but in the description of No. 11944, it is again 

 formally referred to as " the genuine edition of 

 1771." 



I must confess that I read this description with 

 great surprise. I knew, or believed, from Junius's 

 private letters to Woodfall, that the first autho- 

 rised and acknowledged edition, " the author's 

 edition" as Junius calls It, was Jiot published In 

 Feb. 1772 (see Private Letters, Nos. 53. 55. 56.) ; 

 and I happened to know that the following adver- 

 tisement appeared in the Public Advertiser of 

 March 2, 1772: 



" The publication of the original and complete edi- 

 tion of Junius's Letters (printed by H. S. VVoodfall, 

 printer of this paper), with a Dedication, Preface, and 

 Notes, by the Author, will be tomorrow at noon, price 

 half a guinea, in two volumes, sewed." 



A reference to the copy In the London Library, 

 soon cleared up the mystery. It is all a mistake. 

 The edition was not published by Woodfall at all, 

 but by Wheble, whose name appears In the title- 

 page. It is not therefore the " first genuine edi- 

 tion," but one of the many spurious or pirated edi- 

 tions. It Is not even what perhaps I may be allowed 

 to call " a genuine spurious" edition, but a manu- 

 factured copy made up of many editions. Of this 



the proof Is simple and obvious. In the engraved 

 title-page, the work professes to have been 

 " printed by John Wheble, 1771 :" but the volumes 

 contain the letter to Mansfield, not published until 

 Jan. 21, 1772; the Dedication, not published, as 

 I have shown, until March 3, 1772 ; and they 

 conclude with a letter professedly written by and 

 signed Junius, addressed to Lord Apsley, and 

 dated Feb. 1775 ! 



In my opinion, the first volume was a separafe 

 publication, issued, as professed in the title-page, 

 in 1771, to which, after March, 1772, the Dedication 

 was added. The second volume was a distinct 

 publication in 1772. It must have been printed 

 after March, 1772, as It contains notes which first 

 appeared In " the author's edition." The letter 

 of Feb. 1775 Is a mystery which I must leave 

 others to explain. I first met with it in an edition 

 by Wheble, published In 1775. 



I could add numberless other proofs that these 

 volumes are a mere manufacture ; but enough, I 

 think, has been said to satisfy the most sceptical. 



Having thus shown that the description In the 

 Catalogue of No. 11945 Is a mistake, I may as 

 well add, though it Is of less Importance, that the 

 account of No. 11944 Is equally erroneous. The 

 edition referred to Is certainly not the " first spu- 

 rious edition," but, as I believe, the very last tliat 

 preceded the publication of the only genuine 

 edition, that of 1772. As to what Is meant by 

 " Woodfall's last edition," the description Is too 

 vague to justify comment ; for editions have been 

 printed by H. S. Woodfall, George Woodfall, and 

 the present Mr. Henry Woodfall. Neither Is It 

 correct to say that it contains many letters not 

 included, &c. In Woodfall's last edition ; for it 

 does not contain a single letter by Junius — except 

 the dozen lines on the Monody, which, being 

 merely temporary In their character, Junius him- 

 self struck out — that Is not to be found In every 

 edition published by a Woodfall, and In every 

 edition of Junius Letters. It contains. Indeed, 

 two letters by Draper, which had no business 

 there, and no way concerned Junius ; and aa 

 impudent forgery, professing to be a letter from 

 the King In reply to Junius. 



My attention having been thus drawn to the 

 subject, I will hereafter, with your permission, 

 say a few words and ask a few questions respecting 

 these early piratical editions, — the editions which 

 preceded "the author's" of 1772. This will be 

 the more readily excused, considering how little 

 Information we have on the subject ; and that, as 

 I believe, there is not one of these editions of this 

 British classic, as Junius Is called, to be found in 

 our great national library, the British Museum. 



L.J. 



