Identity of Junius

Junius was the pseudonym of a writer who contributed a series of political letters to the "Public Advertiser" [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.] , from January 21 1769 to January 21 1772 as well as several other London Newspapers as the London Evening Post, one of the most important Newspapers of British 18th century. These papers resulted in charges being brought against several people of which 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.

Early guesses

Joseph Parkes, author with Herman Merivale of the "Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis" (1867), gives a list of more than forty persons who had been supposed to be Junius. They are:
*Edmund Burke
*Lord George Sackville
*William Pitt (The Elder), 1st Earl of Chatham
*Colonel Barré
*Hugh Macaulay Boyd
*Dr Butler
*John Wilkes
*Lord Chesterfield
*Henry Flood
*William Burke
*Edward Gibbon
*W.E. Hamilton
*Charles Lloyd
*Charles Lee (General in the American War of Independence)
*John Roberts
*George Grenville
*James Grenville
*Richard Grenville-Temple, Lord Temple
*Duke of Portland
*William Greatrakes
*Richard Glover
*Sir William Jones
*James Hollis
*Laughlin Maclean
*Philip Rosenhagen
*John Horne Tooke
*John Kent
*Henry Grattan
*Daniel Wray
*Horace Walpole
*Alexander Wedderburn (Lord Loughborough)
*Dunning (Lord Ashburton)
*Lieut.-General Sir R. Rich
*Dr Philip Francis
*a "junto" or committee of writers who used a common name
*Jean-Louis de Lolme
*Mrs Catherine Macaulay (1733-91)
*Sir Philip Francis
*Lord Littleton
*Wolfram Cornwall
*Gov. Thomas PownallIn the great majority of cases the attribution is based on nothing more than a vague guess.

In at least one case a claim was made as part of a wider attempt at self-aggrandisement. 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.

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 young when they appeared. More plausible claims, such as those made for Lord Temple and Lord George Sackville, could not stand the test of examination. Indeed after 1816 the question was not so much "Who wrote Junius?" as "Was Junius Sir Philip Francis, or some undiscoverable man?" In that year John 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 father, Dr Francis, the author of translations of Horace and Demosthenes. Taylor applied to Sir Philip, who did not die till 1818, for leave to publish, and received from him answers which, to an unwary person. might appear to constitute denials of the authorship, but were in fact evasions.

Assumptions about Philo Junius

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.

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.

Assumptions about the Footnotes

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 Johnson).

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.

The case for Thomas Paine

A book by Joel Moody written in 1872 entitled "Junius unmasked: or Thomas Paine the author of the letters of Junius" attributes Junius' writings to Thomas Paine. The timing is right; Paine was in England employed as a school teacher, and had recently joined the Society of Twelve political club. The Junius letters stopped before Paine left for America. Paine's authorship would explain his consummate writing skill in his American pamphlets. Could an unpublished author have created a masterpiece like "Common Sense" with no previous experience? His revolutionary anti-monarchy position after coming to America would explain why he might be reluctant to reveal his authorship of the Junius' letters, which showed acceptance of the English monarchy. Paine the radical would probably not want to claim the moderate, less polished, and often vindictive letters of Junius.

The case for Sir Philip Francis

Reasons for believing Sir Philip Francis was Junius are reasonably compelling. 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 governor-generalship of India, dared not confess that he was Junius. The similarity of his handwriting to the disguised hand used by the writer of the letters is very close. If Sir Philip Francis did, as his family maintain, address a copy of verses to a Miss 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 proof. 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 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 life. Charles Chabot was convinced of Francis based on the handwriting and other collateral evidence. [Chabot (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. Whilst the results for any one phrase are inconclusive, when a large sample is tested it becomes easy to see if there is a statistical link to any one candidate; in this case, Ellegård concluded that there was a 30,000 to one chance in favour of the hypothesis that Junius was, in fact, Sir Philip Francis.

Some scholars easily refute Francis' candidacy because evidence is circumstantial—reasons for Francis' candidancy are equally applicable to other candidates. The above-mentioned computer analysis, which looks statistically only at word usage, appears to be inductive towards Francis. A truly scientific and deductive approach would have to compare ALL candidates, including those never thought of. A weak case is made for Francis with regards to content and motive (against Grafton, North, Bedford and others), claiming that Junius' attacks on certain figures was simply due to party politics and thereby adding a pettiness to Junius' writings. Also, in the 1780s there would have been good cause by the opposition (Lord North's cronies) to label Francis as being Junius as that would have severely discredited Francis as a witness in the Warren Hastings impeachment trial. Lastly, Warren Hastings' second in charge as governor-general of India was John Macpherson who was once an anti-Junius pamphleteer and may well have begun the first rumour of Francis being Junius in defense of Hastings.

It is clear that the identity of Junius requires a lot more thought. His reputation, written mostly by his opponents, is far from resolved—especially when they slide into easy dismissals of Junius' content by attributing authorship to individuals like Sir Philip Francis.

The case for Edmund Burke

From a style, content and political persuasion, Edmund Burke (an old Whig) was a very likely candidate. However, Burke denied authorship consistently, claiming: “I could not if I would, and I would not if I could”. In 1770 he even taunted the government in parliament for their inability to capture Junius.

The case for Burke also needs to weighed against the idea that he, being a Rockingham Whig, was staunchly against shortened parliaments that Junius had favoured. Burke passionately pronounced in 17 May 1780 that shortened parliaments (from the then 7 years) amounted to overturning the Constitution.

Later Burke seems to have discovered Junius’ true identity but refused to reveal his name. There is therefore reason to believe that Junius was someone Burke knew well enough to protect and that Junius was alive during Burke’s lifetime (b.1727 d.1797).

The case for John Horne Tooke

The case for John Horne Tooke was also good one and was probably based on Tooke’s involvement with the Society of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights (SSBR). This organisation existed during the same years as the appearance of the Letters of Junius. Apart from propagating its progressive view of the constitution and educating the erudite public on their rights and freedoms, it also functioned on a number of other levels: namely, to support the cause of Wilkes and freedom of speech, and of parliamentary reform; and also to address the growing resentments in America.

The SSBR existed for and propagated almost exactly the same messages as those expressed by Junius, and during exactly the same time. Junius, if he was not Horne Tooke, may well have been another member of this society, or have been closely tied to members of this society.

Horace Walpole’s idea that the "Letters of Junius" were written by a "junto" (a committee of writers who used a common name) may indeed follow from this society’s mandate. However, it is hard to believe that such a secret could remain hidden for so long if many individuals were involved. It is also quite likely that many of the supporting letters, often attributed to Junius, were indeed written by others, possibly members of this society.

The case for Edward Gibbon

The case for John Miller

According to family Records of the John Miller Family and descendants; John Miller published the Junius Letters in The London Evening Post (one of the more very important newspapers of the 18th century) of which he was either owner or part owner ---this publication became what is today The Times. John himself was accused as being Junius of these letters and he was brought to trial in 1770 at the Guild Hall along with Almon, a bookseller and Woodfall and John 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 a 11 year old girl was sentenced to death because she caused another girl to fall and break the jar of water she was carrying.

Miller soon fled to the United States within twelve years after being found not guilty. Family records indicate that he did not flee immediately but continued living in London. 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 MESSSENGER 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 were arrested, thrown into 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.

The case of Benjamin Franklin

First of all 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 rabid American 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.

The case for Dr Samuel Johnson

The case for de Lolme

Jean-Louis de Lolme, an originally Swiss political philosopher, 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, such as the above mentioned Burke and Dr. Johnson. 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.

Notes

Bibliography

*1911----
* Tony Harold Bowyer: 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 [http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/literature/reports/p016.htm]
* John Cannon: 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.
* Francesco Cordasco: Junius, a bibliography of the letters of Junius; with a checklist of Junian scholarship and related studies.Fairview, NJ [e.a.] : Junius-Vaughn Press, 1986.
* [http://juniusbooks.com/18c_pub.php Cordasco, Francesco: "A Bibliography of the Letters of Junius with a Checklist of Juniuan Scholarship and Related Studies", Junius-Vaughn Press, Fairview, N.J. (1986)]
* cite book | author=Chabot, C. | title=The Handwriting of Junius Professionally Investigated | year=1871 | location=London | publisher=John Murray