testably that Tilghman was acquainted | paragraph, it seems clear that Tilghman himself with the Verses. In 1772 Francis, who cannot be regarded as the author of the two was in Italy, wrote a letter to Dr. John lines, inasmuch as, in that case, the quotation Campbell, a leading littérateur of the day. of them would be wanting in point, and be He was evidently proud of this letter, and nearly irrelevant. The subject under discussion attached so much importance to it, that is a poetical composition of Francis, and Tilghhe sent a copy of it to his friend Tilghman, man, while he stoutly denies the originality of who had returned to Philadelphia in Amerthat particular composition, declares himself ica, of which place he was a native. The ready to allow that Francis can weave originals, letter contains the following Latin Epi- This quotation would be singularly inappropri and then quotes the two lines of the Verses. gram, which Francis wrote upon a marble lion in the Medici Palace :

ate if Tilghman was merely quoting two lines of his own composition; while it was apposite, and might have been soothing to Francis after the assault on his epigram, if it alluded to Francis's Verses. The latter, therefore, may safely be adopted as the correct explanation of the passage; and the meaning of it is very much the same as if Tilghman had written, I deny that the conception of your epigram was original, but I do not deny that you can weave originals, for your power to do this has been proved by your verses on Belinda.' At the same time, he probably quoted these two particular lines from a catch of fancy in a play of words; to say that as Belinda, in the School of the Graces, 'improv'd ev'ry hour,' so Francis improved

Vix domini gressus auserit umbra sequi." Tilghman fully appreciated Francis's letter to Dr. Campbell, but, in regard to the epigram, he indulged in the following criticism in his reply: "I have no objection to the epigram of the old lion, provided you will change the word conception for translation, or imitation: He roared so loud and looked so wondrous what he borrowed, and thus made his composi

grim,

tions originals."

The circumstances we have narrated above having enabled Mr. Twistleton to test the sagacity and independence of Mr. Chabot, it occurred to him as probable that, if sufficient materials were placed at Mr. Chabot's disposal, he would be able to give a sound opinion on the much more important question whether Sir Philip Francis did, or did not, handwrite the Letters of Junius. In regard to Francis, Mr. Twisleton procured, from a granddaughter of Sir Philip Francis, through Mr. Merivale, one of the two authors of the "Life of Francis," a Letter-Book containing forty-two original Letters written and sent by Francis to his brother-in-law or to his wife in the years from 1767 to 1771 inclusive. And in regard to Junius, not only had the Trustees of the British Museum recently purchased all the original Letters and writings of Junius in the possession of Mrs. Parkes, which had belonged first to Mr. Henry Dick Woodfall, and afterwards to her late husband, Mr. Parkes, but Mr. Murray readily gave access to the original Manuscripts of the

Letters of Junius to Mr. Grenville which though Mr. Chabot has written his Reports unwere in his possession. Under these circumstances Mr. Twisleton gave formal written instructions to Mr. Chabot "that he should submit the handwriting of Jurius to a searching comparison with the Letters of Sir Philip Francis, and should state, professionally, his opinion in writing

whether the Letters of Francis and of Junius respectively were, or were not, written by the same hand."

that his conclu

der professional responsibility, and they thus
deserve to be read with more than ordinary at-
tention, he is desirous and I publish his Re-
ports with the same desire
sions should in no respect be accepted on
grounds of mere authority, but that they should
advances in their behalf."
be judged of entirely by the reasons which he

In seeking to prove that two different handwritings have been made use of by Subsequently Mr. Twisleton requested the same person, it is important to observe Mr. Chabot to report whether the nega- the method pursued in the investigation. tive could, or could not, be proved respect- Most persons are content with a general ing Lady Temple and Lord George Sack-comparison, without endeavouring to ascerville, as well as the affirmative respecting tain the principles which govern the handSir Philip Francis. This request was sug- writing, or the characteristic habits in the gested to Mr. Twisleton by what had two handwritings under discussion. They passed respecting the Anonymous Verses, thus form their judgment by the impreswhen Mr. Chabot had negatived Francis's sion left upon their minds by general claim before Tilghman had been discov- similarity, without that careful examination ered as their handwriter; and it seemed to of the peculiar and distinctive formations Mr. Twisleton interesting to ascertain of individual letters which characterize the whether there were, or were not, any habits writing. "The principles which underlie or peculiarities of writing in Lady Temple, all proof by comparison of handwitings or Lord George Sackville, which appeared are very simple, and when distinctly enunto Mr. Chabot incompatible, or not easily ciated, appear to be self-evident. To to be reconciled, with habits or pecu- prove that two documents were written by liarities in the handwriting of Junius. the same hand, coincidences must be shown to exist in them which cannot be accidental. To prove that two documents were written by different hands, discrepancies must be pointed out in them which cannot be accounted for by accident or by disguise. These principles are easy to understand, but to exemplify them in observations is by no means always easy." It is the merit of these Reports that they give an analysis of the handwriting by examining separately the elements or letters of which it is composed. It would be impossible, however, to convey any adequate idea of the method pursued by Mr. Chabot in his investigation without entering into minute details; and even then they would be hardly intelligible without constant reference to the lithographed plates, which we have not the means of reproducing on our pages. But we can promise such of our readers as will take the trouble to study Mr. Chabot's remarks and reasoning, with the help of the lithographed plates, a rich mine of instruction on a subject which had never yet been explained in any systematic treatise. We may first state in general the conclusions at which Mr. Chabot has arrived on the long-disputed controversy respecting the Junian handwriting.

The result is contained in two elaborate Reports, occupying 197 quarto pages, one on the handwriting of Sir Philip Francis, and the other on the handwritings of Lady Temple, Lord George Sackville, and others. These are followed by facsimiles, taken by photo-lithography, of the letters of Junius and of the proof-sheets of these letters, as well as by similar facsimiles of the letters of Sir Philip Francis and of the other persons to whom the authorship of the Junian Letters has been at various times ascribed. Thus we have an amount of evidence which has never previously been presented to the public; and, indeed, as far as Francis is concerned, all the facsimiles of his autographs which have been published in "Junius Identified," in the "Chatham Correspondence," and in the "Memoirs of Sir P. Francis," do not, combined, quite equal in the number of words the first Letter of Francis contained in the volume before us.

There is one peculiar feature in these Reports to which Mr. Twisleton directs special attention:

"As far as is known, they are the only instance in which an expert has deliberately published the result of his investigations into the handwriting of Junius and Francis; and most undoubtedly, they are the only instance in which any such expert has written professionally, and "I find generally," says Mr. Chabot, "in subscribed his name to his opinion. Still, al- the writing of the Letters of Sir Philip Francis

consistent and complete disguise throughout a piece of writing of moderate length."

so much variety in the formation of all letters which admit of variety as to render his handwriting difficult to disguise in any ordinary manner, and consequently easy to identify. I One of the most striking characteristics discover also in the writing of the Letters and of the Junian handwriting is the fineness Manuscripts of Junius variations in the forma- of the strokes. It had been often retion of certain letters, in some cases very mul-marked that Junius must have written tifarious, and of frequent occurrence, and that with an extremely fine pen. His handthese variations closely correspond with those observed in the writing of Sir Philip Francis. writing is finer and smaller than that of They are, however, chiefly confined to the small Francis; and a finely made pen, as Mr. letters in both hand-writings; the habitual for- Chabot remarks, would be a necessary mation of capital letters being seldom departed auxiliary to enable a person, like Francis, from in any essential particular in either. I who habitually wrote in a bold hand, to find also, in some instances, wherein Junius reduce the size of his writing. Moreover, makes exaggerated formations of certain letters, a bold handwriting would instinctively exact counterparts of them are to be found in suggest the contrast of a fine and diminthe writing of Sir Philip Francis, and in some ished style of writing for a feigned hand. cases as nearly as possible with the same fre- It has been suggested to us by a friend quency. I further find in the handwriting of that Junius may have maintained without Sir Philip Francis a repetition of all, or nearly effort the persistent fineness of his lines all, the leading features and peculiar habits of writing, independent of the formations of let-by using a crow-quilla suggestion which seems to us very probable, though ters, which so distinguish the Junian writing. we do not remember to have seen it made These are so numerous, so varied, and in some cases so distinctive, that, when taken collective- before. ly, it is scarcely within the limits of possibility that they can be found in the handwriting of any two persons. I am, therefore, irresistibly driven to the conclusion that the Junian Manuscripts and the forty-four Letters of Francis have all been written by one and the same hand."

“Upon examination, I find that the principal features of the disguise consist of the very common practice of altering the accustomed slope. and, in many cases, writing in a smaller hand, whilst that which is of more importance, viz, the radical forms of letters, is repeatedly neglected. It is difficult, whilst the mind is engaged on the subject-matter of the writing, to avoid occasionally, indeed frequently, falling into some of the habits peculiar to the writer. The simple expedients of altering the usual slope and size of the writing may be maintained without difficulty, but it becomes very trying to attend to details at the same time. I have never met with a writer who could do so, and sustain a

Mr. Chabot brings forward two distinct classes of evidence to identify the handwriting of Sir Philip Francis with that of Junius, one relating to the formation of letters, and to peculiarities connected therewith, and the other to habits of writing which do not necessarily depend on such formations and peculiarities. The former class cannot, as we have already said, be made intelligible without reference to the plates; but certain specialties will be readily understood by the help of

a few woodcuts.

FRASCOR me the proof the

JUNIUS.

the same place

"Some writers make both the upper and lower lines of the 3rd page of his Letter, No. 38 (Plate turns of their letters angular; others give them 202), wherein the upper turns of the letters are considerable roundness; the results are two op- extremely angular, and the lower turns are posite styles of writing. When Francis wrote well rounded, in addition to which the latter are rapidly, his writing partook of both character- extremely wide. If he altered the down-strokes istics in an eminent degree. See the first seven- by making them more upright, without mak

ing any corresponding alteration in the up-trast of its general character to that of the Letstrokes of his writing, those three qualifications ters to Woodfall, Nos. 7, 9, 12, 22, and others would necessarily be augmented and become of the Junian writing. more distinctly apparent. Be that as it may, they are the principles upon which the Junian hand is constructed.

"Although many of the Letters of Junius contrast with each other in their general appearance, the construction of the writing of all is "When Junius altered the natural tendency based upon these principles: - In all, the upper of his hand, which he sometimes attempted for turns of the letters are angular and cramped, the purpose of disguising it, by making the and the lower turns wide and free; and the latlower as well as the upper turns of his letters ter are habitually, though not always well angular, the two leading characteristics of ex-rounded, agreeably with the natural tendency treme breadth to the former and narrowness to of Francis's writing, particularly when he wrote the latter still remain (see his Letter to Wood- rapidly. The extreme width of the lower turns fall, No. 3). It is not only the fineness and of the letters frequently occasioned in the Jusmallness of the writing, but also the angular- nian hand as much space between the letters as ity of so many of the lower turns of the writ-between the words, as shown in the subjoined ing of that Letter that occasions the strong con- facsimiles:

common hardly
that the may

may

have

теле

Lellear that

"The following word, taken from Junius's Letter to Mr. Grenville, that word written in first Letter to Mr. Grenville, forcibly illustrates the same remarkable manner, thus: these three peculiarities:

+

Moreover, the general character of the writing of that word corresponds closely with the two instances taken from Francis's writing.

"II. But, further, Francis, having written the word time,' in the middle of a sentence, in the peculiar manner shown, had the habit of occasionally making an addition to the small letter t, which had the effect of converting it (improperly) into a capital letter, thus:

found time

your time Second time

"Both of those peculiarities occur in the

The Letter from which that word is taken is dated only a month after the date of Francis's Letter from which the first of the two facsimiles of the word 'time' is taken, and it occurs in the same phrase, viz. in the mean time.' The form of the addition made by Junius does not exactly correspond with that by Francis, because he was disguising his hand; but the habit or intention is the same, notwithstanding the difference of form. This disguise, however, like many others adopted by Junius, was not uni

formly maintained. There is another instance It also occurs in similar words in Junius to in which no difference of form appears. Fran- Woodfall, thus: —

cis occasionally made this addition to the small letter t when he wrote the word thing' in the middle of a sentence where no capital letter was needed, as in the following facsimiles :—

Every thing any thing anything every Thing

"Junius has made a similar addition, and in like form, to the letter t in the same word ('things'), also written in the middle of a sentence, thus:

of things

"It will be observed in each case that, if the addition be removed, the word will remain written with a small letter t, commenced with an up-stroke in the usual manner, and that the entire word has been written by a single operation of the pen, sustained on the paper until the word has been completed.

"In the same way that Francis formed the letter i similarly to a letter r, so he formed (and far more frequently) the letter r like a letter i. The writing of Junius is equally plentiful in these irregularities.

"III. In Junius to Woodfall, the two letters v and e of the second syllable of the word "Cavendish" are omitted. The omission is signified by a character formed somewhat after

Candishes

FRANCIS

hebry

"I do not remember having seen this mode of shortening a word in any other handwriting.