my intention to resume the subject again should it be necessary.-Being wholly unconnected with any of the parties in this controversy, I cannot be biassed towards the opinion of any my sole wish is to find out the truth. One of your anonymousCorrespondents, who pretends to set at rest the controversy about the Man in the Iron Mask, is of opinion, that the real Jumus has not as yet been pointed out; and tells us, that "perhaps if he were to give himself a little pains, he should be equally fortunate as to the person of Junius."—It is rather cruel of this very acute gentleman to tantalize us by putting the cup in this manner to our lips without allowing us to taste it. Pray beg of him, Mr. Urban, in the name of all the seekers after Jumius, to take a little pains, and satisfy our longings. To an Englishman the discovery of Junius is surely more interesting than that of the Man in the Iron Mask -(Vol. LXXXIII. Part II. page 310.) As a clue to Junius, another Cor respondent, who signs L. R. I. (vol, LXXXIII. Part I. p. 101.) suggested a search after the copy of the Elder Woodfull's duodecimo edition, concerning the binding, &c. of which, for himself, Junius gives such particular directions in one of his private Letters to Mr. Woodfall. This bint called forth another of your Correspondents, Philo-Junius, who asks(vol.LXXXIII. Part I. p. 199.) whether this copy "was not intended for and placed in a library not accessible to all bookcollectors and whether it has not been known to be there as lately as the year 1786?"-He then hints, that one of your Correspondents, whom "an asthma and a numerous family have excluded from society for several years, may be able to throw some light upon this question."-The gen tleman thus alluded to, Mr. Urban, must be known to you, as he intimates in his answer to Mr. Philo-Junius, with whom he is very angry for point. ing at him so openly. He, however, does not deny, that Philo-Junius was right in his conjecture respecting the copy in question, and says" if he (Philo - Junius) will come forward and say how he obtained his information, I will give all the information in my power."-Now, as Mr. Philo-Junius first threw down the gauntlet, I think you will agree with me, Sir, that he is bound to reveal all he knows on this subject, so as to enable his friend T. E. B. to give all the information in his power." (Ibid. p. 301.) Surely, if the secret of the latter requires only the previous declaration of Philo-Junius, in order to be made public with propriety, T. E. B. cau have but very poor reasons for keeping it to himself. After all, it is not improbable, that the knowledge of both respecting Junius may be as trifling as that of several others who have lately given themselves many airs on the subject. Many deal in mysteries to give themselves a mistaken importance; and prudently remain silent, lest, in the end, the mighty labour of the mountain should terminate in the production of a mouse. The West of England Member of Parliament, who informed your Correspondent Mr. Farqunar (vol. LXXXIV. Part I. p. 36.) that the name of Junius was no secret among the members of the Whig Club, could hardly be serious; as nothing is more certain, than that the members of that Club are exactly as ignorant of the real Junius, as the accomplished members of the Four-in-hand Club. In a paragraph, which your readers will find (vol. LXXXIII. Part II. p. 416.) we are told, that a circumstance, which occurred early in the year 1772, immediately after Junius ceased writing, and which, the writer of the paragraph says, was within his own knowledge, had strongly impressed his mind, at that time, with a belief, that a clergyman of the name of Rosenhagen, then in Lord Shelburne's family, was possessed of the secret of Junius. Now, Mr. Urban, I cannot for the life of me conceive, what was the writer's object in sending you this paragraph. Why did he not communicate this important circumstance, upon which his unshaken belief of Mr. Rosenhagen's secret was founded?We are told, that obscurity is a source of the sublime; but I never heard that it was a source of evidence. This is not a specimen of darkness visible, but of solemn trifling. It is no better than "this is the dog that worried the cat, that killed the rat, that ate the malt, that lay in the house that Jack built." If the writer knows what he means, let him speak out, instead of imitating the example of Mr. T. E. B. and his friend Philo-Junius. I am sick, Mr. Urbau, quite sick, of Mrs. Mrs. Serres and her abettors. You surely, Sir, must be possessed of an enviable degree of patience, to bear with them so long. But she has fairly acknowledged her aim at last, in her Letter to you on the 20th of June; and as it is now apparent that her object is to be fed, and not to be famous, let her but beg henceforth with humility, and the publick may be disposed to forgive her. I agree with you in dissenting from the opinions of those who advocate the claims of Horne Tooke, Dr. Francis, General Lee, Dr. Wilmot, and Mr. Glover. I have read all their pamphlets, excepting that of the Niece of Junius, with pleasure; but certainly without a single atom of conviction. -The first pamphlet respecting Mr. Glover ("Memoirs of a celebrated Literary and Political Character,") was puffed about as glaringly as the Life of Dr. Wilmot was; and yet, after all, it did not contain a single tittle of evidence to prove that Glover was Junius. But, not content with one abortion, before the labour of the first was over, out limps another to get a Sale for its elder Brother. "We feel it our duty, before we enter into any particulars respecting this work, to declare, that it has fully convinced us of the truth, which it is intended to establish-that the Letters of Junius were written by the Right Hon. Edmund Burke. Mr. Roche has, indeed, brought together such a body of evidence, internal, direct, and circumstantial, as must eventually settle this interesting and long-disputed question." Before I quit this topick, allow me to suggest, that in reviewing Mr. Roche's work, your Reviewer (vol. LXXXIII. Part II. p. 257.) has fallen into mistake* when he says, that “the Writings of Mr. Burke, on which Mr. Roche more especially founds his hypothesis, appeared many years after the Letters of Junius had been in every body's hands." Among these he then instances the Tract called"Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents," which most certainly was published, "not many years after the Letters of Junius were in every body's hands," but in 1770; exactly at the time that Junius was writing. Your Correspondent Honestus (vol. LXXXIII. Part II. p. 414.) who writes from Chelsea, puts the following quotation, as if from the writings of Mr. Burke, at the head of his Letter:— "The Style of Junius was imbued with the corrosive sublimate of Mercury. (Burke.) Pemit me to request Honestus, or Mr. Roche, who seems quite intimate with Mr. Burke's writings, to inform us in what part of his works this sentence is to be found? Another of your numerous Correspondents (I mean the gentleman who signs G. L. S. in vol. LXXXIII. Part 11. p. 415.) gives us an extract, on the subject of Junius, from a Pamphlet, which he says was published by Mr. Burke in 1796; and of which the title is as follows: "A General Reply to the several Answerers, &c. of a Letter written to a Noble Lord, by the Right Hon. Edmund Burke." Mr. G. L. S. is of opinion,though this Reply is written in the third person, that there is The last work, which I have read respecting this long-agitated question, and which it is probable I should not have seen so early but for your ac count of it in your LXXXIIId Volume (Part II. p. $57.) is Mr. Roche's Inquiry concerning the Author of the Letters of Junius, &c. proving them to be written by Mr. Burke. Your having declared, that “this intelligent Investigator had made out a stronger case than any preceding writer on the subject," made me send for his work; and I will own to you, after having read it most attentively, that I am fully persuaded, that he has made out a stronger case than any body else hitherto. I will go even farther, and own, although I was previously hostile to the supposition of Mr. Burke being Junius, that Mr. Roche has, in my mind, put this question beyond the reach of controversy. Nor am I singular in this opinion; for I find the following words in a respectable the necessity of inserting a long Letter contemporary journal, which has deon the subject from Mr. Reche.-The voted several pages to its Review of technical circumstance we again repeat; Mr. Roche's work. The journal to and whether at the distance of twenty which I allude is the Anti-Jacobin Re-years or of twenty weeks, the argument view for September 1813, in which, will equally apply. Mr. R. mistakes in at p. 209, the Authors begin their supposing that the articles in pp. 357 Article as follows: and 416, are by the same Writer. EDIT. *We are perfectly ready to acknowledge this mistake; which supersedes no no question but Mr. Burke was the author. Now, Mr. Urban, I am very much disposed to question this fact, which he so readily takes for granted: and it is certain, that the Bishop of Rochester has not, nor does he intend to include this Tract in the authentic collection of Mr. Burke's Works. The extract which he gives from this General Reply is the following: "It is no less remarkable than true, (says the Author) that, with very few exceptions, these sagacious, heart-reading observers have not attributed to Mr. Burke a single mode of abuse, with which they have not loaded their own pages; and in their endeavours to soar a little beyond the visible diurnal sphere of their vapid declamation, one may well say of them, as the incomparable Dunning, in his Letters of Junius, said of Sir William Draper, that they possess the melancholy madness of Poetry without the inspiration." In requesting G. L. S. to furnish us with some better proof than his nere assertion, I may also request him to mention the name of the Bookseller by whom this pamphlet was published. As the Gentleman's Magazine goes, no doubt, to the town of Hungerford, may I hope that some of its Readers there will gratify us, by informing you, Mr. Urban, whether there is any truth in the fact of a Mr. Greatrakes being buried in the Church-yard of Hungerford. If the fact be as stated in your LXXXIIId Vol. Part II. p. 547, it will be an additional obligation, if they send you a correct copy of the inscription on his grave, together with any other particulars they may happen to learn about Mr. Greatrakes. I have heard,that the Bishop of Rochester, in his forthcoming Life of Mr. Burke, intends not to take any potice of the Junius controversy. I can hardly think this to be the case. -After the proofs that have been brought forward, it will not satisfy the publick to have the question slurred over in this manner. Dr. King's Biographical Memoir was expected before this time: :-- Can any of your Readers inform me, why it has been delayed, and when it will be published? Mr. URBAN, M. A. JONES. IN your Magazine for Nov. 1768, p. 499. H. criticises a paper of Mr. John Caverhill in the Transac tions of the Royal Society, intituled, "Some attempts to ascertain the utmost extent of the knowledge of the Antients in the East Indies." After falling foul on the Society for the declaration they make, that they will not answer for the certainty of facts, or propriety of reasoning, in the papers they publish, he comes to Mr. Caverhill; whom he accuses of grossly mistaking and mistranslating almost all his quotations from the Greek Geographers. I shall not examine the three first of his objections; but in his 4th, he says, We are told [by Mr. C.] the Country beyond Ponteamass exactly agrees with Ptolemy's description of that beyond Cattigara, a marshy country, which produces reeds of such a size, that when THEY were joined and tied together, THEY were enabled to pass from one side to the other. Ptolemy's words are, γη λιμνάς έχουσα ελώδεις εν αις καλάμοι μεγάλοι φυονίας και συνεχεις αυτως ως το εχομενες αυτων ποιείσθαι τας διαπεραιώσεις. A country having swampy lakes, in which grow large reeds, and so close together, that on them the neighbour ing inhabitants cross [the lakes]." 66 a In p. 547, Mr. Caverhill replies to the anonymous Critick, and in his turn objects to the translation giver. by H., as totally omitting the word συνέχεις, and then gives a translation word by word, as follows; country having fenny lakes, in which great reeds grow and ouvexes by shortening them, and so joining as to fabricate ferries or transports of them." He goes on: "these reeds or bamboes grow in England 20 feet high in five weeks, and are as thick as the wristt; but in hot countries, they grow more than double that height [40 feet], and commonly equal the diameter of the leg and thigh, and even to a greater size; so that of these the inhabitants in some parts of India, at this day, make of them masts to ships. The inhabitants of Sinæ, according to Ptolemy, shortened, or cut down, these bamboes, and fastened them together, to form floats to cross the lakes in that country. It is a prevailing custom in many parts of India, to this day, to join three rough pieces of timber to * A word used to express continuity. 'Tis a pity Mr. C. has not told us where these reeds grow in England. gether, gether, which they call Cattamarans*, nearly resembling in their outlines the letter V, about 6 feet long; on them they sit on their knees, and with the assistance of paddles proceed to sea in very tempestuous weather. An intelligent gentleman, who had seen many of them, and gave me this description, was of opinion that the great bamboes were very fit for forming these Cattamarans, or Floats. Now from the simple description which Ptolemy has given of the formation of the ferries of the antient Sinæ, they would appear to be the same with the modern Cattamarans, on which the antient inhabitants might have ferried themselves over these lakes. But whether the flouts mentioned by Ptolemy were Cattamarans or not, it sufficiently appears from the spirit of the text, that they were some simple mechanical contrivance that answered a similar purpose, and that were joined, and must have been tied to one another, before they [the inhabitants] ventured upon them. The Critick, however, (says Mr. C.) has reduced the inhabitants to the necessity of marching over the lakes upon the tops of these great and lofty bamboes [40 feet high], as they stood in their perpendicular state." Now, Mr. Urban, I will produce a very intelligent Friend of mine, who resided some years in India, to prove that Ptolemy was correct in what he wrote, but that neither of these Gentlemen understood him, not having been themselves in the country. My Friend says, that he has frequently crossed these marshes (for so they should be called rather than lakes) on the very reeds or bamboes described by Ptolemy, but not by walking on the tops of them, or in Cattamarans formed out of them. In the province of Sylhet, in the Eastern part of Bengal, towards Thibet,are marshes,swamps, or morasses, in which grow what they call Ground Canes, lying horizontally, of great length; the leaves shooting out at the joints, stand upright, and give the appearance of a green field. So close do these bamboes or canes lie, and so matted and interwoven, that *A few years ago we heard much of Cattamarans sent to Boulogne to discharge loads of stones in the Harbour, so as to block it up; few know from whence the name was derived, men and wild beasts pass by this means over marshes otherwise impracticable. E. Mr. URBAN, 66 July 27. IT may, perhaps, divert some of your Readers, if you will have the goodness to insert in your columns the following lines, dedicated (without permission) to one of my respectable" Subscribers resident at Shakspeare's native town; all of whom have long ago received a Copy of my little Book-but all have forgotten o pay for it! One, however, has (it is loudly reported) done me the honour of praising my work; and sold it to a Non-subscriber for 5s. pocketing the Author's, Printer's, and Bookseller's profits; which monopoly has extorted my (hasty) Dedication. "On Avon's Banks Subscription loiters long[her song. Commends my Muse-but pays not for Her price reduc'd—usurp'd Bookseller's trade; [grade. Unlicens'd* sold-and prais'd but to deOh! would great Shakspeare aid my injur'd Muse One ray of his bright genius now infuse; A tale she'd paint Subscription' call its name, And crown some weathy Wits deathless fame!" In justice, however, to my honest feelings, and sense of real kindness, I must request you, Sir, to permit me, through your pages, to present my best and warmest acknowledgments, &c. to about two-thirds of my (truly respectable) Subscribers, many of whom spared me the mortification of asking for their subscriptions; and some, with all that sweet delicacy, characteristic of true gene rosity. which giveth liberally and upbraideth not-presented me with price of my book. To those kind considerably more than the nominal patrous, in particular, and to all in general, from whom I have received payment for their respective Copies→ I once more repeat my respectful acknowledgments, assuring them, "My Muse with gratitude records their aid, [tions paid." And writes on Memory's page-SubscripYours, &c. ANNE CLARKE. |