WHO WAS “JUNUIS"?

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 3, 5 January 1937, Page 2

WHO WAS “JUNUIS"?

MYSTERY OF HISTORY ' HIS FAMOUS letter::. During a period of exactly 23 rears there shone in the political armament of England a mysterious iuminary whose identity has-been a mbject' of controversy for over, a jentury and a half, says the Winnipeg Free Press. In a series of letters commencing in the London Public Advertiser on January 21, 1769, and ending on January 21, 1792, this unknown genius’s vitriolic pen flayed both King George 111. and the Ministry of the Duke of Grafton with a orutal violence that was inspired by the most venomous hatred and scorn. The publisher of the Public Advertiser, Henry Sampson Woodfall, was ignorant of the identity of questionably was a distinguished man of affairs, sharing many of the deepest secrets of State, who uttered his bitter invectives in a clever slassic style superior to that of any political writer in the realm.

All of these letters were signed “Junius," some of them “Philip Junius."

In the same scholarly handwriting Woodfall at previous times had received. similar communications signed ‘'Candor,," “Nemesis," “AntiSejanus," also “Lucius” and “Brutus.” The pseudonym selected for the final series was believed to have been chosen to complete the name of the Roman patriot, Lucius Junius Brutus. FEARS OF THE LEADERS. One by one the henchmen of the Prime Minister were selected as targets for this cruel satirist’s vituperation, and many great lords and distinguished commoners trembled in their shoes, fearing that their turn would come next. Vainly did many politicians and their agents strive to get into personal communication with Junius and to track this literary enigma to his lair. But fortified within his hidden sanctum he continued to throw javelins into the Government party leaders without hindrance, although not without fear, for in one of his communications he admits his consciousness of peril in the following words:—

“I must be more cautious tnan ever. I am sure I would not survive discovery vhree days. . . Though you would fight, there are others who would assassinate. . . lam the soio depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me!" Several editions of Junius's letters were printed in book form, one of the most notable of which, published by Woodfall, contamed facsimiles of his handwriting as W'sll as that of some of tha prominent people accused of writing under his pseudonym. More than 40 personages wera suspected of being Junius. Some of tho most notable suspects Ednujnd Burke, Lord Chesterfield, Gibbon, Horace Walpole, Lord Ashburton, and General Charles Lee.

Lee had a fault-finding disposition and an extremely caustic tongue, fond of abusing superior officers. An Englishman by birth, he had served with distinction in the French and Indian War, and at the time that the Junius letters were written he had just concluded several years of fruitless endeavour to obtain promotion from George 111. He -vas engaged during this period in writing ironical epistles to the papers. It an Kitelasting fact that about the time the Junius letters ceased, he succeeded in gaining a. promotion, although it was only on half pay, THEORY CHALLENGED. Three handwriting experts reported that they had proved to their satisfaction that Lee’s and Junius's chirography were identical: but about a dozen experts were quite as emphatic in the support of other theories. Authorities who have devoted deep study to the identity of Junius nov attach very little importance to the theory that Lee was the author of that genius’s mysterious letters.

One theory accepted for a time by some authorities was that the nom da plume “Junius” was used by a committee of writers inimical to the ministry, and one of whose members Invariably inscribed communications drafted by the whole body. “I know no man but Edmund Burke who is capable of writing these letters,” said Dr. Samuel Johnson to Boswell. Yet in Parliament Burke had ©ncj made an impassioned address in which he said: "How comes this Junius to have broken through the cobwebs of law and to range uncontrolled, unpunished, through the land? Tho myrmidons of the court ar© pursuing all their snares. When I read his attack upon th© king my blood Tan coldl”

The favourite theory has been that Junius was Philip Francis, a distinguished British politician. When confronted with the evidence of his authorship, he uttered denials so veiled that they were thought to be evasions. Being at th© time a candidate for the Governor-Generalship of India, it was pointed out that Sir Philip did not dare

to confess that he was Junius. His handwriting was very similar to that of the mysterious writer, and a copy

of some verse which he had once ad=

dressed to a young lady was 'TOr;osnced to be unquestionably in the same writing. Tierney, when asked if be fielioved Francis to have written the celebrated letters, said:—-

"I know no better reason for ©opposing the fellow to b© Juntos than that he was always confoundedly proud of something, and no one could et et! guess what it could be." Junius's identity is said to have been fathomed by Lord Laifcdowne, who prQ* mised that he would publish the facts. But his death intervened before he> could do so. Pitt, whom Junius had championed in his writings, also claimed that he knew absolutely who

tno Hidden writer was, but would go no further than to say it was not Sir Philip Franeis, whose son was at the time striving to prove his father’s authorship. Several persons actually confessed themselves to be Junius, but all of tKese were soon discredited.

Who this man of mystery was will probably never he known.