Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

JUNIUS

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V15, Page 559 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

JUNIUS , the See also:

pseudonym of a writer who contributed a See also:series of letters to the See also:London Public Advertiser, from the 21st of See also:January 1769 to the 21st of January 1772. The See also:signature had been already used by him in a See also:letter of the 21st of See also:November 1768, which he did not include in his collection of the Letters of Junius published in 1772. The name was chosen in all See also:probability because he had already signed " See also:Lucius " and " See also:Brutus," and wished to exhaust the name of Lucius Junius Brutus the See also:Roman patriot. Whoever the writer was, he wrote under other pseudonyms before, during and after the See also:period between January 1769 and January 1772. He acknowledged that he had written as " See also:Philo-Junius," and there is See also:evidence that he was identical with " See also:Veteran," " See also:Nemesis " and other See also:anonymous correspondents of the Public Advertiser. There is a marked distinction between the " letters of Junius " and his so-called See also:miscellaneous letters. The second See also:deal with a variety of subjects, some of a purely See also:personal See also:character, as for instance the alleged injustice of See also:Viscount See also:Barrington the secretary at See also:war to the officials of his See also:department. But the " letters of Junius " had a definite See also:object—to discredit the See also:ministry of the See also:duke of See also:Grafton. This See also:administration had been formed in See also:October 1768, when the See also:earl of See also:Chatham was compelled by See also:ill See also:health to retire from See also:office, and was a reconstruction of his See also:cabinet of See also:July 1766. Junius fought for the return to See also:power of Chatham, who had recovered and was not on See also:good terms with his successors. He communicated with Chatham, with See also:George See also:Grenville, with Wilkes, all enemies of the duke of Grafton, and also with See also:Henry See also:Sampson See also:Woodfall, printer and See also:part owner of the Public Advertiser. This private See also:correspondence has been preserved.

It is written in the disguised See also:

hand used by Junius. The letters are of See also:interest on three grounds—their See also:political significance, their See also:style, and the See also:mystery which See also:long surrounded their authorship. As political writings they possess no See also:intrinsic value. Junius was wholly destitute of insight, and of the power to disentangle, define and See also:advocate principles. The See also:matter of his letters is always invective. He began by a See also:general attack on the ministry for their personal immorality or meanness. An ill-judged See also:defence of one of the See also:body—the See also:marquess of See also:Granby, See also:commander-in-See also:chief--volunteered by See also:Sir See also:William See also:Draper, gave him an easy victory over a vulnerable opponent. He then went on to pour acrimonious abuse on Grafton, on the duke of See also:Bedford, on See also:King George III. himself in the letter of the 19th of See also:December 1769, and ended with a most See also:malignant and ignorant See also:assault on See also:Lord Chief See also:Justice See also:Mansfield. Several of his accusations were shown to be unfounded. The See also:practical effect of the letters was insignificant. They were noticed and talked about. They provoked anger and retorts.

But the letter to the king aroused indignation, and though Grafton's administration See also:

fell in January 1770, it was succeeded by the long-lived cabinet of Lord See also:North. Junius confessed himself beaten, in his private letter to Woodfall of the 19th of January 1773. He had materially contributed to his own defeat by his brutal violence. He sinned indeed in a large See also:company. The employment of personal abuse had been habitual in See also:English political controversy for generations, and in the 18th See also:century there was a strong See also:taste for See also:satire. Latin literature, which was not only studied but imitated, supplied the See also:inspiration and the See also:models, in the satires of See also:Juvenal, and the speeches of See also:Cicero against See also:Verres and See also:Catiline. If, however, Junius was doing what others did, he did it better than anybody else—a fact which sufficiently explains his rapid popularity. His superiority See also:lay in his style. Here also he was by no means See also:original, and he was unequal. There are passages in his writings which can be best described in the words which See also:Burke applied to another writer: " A See also:mere mixture of See also:vinegar and See also:water, at once vapid and sour." But at his best Junius attains to a high degree of artificial elegance and vigour. He shows the See also:influence of See also:Bolingbroke, of See also:Swift, and above all of See also:Tacitus, who appears to have been his favourite author. The See also:imitation is never slavish.

Junius adapts, and does not only repeat. The See also:

white See also:heat of his malignity animates the whole. No single See also:sentence will show the quality of a style which produces its effect by persistence and repetition, but such a typical passage as follows displays at once the method and the spirit. It is taken from Letter XLIX. to the duke of Grafton, See also:June 22, 1771:the most See also:solemn professions to the public. The See also:sacrifice of Lord Chatham was not lost on him. Even the cowardice and perfidy of deserting him may have done you no disservice in his esteem. The instance was painful, but the principle might please." What is artificial and See also:stilted in this style did not offend the would-be classic taste of the 18th century, and does not now conceal the fact that the laboriously arranged words, and See also:art-fully counterbalanced clauses, convey a venomous hate and scorn. The pre-established See also:harmony between Junius and his readers accounts for the rapidity of his success, and for the importance attributed to him by Burke and See also:Johnson, far better writers than himself. Before 1772 there appeared at least twelve unauthorized republications of his letters, made by speculative printers. In that See also:year he revised the collection named " Junius: Stat nominis See also:umbra," with a See also:dedication to the English See also:people and a See also:preface. Other See also:independent See also:editions followed in See also:quick See also:succession. In 1801 one was published with annotations by See also:Robert See also:Heron.

In 18o6 another appeared with notes by See also:

John See also:Almon. The first new edition of real importance was issued by the Woodfall See also:family in 1812. It contained the correspondence of Junius with H. S. Woodfall, a selection of the miscellaneous letters attributed to Junius, facsimiles of his See also:handwriting, and notes by Dr See also:Mason Good. Curiosity as to the mystery of the authorship began to replace political and See also:literary interest in the writings. Junius himself had been See also:early aware of the See also:advantage he secured by concealment. " The mystery of Junius increases his importance " is his See also:confession in a letter to Wilkes dated the 18th of See also:September 1771. The calculation was a See also:sound one. For two generations after the See also:appearance of the letter of the 21st of January 1769, speculations as to the authorship of Junius were rife, and discussion had hardly ceased in 1910. See also:Joseph See also:Parkes, author with Herman See also:Merivale of the See also:Memoirs of Sir See also:Philip See also:Francis (1867), gives a See also:list of more than See also:forty persons who had been supposed to be Junius. They are: See also:Edmund Burke, Lord George See also:Sackville, Lord Chatham, See also:Colonel See also:Barre, See also:Hugh See also:Macaulay See also:Boyd, Dr See also:Butler, John Wilkes, Lord See also:Chesterfield, Henry See also:Flood, William Burke, See also:Gibbon, W.

E. See also:

Hamilton, See also:Charles See also:Lloyd, Charles See also:Lee (general in the See also:American War of See also:Independence), John See also:Roberts, George Grenville, See also:James Grenville, Lord See also:Temple, Duke of See also:Portland, William Greatrakes, See also:Richard See also:Glover, Sir William See also:Jones, James Hollis, Laughlin Maclean, Philip Rosenhagen, See also:Horne See also:Tooke, John See also:Kent, Henry See also:Grattan, See also:Daniel Wray, See also:Horace See also:Walpole, See also:Alexander See also:Wedderburn (Lord See also:Loughborough), Dunning (Lord See also:Ashburton), Lieut.-General Sir R. See also:Rich, Dr Philip Francis, a " junto " or See also:committee of writers who used a See also:common name, De Lolme, Mrs See also:Catherine Macaulay (1733-91), Sir Philip Francis, Lord See also:Littleton, Wolfram See also:Cornwall and Gov. See also:Thomas See also:Pownall. In the See also:great See also:majority of cases the attribution is based on nothing more than a vague guess. Edmund Burke denied that he could have written the letters of Junius if he would, or would have written them if he could. Grattan pointed out that he was See also:young when they appeared. More plausible claims, such as those made for Lord Temple and Lord George Sackville, could not stand the test of e;:amination. Indeed after 1816 the question was not so much " Who wrote Junius? " as " Was Junius Sir Philip Francis, or some undiscoverable See also:man? " In that year John See also:Taylor was led by a careful 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. He had at first been inclined to attribute them to Sir Philip's See also:father, Dr Francis, the author of See also:translations of Horace and See also:Demosthenes.

Taylor applied to Sir Philip, who did not See also:

die till 1818, for leave to publish, and received from him answers which to an unwary See also:person might appear to constitute denials of the authorship, but were in fact evasions. The reasons for believing that Sir Philip Francis (q.v.) was Junius are very strong. His evasions were only to be expected. Several of the men he attacked lived nearly as long as himself, the sons of others were conspicuous in society, and King George III. survived him. Sir Philip, who had held office, who had been decorated, and who in his later years was ambitious to obtain " The profound respect 1 See also:bear to the gracious See also:prince who governs this See also:country with no less See also:honour to himself than See also:satisfaction to his subjects, and who restores you to your See also:rank under his See also:standard, will See also:save you from a multitude of reproaches. The See also:attention I should have paid to your failings is involuntarily attracted to the hand which rewards them; and though I am not so partial to the royal See also:judgment as to affirm that the favour of a king can remove mountains of See also:infamy, it serves to lessen at least, for undoubtedly it divides, the See also:burden. While I remember how much is due to his sacred character, I cannot, with any decent appearance of propriety, See also:call you the meanest and the basest See also:fellow in the See also:kingdom. I protest, my Lord, I do not think you so. You will have a dangerous See also:rival in that See also:kind of fame to which you have hitherto so happily directed your ambition, as long as there is one man living who thinks you worthy of his confidence, and See also:fit to be trusted with any See also:share in his See also:government. . . . With any other prince, the shameful See also:desertion of him in the midst of that See also:distress, which you alone had created, in the very crisis of danger, when he fancied he saw the See also:throne already surrounded by men of virtue and abilities, would have outweighed the memory of your former services. But his See also:majesty is full of justice, and understands the See also:doctrine of compensations; he remembers with gratitude how soon you had accommodated your morals to the necessities of his service, how cheerfully you had abandoned the engagements of private friendship, and renounced the See also:governor-generalship of See also:India, dared not confess that he He was a voluminous writer on theological subjects, and translated was Junius.

The similarity of his handwriting to the disguised hand used by the writer of the letters is very See also:

close. If Sir Philip Francis did, as his family maintain, address a copy of verses to a See also:Miss See also:Giles in the handwriting of Junius (and the evidence that he did is weighty) there can be no further question as to the identity of the two. The similarity of Junius and Francis in regard to their opinions, their likes and dislikes, their knowledge and their known movements, amount, apart from the handwriting, almost to See also:proof. It is certain that many felons have been condemned on circumstantial evidence less See also:complete. The opposition to his claim is based on such assertions as that his known handwriting was inferior to the feigned hand of Junius, and that no man can make a disguised hand better than his own. But the first assertion is unfounded, and the second is a mere expression of See also:opinion. It is also said that Francis must have been guilty of baseness if he wrote Junius, but if that explains why he did not avow the authorship it can be shown to constitute a moral impossibility only by an examination of his See also:life. AuTxoRrrIES.—The best edition of the Letters of Junius, properly so called, with the Miscellaneous Letters, is that of J. See also:Ward (1854). The most valuable contributions to the controversy as to the authorship are: The Handwriting of Junius investigated by Charles See also:Chabot, See also:expert, with preface and See also:collateral evidence by the Hon. E. Twisleton (1871); Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis, K.C.B., by Parkes and Merivale (1867); Junius Revealed by his Surviving See also:Grandson, by H.

R. Francis (1894) ; The Francis Letters, edited by Beata Francis and Eliza See also:

Keary, with a See also:note on the Junius controversy by C. F. Keary (See also:tool); and " Francis, Sir Philip," by Sir See also:Leslie See also:Stephen, in See also:Diet. of Nat. Biog. The See also:case for those who decline to accept the claim of Sir Philip Francis is stated by C. W. See also:Dilke, Papers of a Critic (1875), and See also:Abraham See also:Hayward, More about Junius, Franciscan Theory Unsound (1868). (D.

End of Article: JUNIUS

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
JUNIPER 		[next]
JUNIUS, FRANZ (in French, Francois du Jon)

Site © 2006 - Net Industries