JUNIUS, the pseudonym of a writer who contributed a series of letters to the London Public Advertiser, from Jan. 21, 1769, to Jan. 21, 1772. The signature had been already used by him in a letter of Nov. 21, 1768, which he did not include in his collection of the Letters of Junius published in 1772. The name was chosen in all probability because he had already signed "Lucius" and "Brutus," and wished to exhaust the name of Lucius Junius Brutus the Roman patriot. Whoever the writer was, he wrote under other pseudonyms before, during and after the period between Jan. 1769 and Jan. 1772. He acknowledged that he had written as "Philo-Junius," and there is evidence that he was identical with "Veteran," "Nemesis" and other anonymous correspondents of the Public Advertiser.
There is a marked distinction between the "letters of Junius" and his so-called miscellaneous letters. The second deal with a variety of subjects, some of a purely personal character, as for instance the alleged injustice of Viscount Barrington the secre tary at war to the officials of his department. But the "letters of Junius" had a definite object—to discredit the ministry of the duke of Graf ton. This administration had been formed in Oct. 1768, when the earl of Chatham was compelled by ill health to retire from office, and was a reconstruction of his cabinet of July 1766. Junius fought for the return to power of Chatham, who had recovered and was not on good terms with his successors. He communicated with Chatham, with George Grenville, with Wilkes, all enemies of the duke of Grafton, and also with Henry Sampson Woodfall, printer and part owner of the Public Adver tiser. This private correspondence has been preserved. It is written in the disguised hand used by Junius.
The letters are of interest on three grounds—their political significance, their style, and the mystery which long surrounded their authorship. As political writings they possess no intrinsic value. Their matter is always invective. Junius began by a general attack on the ministry for their personal immorality or meanness. He then went on to pour acrimonious abuse on Grafton, on the duke of Bedford, on King George III. himself in the letter of Dec. 19, 1769, and ended with a most malignant
and ignorant assault on Lord Chief Justice Mansfield. The practical effect of the letters was insignificant. They provoked anger and retorts. But the letter to the king aroused indignation, and though Graf ton's administration fell in Jan. 177o, it was succeeded by the long-lived cabinet of Lord North. Junius con fessed himself beaten, in his private letter to Woodfall of Jan. 19, 1773. He had materially contributed to his own defeat by his brutal violence. He sinned indeed in a large company. The employment of personal abuse had been habitual in English political controversy for generations.
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 lay in his style. At his best Junius attains to a high degree of artificial elegance and vigour. He shows the influence of Bolingbroke, of Swift, and above all of Tacitus, who appears to have been his favourite author. The imitation is never slavish. Junius adapts, and does not only repeat. The white heat of his malignity animates the whole.
The pre-established harmony between Junius and his readers accounts for the rapidity of his success, and for the importance attributed to him by Burke and Johnson, far better writers than himself. Before 1772 there appeared at least 12 unauthorized re publications of his letters, made by speculative printers. In that year he revised the collection named "Junius: Stat nominis umbra," with a dedication to the English people and a preface. Other independent editions followed in quick succession. Junius himself had been early aware of the advantage he secured by con cealment. "The mystery of Junius increases his importance" is his confession in a letter to Wilkes dated Sept. 18, 177i. The calculation was a sound one. For two generations after the ap pearance of the letter of Jan. 21, 1769, speculations as to the authorship of Junius were rife, and discussion had hardly ceased in 1929. Joseph Parkes, author with Herman Merivale of the Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis (1867), gives a list of more than persons who had been supposed to be Junius.