Misplaced Pages

Identity of Junius: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:13, 4 February 2010 editCharles Matthews (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators360,533 edits →Early guesses: copy edits← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:18, 9 January 2025 edit undoDugan Murphy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,606 editsm →Early guesses: Change Wikilink to avoid redirect 
(125 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Original research|date=October 2007}} {{EngvarB|date=June 2017}}
{{Unreferenced|date=October 2007}} {{Use dmy dates|date=June 2017}}
''']''' was the ] of a writer who contributed a series of political letters to the ''Public Advertiser''<ref>The ''Public Advertiser'' was a political newspaper run by ], presumably based in London. His brother of William Woodfall later established the ''Daily'', a paper that reported on parliamentary debates.</ref>, from 21 January 1769 to 21 January 1772 as well as several other London newspapers such as the ''London Evening Post''. ''']''' was the ] of a writer who contributed a series of political letters critical of the government of ] to the '']'',<ref>The ''Public Advertiser'' was a political newspaper run by ], presumably based in London. His brother of William Woodfall later established the ''Daily'', a paper that reported on parliamentary debates.</ref> from 21 January 1769 to 21 January 1772 as well as several other London newspapers such as the '']''.


Charges were brought against several people, of whom two were convicted of and sentenced. Junius himself had been aware of the advantage and increased importance he secured by concealment, a fact he confessed in a letter to Wilkes dated September 18, 1771. His calculation was a sound one; generations after the appearance of the letters, speculations as to the authorship of Junius were rife and discussions has never ceased. Charges were brought against several people, of whom two were convicted and sentenced. Junius himself was aware of the advantages of concealment, as he wrote in a letter to ] dated 18 September 1771. Two generations after the appearance of the letters, speculation as to the authorship of Junius was rife. ] is now generally, but not universally, believed to be the author.


==Current scholarly views== ==Current scholarly views==


According to Alan Frearson<ref>Alan Frearson, ''The Identity of Junius'', Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies According to Alan Frearson<ref>Alan Frearson, "The Identity of Junius", ''Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies''
Volume 7 Issue 2, Pages 211 - 227, Published Online: 1 Oct 2008.</ref> there is scholarly consensus in favour of ]; he divides the evidence into four classes, and reports that each class "points most strongly to Francis". Volume 7 Issue 2, Pages 211 – 227, Published Online: 1 October 2008.</ref> there is scholarly consensus in favour of ]; he divides the evidence into four classes, and reports that each class "points most strongly to Francis".


This scholarly theory has been called the "Franciscan theory", at least since ]'s ''More about Junius: The Franciscan theory unsound'' (1868). Numerous subsequent publications have been written by those sceptical about the identification with Francis. ], editor of an edition of the ''Letters'' published in 1978, adhered to the Franciscan theory. As ] puts it, "while the Franciscan theory has recently enjoyed new life, it remains contested and impossible to demonstrate categorically".<ref>{{Cite ODNB |first=Francesco |last=Cordasco |title=Junius (fl. 1768–1773)|origyear=2004|date=January 2008 |id=45912}}</ref>
==Early guesses==


==Early guesses==
], author with ] of the ''Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis'' (1867), gave a list of more than forty persons who had been supposed to be Junius.<ref>Source, ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica''.</ref><ref>An 1855 edition of ''Junius'' by John Wade has over 30 names in common, but adds: ], ]. Dyer was believed to be Junius by ] and ]. {{DNB Cite|Dyer, Samuel}}</ref>
], author with ] of the ''Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis'' (1867), gave a list of more than forty persons who had been supposed to be Junius.{{sfn|Hannay|1911|p=558}}<ref>An 1855 edition of ''Junius'' by John Wade has over 30 names in common, but adds: ], ]. Dyer was believed to be Junius by ] and ].({{Cite DNB |first=Alsager Richard |last=Vian |wstitle=Dyer, Samuel |volume=16|page=288–289}})</ref>

{| class=wikitable
{|border=1
!Candidate !Candidate
!Comments !Comments
|-
|David Campbell Bannerman
|
|- |-
|] |]
|John Britton (1848), ''The authorship of the letters of Junius elucidated: including a biographical memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barré, M. P.''<ref></ref> |John Britton (1848), ''The authorship of the letters of Junius elucidated: including a biographical memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barré, M. P.''<ref>{{cite book|title=The authorship of the letters of Junius elucidated: including a biographical memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barré, M. P |year=1848 |last=Britton |first=John |url=https://archive.org/details/authorshiplette01britgoog}}</ref>
|- |-
|], ], ] (a "cabal")
|]
|George Lewis Smyth (1826), " formed intimate acquaintances with Hugh Boyd and Mr. Eden, afterwards Lord Auckland,--facts mentioned . . . here, because letters of Junius were at one time attributed to this trio" (''The Monuments and Genii of St. Paul's Cathedral and of Westminster Abbey'' (2:533). See, also, ] (1836) ''Lives of Eminent and Illustrious Englishmen'' (pp.&nbsp;235–237); ] (1875) ''The Papers of a Critic'' (2:30-33 & 2:97); Robert Dunlop (1889) ''Life of Henry Grattan'' (pp.&nbsp;181 & 227).
|] (1817), ''The Author of Junius Ascertained, from a Concatenation of Circumstances amounting to Moral Demonstration''.
|-
''His claims to a place in the history of English literature rest very much on the assumption—maintained by Almon and by George Chalmers—that he is the veritable ‘Junius.’'' Edward Smith in the '']''.<ref>{{DNB Cite|Boyd, Hugh (1746-1794)}}</ref>
|-
|]
|] (1817), ''The Author of Junius Ascertained, from a Concatenation of Circumstances amounting to Moral Demonstration''.
"His claims to a place in the history of English literature rest very much on the assumption—maintained by ] and by ]—that he is the veritable 'Junius.'" Edward Smith in the '']''.<ref>{{Cite DNB |first=Edward |last=Smith |wstitle=Boyd, Hugh (1746-1794) |volume=6 |page=92}}</ref>

|- |-
|] |]
|Burke denied authorship consistently, claiming: “I could not if I would, and I would not if I could”. In 1770 he taunted the government in parliament for their inability to capture Junius. A Rockingham Whig, he was against the shortened parliaments that Junius had favoured. Later Burke seems to have discovered Junius's true identity but refused to reveal his name. |Burke denied authorship consistently, claiming: "I could not if I would, and I would not if I could”. In 1770 he taunted the government in parliament for their inability to capture Junius. A ], he was against the shortened parliaments that Junius had favoured. Later Burke seems to have discovered Junius's true identity but refused to reveal his name.
|- |-
|] |]
|Jelinger Cookson Symons (1859), ''William Burke the author of Junius: an essay of his era''. |] (1859), ''William Burke the author of Junius: an essay of his era''.

"An attempt has been made to show that he was or may have been the author of ‘Junius's Letters.’" William Hunt in the '']''.<ref>{{Cite DNB |first=William |last=Hunt |wstitle=Burke, William (d.1798) |volume=7 |pages=369–370}}</ref>


''An attempt has been made to show that he was or may have been the author of ‘Junius's Letters.’'' William Hunt in the '']''.<ref>{{DNB Cite|Burke, William (d.1798)}}</ref>
|- |-
|] |]
Line 43: Line 46:
|- |-
|] |]
|''The joint authorship of ‘Junius's Letters’ has also been attributed to him''. G. F. R. Barker, writing in the '']''. |"The joint authorship of 'Junius's Letters' has also been attributed to him." G. F. R. Barker, writing in the '']''.<ref>{{cite DNB |first=George |last=Barker |wstitle=Dunning, John |volume=16 |pages=213–215}}</ref>

|- |-
|], author of letters signed "Sindercombe".<ref>{{cite DNB |first=George |last=Barker |wstitle=Flood, Henry |volume=19 |pages=331–335}}</ref>
|]
| |
|- |-
|] |]
|John Taylor at first had been inclined to attribute the letter to Sir Philip's father, Dr Francis, author of translations of Horace and Demosthenes. |John Taylor at first had been inclined to attribute the letter to Sir Philip's father, Dr Francis, author of translations of ] and ].

|- |-
|] |]
|In the 1780s there would have been good cause for the opposition to label Francis as Junius, to discredit him as a witness in the ] impeachment trial. Warren Hastings' second in charge as governor-general of India was ], who was once an anti-Junius pamphleteer, and may have begun the first rumour of Francis being Junius in defense of Hastings. |]'s second in charge as governor-general of India was ], who was once an anti-Junius pamphleteer, and may have begun the first rumour of Francis being Junius in defence of Hastings.


In 1816 ] was led by a study of Woodfall's edition of 1812 to publish ''The Identity of Junius with a Distinguished Living Character Established'', in which he claimed the letters for Sir Philip Francis. Taylor approached to Sir Philip for leave to publish, and received evasive answers. ] was convinced of the identity of Junius and Francis, based on the handwriting and other collateral evidence.<ref>Chabot (1871)</ref> The similarity of his handwriting to the disguised hand used by the writer of the letters is close. His family maintained that Sir Philip addressed a copy of verses to a Miss Giles in the handwriting of Junius. The similarity of Junius and Francis in regard to their opinions, their likes and dislikes, their knowledge and their known movements, is also close. In 1816 ] was led by a study of Woodfall's edition of 1812 to publish ''The Identity of Junius with a Distinguished Living Character Established'', in which he claimed the letters for Sir Philip Francis. Taylor approached to Sir Philip for leave to publish, and received evasive answers. ] was convinced of the identity of Junius and Francis, based on the handwriting and other collateral evidence.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chabot |first=C. |title=The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated |year=1871 |location=London |publisher=John Murray}}</ref> The similarity of his handwriting to the disguised hand used by the writer of the letters is close. His family maintained that Sir Philip addressed a copy of verses to a Miss Giles in the handwriting of Junius. The similarity of Junius and Francis in regard to their opinions, their likes and dislikes, their knowledge, and their known movements are also close.

] in 1818 criticized Taylor's arguments in ''Junius Identified'', saying he "worked himself into a ''belief'' that Sir Philip and Junius were one — and then he proceeded to ''prove'' it."<ref>{{cite thesis | last = Richards | first = Irving T. | date = 1933 | title = The Life and Works of John Neal | type = PhD | publisher = Harvard University | url = http://id.lib.harvard.edu/alma/990038995990203941/catalog | oclc = 7588473 | pages = 141–143}}</ref>

] employed Chabot to report again on the handwriting, based on manuscripts in the ]. He published Chabot's evidence that Francis was the writer as ''Handwriting of Junius professionally investigated'' (1871).<ref>{{Cite DNB |first=George Clement |last=Boase |authorlink = George Clement Boase|wstitle=Twisleton, Edward Turner Boyd |volume=57 |page=390}}</ref>

In 1962, a computer-aided analysis by ] examined the styles and word-usages of the Junius letters. This allowed some statistical conclusions to be drawn about the author—they used "among" thirty-five times, but never used "amongst", for example. Comparing this to the writings of some of the suspects proved informative; Sir Philip Francis used "among" 66 times, and "amongst" only once. A group of general writers of the time, tested as a control, used "among" 512 times and "amongst" 114. Several hundred such words and phrases were found that could be tests of style—"farther" or "further", for example. Ellegård concluded that it was 30,000 times more likely than not that Junius was, in fact, Francis.


In 1962, a computer-aided analysis by ] examined the styles and word-usages of the Junius letters. This allowed some statistical conclusions to be drawn about the author&mdash;they used "among" thirty-five times, but never used "amongst", for example. Comparing this to the writings of some of the suspects proved informative; Sir Philip Francis used "among" 66 times, and "amongst" only once. A group of general writers of the time, tested as a control, used "among" 512 times and "amongst" 114. Several hundred such words and phrases were found that could be tests of style&mdash;"farther" or "further", for example. Ellegård concluded that there was a 30,000 to one chance in favour of the hypothesis that Junius was, in fact, Francis.
|- |-
|] |]
| ], ''Junius Unveiled'' (1909), called an "unconvincing attempt" in the ''Cambridge History of English and American Literature'' (1907–21).<ref>{{cite book | chapter=XIII. Historians: Bibliography |volume=10: The Age of Johnson |title=The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes. 1907–21 | website=Bartleby.com | chapter-url=http://www.bartleby.com/220/1300.html | access-date=5 August 2015}}</ref>
|

|- |-
|] |]
Line 69: Line 80:
|] |]
|Isaac Newhall (1831), ''Letters on Junius: addressed to John Pickering, esq.''. |Isaac Newhall (1831), ''Letters on Junius: addressed to John Pickering, esq.''.

''The authorship of Junius's ‘Letters’ has also been ascribed to him'', G. F. R. Barker, writing in the '']''.
"The authorship of Junius's ‘Letters’ has also been ascribed to him", G. F. R. Barker, writing in the '']''.<ref>{{cite DNB |first=George |last=Barker |wstitle=Grenville, Richard Temple (1711-1779) |volume=23 |pages=127–128}}</ref>

|- |-
|] |]
|''Though he never spoke in the house after his return from Ireland, yet he contrived to retain his fame as an orator; and so highly were his literary talents rated that many of his contemporaries attributed to him the authorship of the ‘Letters of Junius’''. G. F. R. Barker, writing in the '']''. |"Though he never spoke in the house after his return from Ireland, yet he contrived to retain his fame as an orator; and so highly were his literary talents rated that many of his contemporaries attributed to him the authorship of the 'Letters of Junius'". G. F. R. Barker, writing in the '']''.

|- |-
|] |]
| |
|- |-
|] |]
|''Greatrakes acquired some posthumous importance from his supposed connection with the authorship of the letters of Junius.'' Gordon Goodwin in the '']''. |"Greatrakes acquired some posthumous importance from his supposed connection with the authorship of the letters of Junius." Gordon Goodwin in the '']''.

|- |-
|] |]
|According to ] writing in the '']'', ]'s 1814 ''An Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of Junius'' convinced himself but nobody else that Junius was Glover. |According to ] writing in the '']'', ]'s 1814 ''An Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of Junius'' convinced himself but nobody else that Junius was Glover.

|- |-
|] |]
| |
|- |-
|] (aka James Hollis and John Hollis)
|]
|In a footnote to the 1890 edition of Thomas Paine's '']'', editor Moncure Daniel Conway reports that Paine likely thought Hollis to be Junius; his friend F. Lanthenas, in his french edition of Paine, advertised an English translation of Junius whom he named as 'Thomas Hollis' (scil. the English ] John Hollis).<ref>See </ref>
|

|- |-
|] |]
Line 93: Line 110:
|- |-
|A ''junto'' or committee of writers who used a common name |A ''junto'' or committee of writers who used a common name
|Horace Walpole's idea. ], ''Some New Facts and a Suggested New Theory as to the Authorship of Junius'', privately printed, 1850. "The opinion of Dwarris was that the letters were written by several persons, of whom Sir Philip Francis was the chief." (] in the '']'').
|Horace Walpole's idea.

|- |-
|] |John Kent
| |
|- |-
|] |]
|''Lee was one of the persons credited with the authorship of the ‘Letters of Junius.’ The idea appears to have originated with a communication by ] to the ‘Wilmington Mirror’ in 1803, relating a conversation with Lee thirty years previously, in which Lee had declared himself to be the writer of the letters. The communication was copied into the ‘St. James's Chronicle’ (London, 1803), and the idea was afterwards worked up with much ingenuity by Dr. ] in ‘Facts tending to prove that General Lee was never absent from this country for any length of time during the years 1767–72, and that he was the author of “Junius's Letters,”’ London, 1813.'' Henry Manners Chichester in the '']'', article on Lee. The DNB article on Girdlestone speaks of Arthur {{sic}} Lee. |"Lee was one of the persons credited with the authorship of the 'Letters of Junius.' The idea appears to have originated with a communication by ] to the 'Wilmington Mirror' in 1803, relating a conversation with Lee thirty years previously, in which Lee had declared himself to be the writer of the letters. The communication was copied into the 'St. James's Chronicle' (London, 1803), and the idea was afterwards worked up with much ingenuity by Dr. ] in 'Facts tending to prove that General Lee was never absent from this country for any length of time during the years 1767–72, and that he was the author of "Junius's Letters,"' London, 1813." ] in the '']'', article on Lee. The DNB article on Girdlestone speaks of Arthur {{sic}} Lee.

|- |-
|]
|]
|"A volume of 'Letters of the late Thomas, Lord Lyttelton,'... was accepted as genuine, but these letters were afterwards claimed by William Combe as his own composition, and have since been generally so regarded" Quarterly Review, Dec. 1851, art. iv., where they are treated as authentic, and an attempt is made to identify Junius with Lyttelton; and cf. Frost's Life of Thomas, Lord Lyttelton, where the authenticity of the letters is also assumed.
|

|- |-
|] |]
|''absurdly suspected by Lord North of being the author of the ‘Letters of Junius.’'', according to G. P. Moriarty in the '']''. ] (1828), ''The claims of Sir Philip Francis, K. B., to the authorship of Junius's letters disproved .'' |"...absurdly suspected by Lord North of being the author of the 'Letters of Junius.'", according to G. P. Moriarty in the '']''. ] (1828), "The claims of Sir Philip Francis, K. B., to the authorship of Junius's letters disproved ." James McMullen Rigg, writing in the ''Dictionary of National Biography''.

|- |-
|] |]
|A ] ], who moved to England in the late 1760s. He wrote his works in his native French even after becoming a British subject, and the fact that English was not his first language would account for Junius' somewhat awkward prose and curiously Latin style of writing. In political sympathies, he was close to moderate intellectuals of his time, both Tories and Whigs. In his other works, he advocated a system of government based on extended, but not universal, suffrage, modelled after the political system of Britain in the latter half of the 18th century. |A Swiss ], who moved to England in the late 1760s. In political sympathies, he was close to moderate intellectuals of his time, both Tories and Whigs. He was proposed as Junius by ] in 1816.<ref>{{cite DNB |first=William Barclay |last=Squire |wstitle=Busby, Thomas |volume=8 |pages=31–32}}</ref>


|- |-
|] (1733-91) |] (1733–1791)
| |
|- |-
|] |Laughlin Macleane (1727?–1778)
|''Reward is Secondary: the life of a political adventurer and an inquiry into the mystery of 'Junius''' (1963), James Noel Mackenzie MacLean.
|

|- |-
|] |]
Line 122: Line 144:
|] |]
|Frederick Griffin (1854), ''Junius Discovered''. |Frederick Griffin (1854), ''Junius Discovered''.

|- |-
|Lieut.-General Sir ] |Lieut.-General ]
|"On Rich's sustained opposition to the government F. Ayerst based, in 1853, an absurd endeavour to identify him with the author of the 'Letters of Junius." ] writing in the '']''.
|

|- |-
|John Roberts |John Roberts
Line 130: Line 154:
|- |-
|] |]
|] wrote in the '']'' that ''It was industriously circulated at one time that Rosenhagen was the author of the ‘Letters of Junius,’ and in the hopes of getting a pension to write no more, he endeavoured to instil this belief in the mind of Lord North.''<ref>{{DNB Cite|Rosenhagen, Philip}}</ref> |] wrote in the '']'' that "It was industriously circulated at one time that Rosenhagen was the author of the 'Letters of Junius,' and in the hopes of getting a pension to write no more, he endeavoured to instil this belief in the mind of Lord North."<ref>{{Cite DNB |first=William Prideaux |last=Courtney |wstitle=Rosenhagen, Philip |volume=49 |pages=248–249}}</ref>

|- |-
|] |]
|John Elwyn, Joseph Bolles Manning, William Allen (1828), ''Junius unmasked; or Lord George Sackville proved to be Junius.''<ref></ref> |John Elwyn, Joseph Bolles Manning, William Allen (1828), ''Junius unmasked; or Lord George Sackville proved to be Junius.''<ref>{{cite book |first1=John |last1=Elwyn |first2=Joseph Bolles |last2=Manning |first3= William |last3=Allen |year=1828 |title=Junius unmasked; or Lord George Sackville proved to be Junius |url=https://archive.org/details/juniusunmaskedor00elwyrich}}</ref>

At the time of publication, a leading candidate (with Edmund Burke) for Junius; ] was confident that the author was one of the two. "The evidence in favour of Sackville's authorship, collected by J. Jaques, will be found among the Woodfall letters in the British Museum (Addit. MS. 27783), but the opinion has never been accepted by writers of authority." Henry Manners Chichester, in the '']''.<ref>{{cite DNB |first=Henry Manners |last=Chichester |wstitle=Germain, George Sackville |volume=21 |pages=231–235}}</ref>


At the time of publication, a leading candidate (with Edmund Burke) for Junius. ''The evidence in favour of Sackville's authorship, collected by J. Jaques, will be found among the Woodfall letters in the British Museum (Addit. MS. 27783), but the opinion has never been accepted by writers of authority.'' Henry Manners Chichester, in the '']''.
|- |-
|] |]
|Proposal of William Cramp, in an 1851 pamphlet of ''Facsimile Autograph Letters of Junius, Lord Chesterfield, and Mrs. C. Dayrolles, showing that the wife of Mr. Solomon Dayrolles was the ] employed in copying the Letters of Junius for the printer.''<ref>{{cite DNB|first=William Prideaux |last=Courtney|wstitle=Dayrolles, Solomon |volume=14 |pages=245–246}}</ref>
|

|- |-
|] |]
|A case for John Horne Tooke is based on Tooke's involvement with the ]. This organisation existed during the same years as the appearance of the Letters of Junius. ], a clergyman who had trained as a barrister, argued for the identification of Horne Tooke as Junius in two pamphlets, ''An Attempt to ascertain the Author of the Letters published under the signature of Junius'' (published 1813), and ''A Sequel of the Attempt to ascertain the Author of the Letters published under the signature of Junius'' (1815), according to ], writing on Blakeway in the ''Dictionary of National Biography''.<ref name="DNB">{{cite DNB|wstitle=Blakeway, John Brickdale|volume=5}}, p.189.</ref>
|James Falconer's ''The Secret Revealed'', 1830.
However, Horne Tooke was himself a vigorous correspondent against Junius in 1771, and is said to have succeeded in "largely disarming his masked antagonist".<ref>{{EB1911|wstitle=Tooke, John Horne|volume=27}}</ref>
|- |-
|] |]
Line 148: Line 176:
|] |]
| |
|-
|]
|A case for John Horne Tooke is based on Tooke’s involvement with the ]. This organisation existed during the same years as the appearance of the Letters of Junius.It propagated almost exactly the same messages as those expressed by Junius, and during the same period.
|- |-
|] |]
| |
'During 1769 there was a widespread belief that Junius was Wilkes himself, writing from the King's Bench Prison. This assumption tickled his vanity. "Would to Heaven that I could have written them" was his reputred reply on being accused of being the author' The ide was killed by the publication on 19 December 1769 of Letter XXXV addressed by Junius to the King ... That letter was replete with scorn for the popular hero .... Junius advised the King that the best way to deal with Wilkes would be a contemptuous pardon' P. D. G. Thomas, 'John Wilkes: A Friend to Liberty' (Oxford University Press, 1996), 126.
|-
|]
|James Falconer's ''The Secret Revealed'', 1830.

''Wray is one of those who have been identified with Junius. In 1830 James Falconar published an ingenious work entitled 'The Secret Revealed,' in which he made out a plausible case for the identification. An examination of his evidence shows, however, that it is untrustworthy (cf. Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. ii. 164, 212).'' Edward Irving Carlyle, writing in the '']''.<ref>{{Cite DNB |first=Edward Irving |last=Carlyle |wstitle=Wray, Daniel |volume=63 |pages=78–79}}</ref>
|} |}


==Other candidates== ==Other candidates==


There have been other hypotheses put forward. In most cases the attribution is based on nothing more than a vague guess. There have been other hypotheses put forward. In most cases the attribution is based on nothing more than a vague guess.


{| class=wikitable
{|border=1
!Candidate !Candidate
!Comments !Comments
Line 166: Line 197:
|] |]
|Franklin was in London at the times that these papers were being published. |Franklin was in London at the times that these papers were being published.
The Junius Papers also have a ring of Benjamin Franklin in them. Franklin had recently been severely dressed down in Parliament by some of the very people involved in the Case---something he never forgot and had his revenge some years later. It was this dressing down that turned him from a loyal British subject to a rebel and one of the fathers of the American Revolution. Franklin had rebelled against his brother by writing a column in the newspaper writing under the pseudonym of the widow Mrs. Silence Dogood. Dogood was filled with advice, very critical of the world around her especially how women were treated. After too many inquiries as to who Silence was, Franklin finally confessed. The style of writing and word usage in the Junius papers have much in common with the widow Silence Dogood.
|- |-
|John Miller |John Miller
|According to family Records of the John Miller Family and descendants; John Miller published the Junius Letters in The ] (one of the more important newspapers of the 18th century) of which he was either owner or part owner ---this publication became what is today ]. John himself was accused of being the Junius of these letters and he was brought to trial in 1770 at the Guild Hall along with Almon, a bookseller and Woodfall. John Miller was found not guilty while the other men were. The punishments then that were enforced could be death or transportation. The punishments did not always fit the crime and often excessively severe: for instance in the records of Newgate Prison we find that an 11 year old girl was sentenced to death because she caused another girl to fall and break the jar of water she was carrying. |John Miller published the Junius Letters in the '']''. Miller himself was accused of being the Junius of these letters and he was brought to trial in 1770 at the Guild Hall along with ] and Woodfall. Miller was found not guilty while the other men were convicted.{{citation needed|date=December 2014}}

Family records indicate that Miller continued living in London after being found not guilty, but he is known to have moved to the United States within twelve years of the trial. There he founded the first newspaper of South Carolina and settled in Pendleton, South Carolina after leaving Charleston. His daughter married one of the sons of John C. Calhoun. He also founded ''The Messenger'' which is still being published in upstate South Carolina.

Searches at Old Bailey (as of 2007) and Newgate Prison (although John was supposed to be imprisoned at Old Bailey) or at Guildhall, where the trial was held, have not turned up any records of this trial. Family descendants are trying to trace and verify the information that was published in the 1920s as the Miller-Calhoun History ---a very rare limited edition book. Many of these records are online and can be searched. The only Millers listed online thus far found who were arrested and confined in prison are people who were arrested and tried thieves, and there is a case in which a John Miller was found guilty of counterfeiting coinage. None of which seem to be the correct John Miller. John was from Dublin, Ireland.
|- |-
|] |]
|An 1872 book by Joel Moody, ''Junius unmasked: or Thomas Paine the author of the letters of Junius''.<ref></ref> |An 1872 book by Joel Moody, ''Junius unmasked: or Thomas Paine the author of the letters of Junius''.<ref>{{cite book |first=Joel |last=Moody |year=1872 |title=Junius unmasked: or Thomas Paine the author of the letters of Junius |publisher=Washington, D.C., J. Gray & Co. |url=https://archive.org/details/juniusunmaskedor00moodrich}}</ref> and a 1917 book by William Henry Graves, ''Junius Finally Discovered.''.<ref>{{cite book |first=William Henry |last=Graves |year=1917 |title=Junius Finally Discovered |location=Birmingham, Alabama |publisher=Dispatch Printing Co.|url=https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009578248}}</ref> Graves' biographical and literary study was supported by the Thomas Paine National Historical Society.
|- |-
|] |]
|] insisted that her uncle James Wilmot was really her grandfather - and that he was Junius. This was part of her larger claim that he was a sufficiently significant individual to have secretly married into royalty. |] insisted that her uncle James Wilmot was really her grandfather – and that he was Junius. This was part of her larger claim that he was a sufficiently significant individual to have secretly married into royalty.
|} |}


==Notes==
==Assumptions about Philo-Junius==
{{Reflist|30em}}
The assumption that Philo-Junius was himself Junius appears to have been born in the early years surrounding his mystery identity. This may have stemmed from the fact that Philo-Junius letters were incorporated in the 1772 book ''Letters of Junius''. Philo-Junius appears to know Junius intimately and comes to his rescue when the public is misinterpreting his messages. ''Philo'' means ''admirer of''. It is quite possible that Philo-Junius was a spouse, sibling, parent, child or close friend of Junius as it would be seem arrogant of Junius to assume the admiration of himself. Also, all Philo-Junius letters are written in the 3rd person, as though Junius was another person. In letter 55 (LV), Philo-Junius refers to Junius as his friend and also makes speculations about Junius' opinions towards bishops or the head of the church.


==References==
As the letters of Junius' opponents were also included in the 1772 publication it would not be inconceivable to assume that Junius chose the letters of an admirer too. There appears to be enough evidence illustrating that Philo-Junius could have been another person. As such, Philo-Junius letters should be ignored in the pursuit of Junius' true identity lest they introduce tainted facts.


;Attribution
==Assumptions about the Footnotes==
*{{EB1911 |last= Hannay |first=David |wstitle=Junius |volume=15 |pages=557–559}}
Similarly it has been assumed that the footnotes found in the 1772 publication were part of Junius' style (a point echoed by Linde Katritzky in claiming similarities of style between Junius and ]).


==Further reading==
This original assumption that the footnotes were by Junius probably stems from his words in the Preface; "''The encouragement given to a multitude of spurious mangled publications of the '''''Letters of Junius''''' persuades me, that a complete edition, corrected and improved by the author, will be favourably received.''" Later in the Preface it is also states that "''The notes will be found not only useful but necessary. References to facts not generally known, or allusions to the current report or opinion of the day, are, in little time, unintelligible. Yet the reader will not find himself overloaded with explanations: I was not born to be a commentator, even on my own works.''" This positively implies that Junius added the footnotes.

However, also in the Preface, Junius gives all rights to the publisher saying "''For this reason, I give to Mr. Henry Sampson Woodfall, and to him alone, my right, interest and property in these letters, as fully and completely, to all intents and purposes, as an author can possibly convey his property in his own works to another''". It is thus not clear whether Woodfall felt he had the right to change Junius' letters or to add his own footnotes as he saw fit.

The author of the footnotes is of great importance in untangling the identity of Junius. The footnotes introduced more opponents not mentioned in the letters by Junius. They also added a more unforgiving and invective slant to the letters and contributed to the idea that Junius hated all in office. They detracted from the original message of illustrating the corruption and infringement upon the constitution by Grafton. Worth considering in the footnote authorship debate is the following:
* In many cases the footnotes added very specific parliamentary history to the letters--the interest and hobby of Woodfall’s brother, William Woodfall, who later established the ''Daily'', a paper that reported on parliamentary debates.
* The footnotes were added in a style and language quite unlike Junius or even Philo-Junius. In some cases the footnotes are completely arbitrary, adding facts that are mentioned only a few paragraphs later. It places it even prompts the reader directly.
* The footnotes add many petty attacks on new individuals which are neither provable nor stated in a way where the opponents can respond. This is quite unlike the written dialogues engaged in the original letters.
* The footnotes were occasionally write in the 3rd person referring to Junius directly, such as in Letter 1 where it reminds the reader that ''Junius has been called a partisan of Lord Chatham''.
* The ''Dedication to the English Nation'', written for the 1772 publication, even has its own footnotes. It is perplexing how an added footnote could not have been incorporated into the Dedication if written at the same time. This implies that it was written by someone else not willing to change the author's original text.

Noting the above, the author of the footnotes must remain inconclusive, with its contents and slants ignored in determining the identity or reputation of Junius.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==Bibliography==
{{wikiquote|Junius}} {{wikiquote|Junius}}
{{wikisource|Letters of Junius}}

* Tony Harold Bowyer: A bibliographical examination of the earliest editions of the letters of Junius. Charlottesville, Va.: Univ. of Virginia Press, 1957. * Bowyer, Tony Harold, ''A bibliographical examination of the earliest editions of the letters of Junius''. Charlottesville, Va.: Univ. of Virginia Press, 1957.
* Ellegård, Alvar:: A statistical method for determining authorship: the Junius letters 1769–1772. Göteborg, 1962. Gothenburg studies in English; 13. * ], ''A statistical method for determining authorship: the Junius letters 1769–1772''. Göteborg, 1962. Gothenburg studies in English; 13.
* Ellegård, Alvar: ''Who was Junius?'' Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, (1962); discussed by * Ellegård, Alvar, ''Who was Junius?'' Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, (1962); discussed by
* John Cannon: The letters of Junius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. ISBN 0-19-812455-4. * Cannon, John, ''The letters of Junius''. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. {{ISBN|0-19-812455-4}}.
* Katritzky, Linde: ''Johnson and The Letters of Junius; New Perspectives on an Old Enigma'' Peter Lang Publishing, New York (1996). Ars interpretandi; Vol. 5. ISBN 0-8204-3106-0. * Katritzky, Linde, ''Johnson and The Letters of Junius; New Perspectives on an Old Enigma'' Peter Lang Publishing, New York (1996). Ars interpretandi; Vol. 5. {{ISBN|0-8204-3106-0}}.
* Francesco Cordasco: Junius, a bibliography of the letters of Junius; with a checklist of Junian scholarship and related studies.Fairview, NJ : Junius-Vaughn Press, 1986. * ], ''Junius, a bibliography of the letters of Junius; with a checklist of Junian scholarship and related studies''. Fairview, NJ : Junius-Vaughn Press, 1986.
*
*{{ cite book | author=Chabot, C. | title=The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated | year=1871 | location=London | publisher=John Murray }} *{{ cite book | author=Chabot, C. | title=The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated | year=1871 | location=London | publisher=John Murray }}


==External links== ==External links==
* *{{cite web |url=https://www.mcgill.ca/library/branches/rarebooks/special-collections/junius |title=Junius collection at Mcgill University |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=McGill.ca }}

;Attribution
*{{1911}}


{{Authority control}}
]
]
]
] ]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 19:18, 9 January 2025

Junius was the pseudonym of a writer who contributed a series of political letters critical of the government of King George III to the Public Advertiser, from 21 January 1769 to 21 January 1772 as well as several other London newspapers such as the London Evening Post.

Charges were brought against several people, of whom two were convicted and sentenced. Junius himself was aware of the advantages of concealment, as he wrote in a letter to John Wilkes dated 18 September 1771. Two generations after the appearance of the letters, speculation as to the authorship of Junius was rife. Sir Philip Francis is now generally, but not universally, believed to be the author.

Current scholarly views

According to Alan Frearson there is scholarly consensus in favour of Sir Philip Francis; he divides the evidence into four classes, and reports that each class "points most strongly to Francis".

This scholarly theory has been called the "Franciscan theory", at least since Abraham Hayward's More about Junius: The Franciscan theory unsound (1868). Numerous subsequent publications have been written by those sceptical about the identification with Francis. John Cannon, editor of an edition of the Letters published in 1978, adhered to the Franciscan theory. As Francesco Cordasco puts it, "while the Franciscan theory has recently enjoyed new life, it remains contested and impossible to demonstrate categorically".

Early guesses

Joseph Parkes, author with Herman Merivale of the Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis (1867), gave a list of more than forty persons who had been supposed to be Junius.

Candidate Comments
Isaac Barré John Britton (1848), The authorship of the letters of Junius elucidated: including a biographical memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barré, M. P.
Henry Grattan, William Eden, Hugh Boyd (a "cabal") George Lewis Smyth (1826), " formed intimate acquaintances with Hugh Boyd and Mr. Eden, afterwards Lord Auckland,--facts mentioned . . . here, because letters of Junius were at one time attributed to this trio" (The Monuments and Genii of St. Paul's Cathedral and of Westminster Abbey (2:533). See, also, George Godfrey Cunningham (1836) Lives of Eminent and Illustrious Englishmen (pp. 235–237); Charles Wentworth Dilke (1875) The Papers of a Critic (2:30-33 & 2:97); Robert Dunlop (1889) Life of Henry Grattan (pp. 181 & 227).
Hugh Macaulay Boyd George Chalmers (1817), The Author of Junius Ascertained, from a Concatenation of Circumstances amounting to Moral Demonstration.

"His claims to a place in the history of English literature rest very much on the assumption—maintained by Almon and by George Chalmers—that he is the veritable 'Junius.'" Edward Smith in the Dictionary of National Biography.

Edmund Burke Burke denied authorship consistently, claiming: "I could not if I would, and I would not if I could”. In 1770 he taunted the government in parliament for their inability to capture Junius. A Rockingham Whig, he was against the shortened parliaments that Junius had favoured. Later Burke seems to have discovered Junius's true identity but refused to reveal his name.
William Burke Jelinger Cookson Symons (1859), William Burke the author of Junius: an essay of his era.

"An attempt has been made to show that he was or may have been the author of ‘Junius's Letters.’" William Hunt in the Dictionary of National Biography.

John Butler
Charles Wolfran Cornwall
John Dunning, 1st Baron Ashburton "The joint authorship of 'Junius's Letters' has also been attributed to him." G. F. R. Barker, writing in the Dictionary of National Biography.
Henry Flood, author of letters signed "Sindercombe".
Dr. Philip Francis John Taylor at first had been inclined to attribute the letter to Sir Philip's father, Dr Francis, author of translations of Horace and Demosthenes.
Sir Philip Francis Warren Hastings's second in charge as governor-general of India was John Macpherson, who was once an anti-Junius pamphleteer, and may have begun the first rumour of Francis being Junius in defence of Hastings.

In 1816 John Taylor was led by a study of Woodfall's edition of 1812 to publish The Identity of Junius with a Distinguished Living Character Established, in which he claimed the letters for Sir Philip Francis. Taylor approached to Sir Philip for leave to publish, and received evasive answers. Charles Chabot was convinced of the identity of Junius and Francis, based on the handwriting and other collateral evidence. The similarity of his handwriting to the disguised hand used by the writer of the letters is close. His family maintained that Sir Philip addressed a copy of verses to a Miss Giles in the handwriting of Junius. The similarity of Junius and Francis in regard to their opinions, their likes and dislikes, their knowledge, and their known movements are also close.

John Neal in 1818 criticized Taylor's arguments in Junius Identified, saying he "worked himself into a belief that Sir Philip and Junius were one — and then he proceeded to prove it."

Edward Turner Boyd Twistleton employed Chabot to report again on the handwriting, based on manuscripts in the British Museum. He published Chabot's evidence that Francis was the writer as Handwriting of Junius professionally investigated (1871).

In 1962, a computer-aided analysis by Alvar Ellegård examined the styles and word-usages of the Junius letters. This allowed some statistical conclusions to be drawn about the author—they used "among" thirty-five times, but never used "amongst", for example. Comparing this to the writings of some of the suspects proved informative; Sir Philip Francis used "among" 66 times, and "amongst" only once. A group of general writers of the time, tested as a control, used "among" 512 times and "amongst" 114. Several hundred such words and phrases were found that could be tests of style—"farther" or "further", for example. Ellegård concluded that it was 30,000 times more likely than not that Junius was, in fact, Francis.

Edward Gibbon James Smith, Junius Unveiled (1909), called an "unconvincing attempt" in the Cambridge History of English and American Literature (1907–21).
George Grenville
James Grenville
Richard Grenville-Temple, 1st Earl Temple Isaac Newhall (1831), Letters on Junius: addressed to John Pickering, esq..

"The authorship of Junius's ‘Letters’ has also been ascribed to him", G. F. R. Barker, writing in the Dictionary of National Biography.

William Gerard Hamilton "Though he never spoke in the house after his return from Ireland, yet he contrived to retain his fame as an orator; and so highly were his literary talents rated that many of his contemporaries attributed to him the authorship of the 'Letters of Junius'". G. F. R. Barker, writing in the Dictionary of National Biography.
William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland
William Greatrakes "Greatrakes acquired some posthumous importance from his supposed connection with the authorship of the letters of Junius." Gordon Goodwin in the Dictionary of National Biography.
Richard Glover According to Leslie Stephen writing in the Dictionary of National Biography, Richard Duppa's 1814 An Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of Junius convinced himself but nobody else that Junius was Glover.
Henry Grattan
Thomas Hollis (aka James Hollis and John Hollis) In a footnote to the 1890 edition of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, editor Moncure Daniel Conway reports that Paine likely thought Hollis to be Junius; his friend F. Lanthenas, in his french edition of Paine, advertised an English translation of Junius whom he named as 'Thomas Hollis' (scil. the English Deist John Hollis).
Sir William Jones
A junto or committee of writers who used a common name Horace Walpole's idea. Fortunatus Dwarris, Some New Facts and a Suggested New Theory as to the Authorship of Junius, privately printed, 1850. "The opinion of Dwarris was that the letters were written by several persons, of whom Sir Philip Francis was the chief." (William Prideaux Courtney in the Dictionary of National Biography).
John Kent
Charles Lee "Lee was one of the persons credited with the authorship of the 'Letters of Junius.' The idea appears to have originated with a communication by Thomas Rodney to the 'Wilmington Mirror' in 1803, relating a conversation with Lee thirty years previously, in which Lee had declared himself to be the writer of the letters. The communication was copied into the 'St. James's Chronicle' (London, 1803), and the idea was afterwards worked up with much ingenuity by Dr. Thomas Girdlestone in 'Facts tending to prove that General Lee was never absent from this country for any length of time during the years 1767–72, and that he was the author of "Junius's Letters,"' London, 1813." Henry Manners Chichester in the Dictionary of National Biography, article on Lee. The DNB article on Girdlestone speaks of Arthur [sic] Lee.
Thomas Lyttelton, 2nd Baron Lyttelton "A volume of 'Letters of the late Thomas, Lord Lyttelton,'... was accepted as genuine, but these letters were afterwards claimed by William Combe as his own composition, and have since been generally so regarded" Quarterly Review, Dec. 1851, art. iv., where they are treated as authentic, and an attempt is made to identify Junius with Lyttelton; and cf. Frost's Life of Thomas, Lord Lyttelton, where the authenticity of the letters is also assumed.
Charles Lloyd "...absurdly suspected by Lord North of being the author of the 'Letters of Junius.'", according to G. P. Moriarty in the Dictionary of National Biography. Edmund Henry Barker (1828), "The claims of Sir Philip Francis, K. B., to the authorship of Junius's letters disproved ." James McMullen Rigg, writing in the Dictionary of National Biography.
Jean-Louis de Lolme A Swiss political philosopher, who moved to England in the late 1760s. In political sympathies, he was close to moderate intellectuals of his time, both Tories and Whigs. He was proposed as Junius by Thomas Busby in 1816.
Catharine Macaulay (1733–1791)
Laughlin Macleane (1727?–1778) Reward is Secondary: the life of a political adventurer and an inquiry into the mystery of 'Junius' (1963), James Noel Mackenzie MacLean.
William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham
Thomas Pownall Frederick Griffin (1854), Junius Discovered.
Lieut.-General Sir Robert Rich, 5th Baronet "On Rich's sustained opposition to the government F. Ayerst based, in 1853, an absurd endeavour to identify him with the author of the 'Letters of Junius." William Rees Williams writing in the Dictionary of National Biography.
John Roberts
Philip Rosenhagen William Prideaux Courtney wrote in the Dictionary of National Biography that "It was industriously circulated at one time that Rosenhagen was the author of the 'Letters of Junius,' and in the hopes of getting a pension to write no more, he endeavoured to instil this belief in the mind of Lord North."
George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville John Elwyn, Joseph Bolles Manning, William Allen (1828), Junius unmasked; or Lord George Sackville proved to be Junius.

At the time of publication, a leading candidate (with Edmund Burke) for Junius; Sir William Draper was confident that the author was one of the two. "The evidence in favour of Sackville's authorship, collected by J. Jaques, will be found among the Woodfall letters in the British Museum (Addit. MS. 27783), but the opinion has never been accepted by writers of authority." Henry Manners Chichester, in the Dictionary of National Biography.

Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield Proposal of William Cramp, in an 1851 pamphlet of Facsimile Autograph Letters of Junius, Lord Chesterfield, and Mrs. C. Dayrolles, showing that the wife of Mr. Solomon Dayrolles was the amanuensis employed in copying the Letters of Junius for the printer.
John Horne Tooke A case for John Horne Tooke is based on Tooke's involvement with the Society of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights. This organisation existed during the same years as the appearance of the Letters of Junius. John Brickdale Blakeway, a clergyman who had trained as a barrister, argued for the identification of Horne Tooke as Junius in two pamphlets, An Attempt to ascertain the Author of the Letters published under the signature of Junius (published 1813), and A Sequel of the Attempt to ascertain the Author of the Letters published under the signature of Junius (1815), according to Thompson Cooper, writing on Blakeway in the Dictionary of National Biography.

However, Horne Tooke was himself a vigorous correspondent against Junius in 1771, and is said to have succeeded in "largely disarming his masked antagonist".

Horace Walpole
Alexander Wedderburn, 1st Earl of Rosslyn
John Wilkes

'During 1769 there was a widespread belief that Junius was Wilkes himself, writing from the King's Bench Prison. This assumption tickled his vanity. "Would to Heaven that I could have written them" was his reputred reply on being accused of being the author' The ide was killed by the publication on 19 December 1769 of Letter XXXV addressed by Junius to the King ... That letter was replete with scorn for the popular hero .... Junius advised the King that the best way to deal with Wilkes would be a contemptuous pardon' P. D. G. Thomas, 'John Wilkes: A Friend to Liberty' (Oxford University Press, 1996), 126.

Daniel Wray James Falconer's The Secret Revealed, 1830.

Wray is one of those who have been identified with Junius. In 1830 James Falconar published an ingenious work entitled 'The Secret Revealed,' in which he made out a plausible case for the identification. An examination of his evidence shows, however, that it is untrustworthy (cf. Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. ii. 164, 212). Edward Irving Carlyle, writing in the Dictionary of National Biography.

Other candidates

There have been other hypotheses put forward. In most cases the attribution is based on nothing more than a vague guess.

Candidate Comments
Benjamin Franklin Franklin was in London at the times that these papers were being published.
John Miller John Miller published the Junius Letters in the London Evening Post. Miller himself was accused of being the Junius of these letters and he was brought to trial in 1770 at the Guild Hall along with John Almon and Woodfall. Miller was found not guilty while the other men were convicted.
Thomas Paine An 1872 book by Joel Moody, Junius unmasked: or Thomas Paine the author of the letters of Junius. and a 1917 book by William Henry Graves, Junius Finally Discovered.. Graves' biographical and literary study was supported by the Thomas Paine National Historical Society.
James Wilmot Olivia Serres insisted that her uncle James Wilmot was really her grandfather – and that he was Junius. This was part of her larger claim that he was a sufficiently significant individual to have secretly married into royalty.

Notes

  1. The Public Advertiser was a political newspaper run by Henry Sampson Woodfall, presumably based in London. His brother of William Woodfall later established the Daily, a paper that reported on parliamentary debates.
  2. Alan Frearson, "The Identity of Junius", Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies Volume 7 Issue 2, Pages 211 – 227, Published Online: 1 October 2008.
  3. Cordasco, Francesco (January 2008) . "Junius (fl. 1768–1773)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/45912. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  4. Hannay 1911, p. 558.
  5. An 1855 edition of Junius by John Wade has over 30 names in common, but adds: Lord Camden, Samuel Dyer. Dyer was believed to be Junius by Edmond Malone and Joshua Reynolds.(Vian, Alsager Richard (1888). "Dyer, Samuel" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 16. London: Smith, Elder & Co. p. 288–289. )
  6. Britton, John (1848). The authorship of the letters of Junius elucidated: including a biographical memoir of Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barré, M. P.
  7. Smith, Edward (1886). "Boyd, Hugh (1746-1794)" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 6. London: Smith, Elder & Co. p. 92.
  8. Hunt, William (1886). "Burke, William (d.1798)" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 7. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 369–370.
  9. Barker, George (1888). "Dunning, John" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 16. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 213–215.
  10. Barker, George (1889). "Flood, Henry" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 19. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 331–335.
  11. Chabot, C. (1871). The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated. London: John Murray.
  12. Richards, Irving T. (1933). The Life and Works of John Neal (PhD). Harvard University. pp. 141–143. OCLC 7588473.
  13. Boase, George Clement (1899). "Twisleton, Edward Turner Boyd" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 57. London: Smith, Elder & Co. p. 390.
  14. "XIII. Historians: Bibliography". The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes. 1907–21. Vol. 10: The Age of Johnson. Retrieved 5 August 2015. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  15. Barker, George (1890). "Grenville, Richard Temple (1711-1779)" . In Stephen, Leslie; Lee, Sidney (eds.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 23. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 127–128.
  16. See Paine Age of Reason (ed. Conway, 1890) page 64.
  17. Squire, William Barclay (1886). "Busby, Thomas" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 8. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 31–32.
  18. Courtney, William Prideaux (1897). "Rosenhagen, Philip" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 49. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 248–249.
  19. Elwyn, John; Manning, Joseph Bolles; Allen, William (1828). Junius unmasked; or Lord George Sackville proved to be Junius.
  20. Chichester, Henry Manners (1890). "Germain, George Sackville" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 21. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 231–235.
  21. Courtney, William Prideaux (1888). "Dayrolles, Solomon" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 14. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 245–246.
  22. Stephen, Leslie, ed. (1886). "Blakeway, John Brickdale" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 5. London: Smith, Elder & Co. , p.189.
  23. [REDACTED]  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Tooke, John Horne". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 27 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Carlyle, Edward Irving (1900). "Wray, Daniel" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 63. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 78–79.
  25. Moody, Joel (1872). Junius unmasked: or Thomas Paine the author of the letters of Junius. Washington, D.C., J. Gray & Co.
  26. Graves, William Henry (1917). Junius Finally Discovered. Birmingham, Alabama: Dispatch Printing Co.

References

Attribution

Further reading

  • Bowyer, Tony Harold, A bibliographical examination of the earliest editions of the letters of Junius. Charlottesville, Va.: Univ. of Virginia Press, 1957.
  • Ellegård, Alvar, A statistical method for determining authorship: the Junius letters 1769–1772. Göteborg, 1962. Gothenburg studies in English; 13.
  • Ellegård, Alvar, Who was Junius? Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, (1962); discussed by
  • Cannon, John, The letters of Junius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. ISBN 0-19-812455-4.
  • Katritzky, Linde, Johnson and The Letters of Junius; New Perspectives on an Old Enigma Peter Lang Publishing, New York (1996). Ars interpretandi; Vol. 5. ISBN 0-8204-3106-0.
  • Cordasco, Francesco, Junius, a bibliography of the letters of Junius; with a checklist of Junian scholarship and related studies. Fairview, NJ : Junius-Vaughn Press, 1986.
  • Chabot, C. (1871). The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated. London: John Murray.

External links

Categories:
Identity of Junius: Difference between revisions Add topic