The Press. — London, England, 1853-10-01 00:00:00

OCTOBER 1, 1853. yittraturr. JUNIt S CONTROVERSY. The Ohost qf Junius. 13y Francis Ayerst. London : Bosworth. I 553. The' Crrnrille Papers. Vols. 11 1. and IV. London : Murray. I $;.);1. The Quarterly lierierr. No. C I .X.X IX. Lon- don : Murray. 17-451. Janiui and Lord Chesterfield. By William Crump. London : Hope and Co. 1850. Colonel Barret aml Junius. By John Britton. F.S.A. Loudon :.I. Smith. 15.18. THE revival of the Junius controversy is one of the most remarkable facts in that depart• meat of contemporary literature, which is chiefly confined to historical criticism. Twelve years ago, there was a very gcneral disposition amongst literary circles to acquiesce in the conclusion, that Sir Philip Francis was the Man in the Mask. Since that time, the con troversy, so far from becoming torpid. has shown more vitality than at any former period. The eminent natural philosopher, Sir David Brewster, has applied his scientific intellect to the support of the claims of Lachlan Mac lean. The Quarterly Review, with vast re search, much original knowledge, and con siderable ingenuity. contends that Junius was Thomas (alias "the wicked ") Lord Lyttelton. Mr. Smith, formerly librarian at Stowe, and editor of " The Grenville Papers," believes in Earl Temple ; while Mr. Britton, the learned antiquary, argues. with no small ability, that it was Colonel Barre. One of our weekly critical contemporaries has devoted a great portion of its space, and most minute researeh, to disputing the Franciscan theory. On the other hand, Lord Mahon, Lord Campbell, and Mr. Macaulay, amongst living celebrities, eon cur with the late Mr. Canning and Sir James Mackintosh in holding that Francis wits Junius, a conclusion opposed to the opinions of the late Lord Stowell, Mr. Charles Butler, Sir Egerton Brydges, and Doctor Parr. Amongst living persons of distinction who have studied this question we may refer to Mr. Wilson Croker, who does not believe in the Fran eiscan claims, and to Lord Brougham, who has published his conclusion that it is " most reasonable and charitable " to rest in the sup position that " Francis had a knowledge of " the secret, and may have been engaged in " the copying of the letters, without being " their author." A literary question with so many compli• sated issues can scarcely receive adequate discussion in journalism. Iu treating of this very curious subject, we propose to confine ourselves to noticing the passing forms, which in our time the question is assuming. Before doing so we may preface a few words upon the value of the Junius controversy. We do not concur with those wlie flippantly assume that the inquiry after Junius is trivial and without use. There are three reasons why questions relating to Junius must be of literary interest. Firstly, the prodigious po pular effect of these letters is matter of history, and can never be passed over, even in the most cursory narrative of the reign of George the Third. Secondly, their intrinsie literary ability will always command the attention of critics and the admiration of readers. Thirdly, the mystery of the authorship will never be without its charms. Seldom in human life have the real and the marvellous been more closely joined than in the history of Junius. •A writer was found who " broke through the cobwebs of the law, and ranged, uncontrolled, " unpunished, through the land, the myrmi " dons of the Court, pursuing him in vain. " King, Lords, and Commons were the sport " Of his fury."—(Burke.) He displayed inti mate knowledge of Court secrets, yet the occupants of the King's palace could not detect him. He displayed rare powers of argument, 4,11 public questions, a special research that must have taken time and trouble. and a pe euliur originality of mind ; yet senators, authors. lowyers, journalists, knew him not ! How a 1111111 could have had his particularity of knowledge, and published it to the world without inawediate detection, would +'l , l a& to THE PRESS. !Is perfectly contrary to " the course of nature " if we did not know that the miracle was mutter of historical fact. There is not a inure ro mantic chapter ilk the history of letters than the mystery of Junius; and. until the truth be positively known, we may anticipate that curiosity about the mighty shadow will never cease. Before noticing the late phases of this in tricate controversy, we woul d wish to remark on the literary ability of the letters, which have been disparaged by several persons—by Charles Fox and Lord Brougham amongst others. For our own part, not concurring in any criticism which would detract from the talent of Junius, we may say that, in our opinion, he never could be placed as a writer on a level with Lord Boling - broke and Burke. He wants the mikiestie flow, the harmonious variety, and wonderful command of the Eng lish tongue displayed by the fimeinating St. John. The Reflections on the French Revolution," and Letter to a Noble Lord," by Burke, are masterpieees as tiir beyond the powers of Junius as the greatest dramas of Shakspeare, with their inspiration and pathos, are above the cold correctness and glittering rhetoric of the tragedies of Voltaire. His excellence consists in his being able to associate in composition the condensed and the popu lar to a degree that no other writer, addressing the public, has ever attained. How difficult it is for any author to display those talents which, in dazzling the vulgar crowd, enn also delight the critical readers of the closet! Still more difficult is it to achieve such triumphs on ephemeral topics, and to win upon fugitive themes literary laurels whose brightness can not tide ! OHO might suppose that Coleridge, with his nebulous philosophy and vague transcendentalism, would have been likely to undennte so showy and popular a writer as Junius; yet sonic of the finest criticism we have ever read on Junius has come from his pen. We may cite his remarks, as they ar e not well known :-- It in impossibly to &inlet from the merit ofthecie letter: thy are suited to Hair ptirposy, and perfro in their kind. They imprl to net • , not thought. Hai they been profound or solidi. in thought.iir majestic and %Weeping in they nimbi hare been tuiaptyil the yloact iiisa Sidney ;or for a }lousy of Lords, such as it was in the • • of I Alrll Bacon : but they nry plain and sensibly wheneverthe awhur is in the right ; and. wlo•ther right or m nom, always ithrrwil and upigrammatic; and tittisl for thy coffee-flimsy, the E. finings., the lobby of the Ittottse of Commons, and to he read aloud at a public meeting. • • • • Peals r; the fair way of considering ihis.c letters w 4 mill be as kind of Rah, feat pirate; the Aso and fill' billaiteeti .41114'1114'S constitute a true metre : and the eone nucleon is that of satiric poetry, a witty lugit, as ILKHOCiai -14011 by mml tsing meiiii.bances of cause and etliict. the sophistry of which the reader has all interest in, not stopping to detect, for it Hatters his Im, of mischief and makes the sport. The whole of Coleridge's elaborate criticism on Junius is worthy of the mind to which we owe the best English analysis of the diameter of Hamlet. A critic of another stamp paid that indirect homage to Junius in rivate which he denied to him p in public. " I know '• no one but 'Mull Burke eapahle of writing " those letters," maid Samuel Johnson. Of the recent writings upon ,l u pins, cited at the head of our article, the most itnportant are the " Introductory Notes" by Mr. Smith to the third and fourth volumes of the "Gren ville Papers," and the ingenious article in the Quarterly llerhar for December, Is3l. Mr. Smith has devoted two hundred and thirty rages to maintaining the theory that Earl iremple was Junius, while the Quarterly Re viewer occupies some seventy pages to bring forward Lord (Thomas) Lyttelton's These two writers dittCring in their views con cur in the rejection of the claims of Francis. In originality the Quarterly Reviewer excels Mr. Smith. lie has opened up entirely new matter, and has excavated a forgotten character in Thomas Lord l.yttclton, whom he has reelothed in his political gar ments, and presented to our view as a brilliant libertine, " a bold bad man," with gross vices, but great gettins.with much that was dazzling, and still more that was daring in his melan choly mixture of the aspiring and the grovel ling. Mr. Smith has also revealed Lord Temple to the world in a plainer light than he stood previously. Lord 'Temple was certainly unde r . rated in his own days us well ati with New ti 2 1 City. Ile had several friends. like 'Wilkes and ethers. who did no eredit to his choice ; anti he had enemies, like Horace Walpole. who took care that the world should not forget his unlatvourable features. Vie have already re marked on the general character of the Oren• vines (l'aEss ask p. 35.1). and we need not now dwell on the influeuee and formidable energy of I,ord Temple. Hut we cannot eon eur in the view of Mr. Smith that the brilliant and impassioned Junius was the lordly pro. prietor of Stowe. In justice to Mr. smith, however, we will present his theory in his ow II the supposition 1114 Lord Tutorle was the autlee.e (4.1 111 l la•het•e that La dy Temple UN*. the onialinvikbit,, by wh o se limo) all the writing part of the corresponeletice. was e~erulyd. I m o T em pl e s leniograph was evidently toot capable of Wing adapted to UM handwriting of .111/111114 ho wrote with ditheulty . the letters are largeanal badly Mined, still the whole leppearaance of it such as hl. person it de• scribesl tee lime been, aw kweard and Illy: nlhl\. Lady Temple. on the cientrary. has) very consieletable faultily us the use of the pen. In her hand* riling, at beyond periods ol• her• life, are to I. found many at the olianwteristies of the wt kings of .1 s--the 1111 l nue and delicate fineness of the letters, the r•e'gularity anal eleamess, the ilerfect limitation of every letter, the uucteauess of the hues, :he peculiarity met eommencing aid' a small letter in• stead of a capital, anti, chose to the lett limed edge' of the pala•r, the habit of occasionally omitting small words aw l single letters 111 words, the invariable attentiesu to the dill• ling of the letter i, the similen ity in the fora► of individual letters, and the general appeur'aac.' of her early hand writing All I'OIIIIIIMA with the feigned hand %lads she sub. sNsonny adopted for the wriung of Wt‘ must In excused for being sceptical that a WOlll/111 ILO had aught to do with the secret of Junius. We think the theory altogether absurd. and one that can he easily disposed of. There is not a single page of Lord 'T'emple's many speeches anal pamphlets inspired with the tiro of genius. Lord 'temple Was a man with a talent t i n• things. not tor style. and by his Own pen he has refuted the notion that he was Junius. As for the handwriting. it can scarcely be taken into account in examining this pi-4,blem : - - Even at this day we know two 'Jersons whose• ordinary letters may be taken us tkesi ►niles of the manuscript letters to Woodfu lint, furthermore, the three letters of .Innius now to►r the tirst tiu►e published in the - Grow vine Papers," in our ol,inion. completely over turn the theory of Mr. Smith. These letters are of great historical importance. and we will present then► to our renders, without Adm.. rant inn :--- Al .•1' .11 Sll ft• 1.1tEN%11,1,1*. 1.1.11111.11. 11 I. 111'11111:t I Sult-a4llc obsurvations roustioni.,l in the inclosed poper 111 V thrown togrther Mud x.lll to you npon s supposition thut the 'l•at Ihrre w ii I u. ii to will undc pint id the• budget. if Lord North should lout. tallyn upon r scheme, they will Is' 11$1 4 11.04!.. 1.111 It Ih. I UM' and they shall apls•ar t.. hae.• ue} • a. It . lll. lh.• author is satisfied, that WI 1111411 iu Ibis 1 . 1.111111 V ..1111 11111k1. At. abl.• nee of tlwtn, or place Ih.•n in is. ad►autuK.rnts a light as It im Ind, fir, either tivertikto ry or loropi•E to mak.. nt nl ll' known t., )ou at prent . lll. 111•1.141 . 14•1* I linty p. shops I lalui that honour. in the 1111101 1101 s. 1110.111 . 4 . 41 That it in * voluntary II nllOOlOO it u, unu priwon foimilril irn an 114(14.111 tior 30111' Nara 11101 tills •ratatitlistg, itt hati, lual w eirrr engage me in hoar I woo,. .% ln I of lair publilattow.. utti 'bated to mils of tat go at ur talent 1 may you 'if my /...al, if not of toy t to 144414 . yOll. l'hi. only 4 'ondition. whirl I ja esitnie to make with you, is that you will not only not show theme par lb to any IMMIC, lot that you will lit% er mention ) • air having 1 1.4.1.41 rd them. C. Oat the hypOthebhi that Lord T eml►le was Junius, we can scarcely coneeive of at more truly ridiculous thing than for him to have written such a letter to his own brother If he %imbed to have great nine plowed on him mecret eonimunications, Was that the style of document which a peer of the realm, with princely estate, would have written to a proud, filmed. and rather pompous istrliamentary leader like George Granville? Hut this point will be seen Ina still plainer light on perusing the .eotill letter, which is far more remarkable than the preceding one. Let our readeis care fully mark what t011ows: I. Al THOU or JUNIUS] TO Mt. 4.10:M11J.E. I,sory4fill. 3d. September. I tiro—lt may not be improper pm know dolt the !niblick i• eotirelt• ine.taken with iehpect t h e. Author id amino hoe puldicrtluux ill th , • Nev‘spitibots Ito assured that lie is a man quite miktiuwil mot unconnected. He has attached himwlf to your cause mini In !mu minor, tipoti motives, which, if hr were of eilllNCiltlellri• 4110 Ugh to give weight in his Judgment, would 14 thought s. lwavumbk to )vu, tw ility NEU kulY INA44l4l‘tvry to LWOW,