1806.] 



Edition of the J^etters of Jmiius. 



22© 



hy ;i more acute or Induftrious correfpon- 

 d'ent. 



Tlie firft faft adduced by IVIr. Almon is 

 the liuuidrity ot" tlie liand-writin!f of Boyd 

 tu that of Junius ; but fuiely tiie very CJV- 

 fual obfeivutioii of the majiui'cript which 

 Mr. Ahiioii iiad it in bis power to make, 

 was not furticient to enable liim to de- 

 cide the point with futiicient accuracy. 

 It appears that Boyd had been accullom- 

 ed to dir^uife his hand ; and xMr. A. muft 

 liave halt tlieretbre the hngular felicity to 

 diicover in tlie outlines of a dil'^iiired 

 writing tiie fame charaCteriftic marks 

 which dilliiiguilhed the genuine nianu- 

 fcrij)t of Boyd. It is of no importance 

 to fay, that the acknowledged writing of 

 Boyd which was feeu by Mr. Almon, 

 may have been likewife dilguded, fmce 

 it is utterly improbable that Boyd Uiould 

 difguife his writing to facilitate deceit ; 

 and yet that he Ihould allow this difguil- 

 ed hand to be fccn by Mi: Almon, — that 

 he Ihould ufe a malk f^jr the purpofe of 

 conccahncnt, and yet wear it in the com- 

 pany of his friends. 



The change of colour in Boyd's coun- 

 Itcnance upoii the queltion of Mr. Almon, 

 may be fathciently accounted for from 

 furprife, oi'modefty, wit.bout luppofing it 

 to have arifen from his confufiou at the 

 difcovery. Any man taxed v.ith the 

 writing of a paper, would behave in the 

 fame manner, tiiough the acculatioa 

 might be totally groundlefs. Although 

 Boyd, perhaps, after cool deliberation, 

 jnight have had no objection to be confi- 

 dered as Junius, yet the tirft difck)fure of 

 f'.ich a fufpicion misiht naturally confound 

 him. So much likewife depends upon 

 the manner of hiiitiiig fuch a conjecture, 

 th;|t it would be totally iinpoiiible to 

 draw anv inference from the behnviour 

 of Boyd, whatever it may have been, 

 unlcfb wx- knew the exact words in which 

 Mr. Almon addreiftd him. 



l"hc political attachment of Boyd to 

 J.ord Sheibniiie's party is of little confe- 

 quence to the argument, lince the fame 

 reafoning might equally apply to all the 

 followers of thiit party. The etfedt of 

 the a]>p!icHtion to Mr. Grattan feems 

 likewife to contradict many of Mr. Al- 

 nioii's inference? ; and it has not yet 

 been explained, even aliov/ing to Boyd 

 fill extraordinary attachment to the Sliel- 

 buriie party, what motive of zeal or am- 

 bition coulil fxrite him to an attack fo 

 bold and virulent, whifh nothing but 

 jHrfonal refentment could excite, nor 

 perfoiial injury e:.cufe. 



Wuli rcjiavd to tiio (linilarity of the 



writings of Boyd to that of Junius, they 

 appear to me to polfefs all the fiugulan- 

 ties of that writer, without any of his 

 beauties. Junius is arch, witty, and ma- 

 lignant : his ibrle, though often incorrett, 

 aud fometiiues feeble, is always fniooth, 

 elegant, and jjoiuted. His wit is that of 

 the courtier and the gentleman : it has 

 all the iharpnefs of hitire, without any 

 of its coarfeaefs; aud directs the fmilc or 

 the indignation of its reader, without ex- 

 citing his hatred or difgull ugainli its au- 

 thor. We fometimes wonder at his bold- 

 ncfs, and are fometimes I'urpnfed by the 

 vveaknefs of his arguments ; but we al- 

 ways rcfpe6t him as one whole wit and 

 talents might excul'e greater improprie- 

 ties, and do honour to a better cauie. 



But the writings of Boyd are remark- 

 able for llifiiiefs of diction, and feverity 

 of lentimeiit, except in thole pail'ages 

 which are copied from Junius: there is 

 nothing playful, nothing poignant. He 

 appears as a ]>laiii countrv-gentleman, 

 vxhole vanity had incited hiin to imitate 

 tlie maimers and d/Ction of a courtier. 

 What he quotes from his mafier is totally 

 disfigured. Out of the many plagia- 

 rifnis from Junius, there is not one which 

 does not diigracc the original by foiae 

 av.kward tiftiifpoliiion of the words, or 

 fume fuperfluous amplification of the 

 thought. In thofe paiiages « here he has 

 trulled to his own power.s, his rcafoniiig is 

 without grace, and his wit without deli- 

 cacy, it is iuipolTiblc to fappofc that Ju- 

 nius could difguifo hanfelf ill fuch a man- 

 ner, or that Ills powers could have declin- 

 ed with fo much rapidity. If we allow 

 Boyd not to be Junius, every dilhculty 

 will be explained. We Ihall then per- 

 ceive that he propofcd that writer for his 

 model, without being able to attain his 

 elegance of ftyle, or his perfpicuity of 

 thought. 



There is one circumftance mentioned, 

 by Mr. Almon, wliicli may give room for 

 fome I'ufpicion that Boyd fometimes af- 

 fumcd the charattei- of Junius, or at lead 

 of the friend of Junius. He informed 

 his wife that Junius was iiie writer of the 

 EpilHe to Sir William Chambers. This 

 aliertion ?vTr. Almon has atfcrted to be 

 falie ; and it muft therefore be allowed 

 that Boyd wilhed to alUime an honour to 

 which he had no claim, or that he knevr 

 nothing of the matter. With regard to 

 the alfertion, that a clergyman now 

 iilive is the writer of the Epiftle to 

 Sir William Chambers, I am inclined to 

 believe that Mr. Almon was miftaken or 

 deceived. It is e:itremtly probable that 



ke 



