147
[ <f Jrxius " LETTERS.]
among English wiiters, and transmit a name
now little known, with distinguished lustre to
postenty."
Malone "held the opinion that if Barke did not write the Letters, they were at least written by some one who bad received considerable aid from Burke iu composing them It is said that upon Dyei *s death , 13ui ]\c obtained and destroyed all the papers which he had left behind him
Malono eti ongly favored the claims of Dyer, but it must be lemembeied that this claimant was a very old man at the time when these let- ters appeared, a fact inconsistent with the vigor and fire they exhibit
Sec also Dr (rood's Essay, and "Notes and Queries," 3d Sei,, Is. 261,
Flood, Henry, b. 17S2; d. 1701.
For extensive criticisms in favor of and against the claims of this Irish orator, the reader is 10- ferred to Dr. Good's Essay, "Wade i 79 (No. LXXVTI), and "Notes and Queries." 2d Ser. viii. 101, 180, 259,
Francis, Sir Philip b. 1740 ; d. 1818.
The external evidence is, we thmk, such as would support a verdict in a civil, nay, in a crim- inal proceeding. The handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised. As to the position, pursuits, and connections of Juntas, the following are the most important facts which oan be considered as clearly proved: First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the secretary of state's office, secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the "War-office ; thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of speeches, particulaily of the speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the place of deputy-secretary of war; fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Hol- land Now, Francis passed some years in the secretary of state's office. He was subsequently chief clerk of the War-office. He repeatedly mentioned that he had himself, in 1770, heard speeches of Lord Chatham, and some of these speeches were actually printed from his notes. He leeugned his clerkship at the War-office from resentment at the appointment of Mr. Chamier. It was by Loid Holland that he was first Intro- duced into the public service. INbw, here are five marks, all of which ought to DO found in Junius. They are all five found in Francis. We do not believe that more than two of them can be found in any other person whatever. If this argument does not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on circumstantial evi- dence. KACACLAT.
My own impression fe that the " Letters of Juniue " were written fay Sir Philip Francis. In a speech which I once hoard him deliver at the Mansion House, concerning the partition of Po- land, I had a striking proof that Francis pos- sessed no ordinary powers of eloquence. Koo- ERS, "Table Talk," p. 272.
I have inserted the foregoing quotations, to in- dicate what has been said in favor of Francis' claims; if the reader is curious enough to pur- sue the subject more extensively, he will find , chapter on the disputed question in the u Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis,*' by Parkes and Merivale, L. 1867, i . '22S-303 Sec also Taylor's works, Nos. XL. and XLYIII. ; Wade, it. XXX.-XG., No. LXSYH. ; "Notes and Queries," 1st Ser., si. 117, and Hos.
LTV , liTl , l/VII., LXX71II., XC.
The following letter, taken from the " Athe- naeum," March 10, 1861, may be of interest in this
I have often tried to guess the meaning of the
motto to Junius, tl Stat nomintt umbra" "The
shadow of tho name stands " But in looking, the
other day, at the title-page of the " Etymologicou
Anglicanum," I thought that I could guess the
meaning. The title is,
Trancisci Pilil
Etymologicon
Anglicanum. And under the frontispiece are these words:
Iraneiscus Junius,
tfraneisci Filius
We know that Sir P. Francis often gave ob- ecure hints as to his authorship ot Junius. I think that by the words, " Rtat nomints umbra," he meant to indicate fhat Juniua was the son of Francis. This mayhem far-f etched; but what other explanation of the motto can you give? My explanation is that he meant to establish a claim to the authorship, without being forced to make that claim , which, in fact, he never had the cour- age to do.
Taylor, in Woodfall's edition of 1812, was the
first person who fixed upon Francis as the author,
but he fell iuto one of the snares which Junius
had adroitly laid for enquirers. Misled " by one
of those well-contrived feints that were meant to
mislead,** Mr. Taylor inferred titat Junius must
be a person of advanced years, and fixed upon
the Rev. Philip Francis, the father of Sir Philip,
as the author. The elder Francis-was a fine classi-
cal scholar, celebrated for his raasterly transla-
tions of Horace and Demosthenes ; but when Mr
Taylor discovered him to be ten years older than
he had at first been led to believe, he devoted all
his attention toward proving the claims of the
younger man, and embodied hi& researches in a
subsequent volume.
ADTEBSE CBITIOI8MS O?ON P3&ANCIS* CLAIMS.
Sir Kathaniel "Wraxall is convinced that Sir Philip Francis was the authoi of Juuius. I do not yet believe it. He was too vain a man to let the secret die with him. SIR EGEBTON BBTDGES' " Notes on Wraxall's Memoirs."
I persist in thinking that neither Mr. Burfce nor Philip Francis was the author of the let- ters under the signature of Junius. I think the mind of the first so superior, and the mind of the latter so inferior, to that of Junius, aa to put the supposition that either of them was Junius wholly out of the question. MB. OHA.BLES BUT- LER'S Letter to Mr JE H. Barker, June 14, 1828.
We must all grant that a strong case has been made out for Francis; but I could aet up very stout objections to those claims. It was not in his nature to keep a secret, He would have told It from vanity, or from his courage, or from his patriotism. His bitterness, his vivacity, Tiis acute- ness, are stamped, in characters very peculiar, upon many publications that bear his name; and very f amt indeed is their resemblance to the spirit, and, in an extended sense of the word, to the style, of Jrmias. DJB. PARR,
With reference to the claims of Sir Philip, I am inclined to use the form of argument called a " dllemnoa " Thus, zi Sir Philip Francis was the author of the letters, he was A scurrilous libel- ler, if he was not, he was splendide mendax, ufrum horum mavis atxtipe, JOHS WIUKINS, in 1865.
Francis' claims are also adversely discussed in Fellows* "The Postbumous Works of Jnnius," No. Lxni,; Jaqnes, p. 173, No. t-xxv.j "Notes and Queries," 2d Ser., vi. 43; 3d Ser., vffl, 183,
