The experience of a pretty long life has taught me never to believe a Junius "rumour"; never to believe in any story of a coming Junius, no matter how confidently or circumstantially told, which is not proved; and I think the short experience of the Editor of "N. & Q." must have convinced him that what is asserted on men's personal knowledge—the evidence of their own eyes and ears (see case of ÆGROTUS, Vol. iii., p. 378.), may possibly be untrue, on the proof that it was impossible. Out of respect, however, to "N. & Q.," I will say a few words on the rumours to which JUNIUS QUERIST refers.
One of your correspondent's rumours is to this effect, that an eminent bookseller was lately called in to value certain MSS., and thus accidentally discovered who "Atticus or Brutus was, and consequently who Junius himself was." This consequently is certainly a most astounding non-sequitur to those who are reasonably well-informed as to the present state of the Junius question. But let that pass. Still I must observe that your correspondent is dealing with a rumour; that the rumour does not tell us whether the discovery is inferential or positive—relates to Atticus or Brutus: nothing can well be more vague. Now my "rumour" said the discovery was of the writer of the letters of Lucius. Under these circumstances it would be idle to waste another line in speculation: enough for the information of your correspondent, if I add, that in one case the discovery might help us to a conjecture who Junius was; in another, might prove who he was not.
As to the "rumours" about the scents contained in the Grenville Papers, they would fill a volume. They have been buzzing about for more than a quarter of a century. The nonsense of one-half was demonstrable by any intelligent person who would have taken the trouble to examine and test them: but nobody did take such trouble. "N. & Q." was not then in existence. The most plausible, and seemingly, from its circumstantiality, best authenticated version, was given by Mr. Barker, in 1828, to the effect that three letters had been discovered, one of which had a fictitious signature; another asked legal advice of Mr. Grenville as to publishing the letter to the King; and the third enclosed a copy of Junius's letter to Lord Mansfield, signed with the author's initials, and with a reference therein to a letter received from Mr. Grenville.
The publication of the letters will soon put an end to "rumour." Meanwhile the few following facts will dispose of Mr. Barker's circumstantial fictions, and perhaps satisfy your correspondent.
There are amongst the Grenville Papers three letters, dated Feb., Sept., and Nov., 1768; the last therefore before the first Junius was published.
Two of these letters are signed with the initial C.; and, on the similarity of the handwriting, it is assumed that the three letters came from the same person. The writer of the unsigned letter claims to have written many of the letters which had latterly appeared in the newspapers, and, amongst others, a letter signed Atticus, a copy of which he encloses. This is according to my recollection; but I will not say positively that he does not claim to be the writer of the letters signed Atticus. The question, therefore, at present stands thus:—The connexion of these letters with the writer of Junius's letters is an inference or assumption, not a fact. It remains to be proved: and, for anything I know to the contrary, it may hereafter be proved by the editor of the Grenville Papers,—a diligent and careful man,—that the unknown writer of the unsigned letter is worthy of belief; that he was the same person who wrote the two letters signed C.; that Mr. Grenville's correspondent C. in 1768, was Woodfall's correspondent C. in 1769; and then, whether Mr. Grenville's Atticus was the same Atticus whose four letters were published as written by Junius, by Mr. George Woodfall in the edition of 1812. Simple as this last question may appear, and naturally as most persons would come to a conclusion on the subject, I think it well to mention as a warning, that there were, as admitted in the Public Advertiser, two persons who about the same time wrote under that signature, and I think clear evidence of a third writer.
J. R.
WADY MOKATTEB NOT MENTIONED IN NUM. XI. 26.
(Vol. iv., p. 481.; Vol. v., pp. 31., 87.)
Your pages are not suited to the discussion of topics like this: I mean, that to enter fully into all the points raised by MR. MARGOLIOUTH, would occupy more space than you could afford. I therefore write only a few general remarks, lest my silence should be interpreted as an acquiescence in MR. M.'S arguments. The difficulty MR. M. has to contend with is evidently this: how came the eminent Hebrew scholars, who were the authors of the ancient versions—how came the whole body of Jewish Rabbis who have written upon the law, to be ignorant of what seems so clear to MR. M., that הכתובים, in the passage in question was in fact a proper name, denoting the place in which Eldad and Medad were? How came it that they all took it in the sense expressed in our English version? [I do not admit the Chaldee paraphrase as an exception (notwithstanding what MR. M. remarks), because the words בכתיביא ואנון are an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, and partake of the same ambiguity, if there be any ambiguity.] The legend which I quoted from Rashi clearly proves that the Jews of his time understood the passage as our English translators have done. This is MR. M.'S difficulty: and how does he meet it? He says, "What of that, if they happen to be wrong? Such a consideration will never interfere with my own judgment, founded on a thorough knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew word."
What is this but to say that the Septuagint translators, the authors of the other ancient versions, the Jewish Rabbis, had not the same "thorough knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew word" which MR. M. "in his own judgment" believes himself to possess? I do not, however, suppose that MR. M. really intends to set up his own judgment against these authorities, as if he was better acquainted with Hebrew than those who lived when the language was vernacular; but when he tells us "that he has long since learned that opinions are not necessarily true because they are old, nor doctrines undeniably infallible because we have believed them from our cradles," it becomes necessary to remind him that I never asserted any such thing, and that my argument, from authority, amounted simply to this,—that the judgment of the LXX, and other ancient translators, with that of all the Jewish Rabbis of later date, was a better authority, in my judgment, as to the meaning of a Hebrew word, than the unsupported opinion of MR. MARGOLIOUTH, which (as it seems to me) is also inconsistent with the context of the passage. If MR. M. will produce the judgment of any other authority, especially of those who lived near the time when Hebrew was a vernacular language (for this is what makes the age of the authority valuable), his opinion will be more worthy of attention.