The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-23
TREND OF THOUGHT
 ALONG PATHS LITERARY

ssst a~ainst the use of a nom de plume. allowing the small concession that there unay Be occasions where it Is 5ustihable; hl,t endeavors to show that in all save fhe very rare instances, 1t is unwar- ranted. To the first position, that Like any other alias, it gives rise to suspicion" may be applied the rule Of exception. Some writers may have reason to be s.ashanned of their production" but this must be exceptional, for most people would hesitate to rush into print with out something to say, or the conscious ness of the ability to say it at least ac- eeptably.
 name for her nom de plume may have been a case of necessity, for more reasons than one: quite certain it is that she was influenced by the acceptance that the male signature would receive over the female Verify she had no cause for em- barrsssment at what she had written; none could have been more sure of Its superiority than herself. There may not be at the present time just the same ac- cepted significance Cor insignificance) of the woman's signature, but 1t is there. and if she gains a better hearing Tor her message through the use of 8 nom ne plume, she is not to blame for using 1t.
 Neither should 1t be said that our many Secular men writers have chosen not to show their identity, for fear that what they had written would be 'shunted on into the waste paper basket We are told to imagine John Wesley printing his sermons under the name of Rev Random Thoughts" This could hardly be imagined, for the very essence of MT. Wesley's work was his personality, and to have separated himself from 1t would have been a fateful mistake. In the other instance noted, viz, if Sir Joshua Reynolds had posed under the name of John Boggs, or no name at all, his immortal. works of art, would have attracted the eye of the world. and it would have but added Increased inter. est could no clue. have been found to the great painter
 Life rerparks that nom dc plume fs con- sfdered the sign manual of an amateur. Why should it be? We are told that the reasons against it are so many, and the reasons In It's favor are so few. that 1t has been sent to Coventry" Besides the consciousness of unworthiness, which causes a writer to hide himself under the nom de plume, Life mentions two other reasons for anonymous writing-amateur- ashness and cowardice. If an indescrib- able shrinking from the public gaze, and ell the trammeIs that 1t means to the person of a writer; if, an inborn modesty, which never fiaunts itself, should cause one, to whom the field of literature Is alluring, to hide oneself behind anonym- aty, is 1t just to class such sensitive spir- its as amateurs and towards? TRat it does require heroism to present oresen, unsolicited, before the public. and weigh ones ability for the amusement, or for the satisfaction of the crowd, we grant; and we also grant that the subject of many writers who sign their names to their productions, bear many ear-marks of arnateurishness. But these things should not, we think. be made standard for the choice of a writer, as to whether he shall appear yelled or unveiled. We are inclined to believe that the "jist" of xhe objection can be traced to the in- uuiry which Literary Life makes the denoument of it's remonstrance. More over why should editors or publishers be forced to keep track of two names, the nom de plume and the real one, in their correspondence and in their accounts?
 It Is true that editors and publishers are working at high speed, and this 1t may be, accounts for the disapproval that has gradually come to be connected with the use of the pseudonym.
 Pseudonym.
 We used that last word purposely-in order that We might speak of the argu- ment recently made against the use Of nom de plume, a borrowed phrase, for that of the English word pseudonym. We confess that as an explanation of adopted
  French the best. Nom in French means simply name; and plume means only, Pen, de Is of. otherwise name of pen or pen name. The definition given of pseu' no, the Greek combining form or pre- px," is false, counterfeit. pretended, spu- Fious. We do not lose sight of the idea of falsity conveyed in the first part of Dur English word. and we confess to liking the borrowed expression better ho eli tion of pen name. There is no thought of pretence or counterfeit in the use of a pen name. but simply a means by which ones own name may be kept from the glare of an unrelished publicity
 Of course there are instances of anony- nous writing having a secretive and per haps malicious purpose. but that Is the exception.
 "The Round Robin"
 No one has been able to discover the origin of this term. but it's significance is made plain in the historic incident of the "Remonstrance" sent to pr. Johnson, by D party of his friends, which was con- eerned with the inadequate estimate, that they believed he had made in his epitaph pn Oliver Goldsmith. There were two objections to the epitaph-the first, that the great doctor had not done justice to Esoldsmith as a poet; and also the epitaph was written m 1atlns Wneu as lnSSe friends thought it should have been in English. These persons who were gather cd at the house of Sir Joshua Reynolds, although theysswere agreed as to the necessity of speaking to pr. Johnson, no one of them was courageous enough to undertake the task. We are told that, SIt was hlnted that there could be no way so good as that of round robin" as the sailors call it, which they make use of when they enter a conspiracy so as not to let 1t be known who puts his name first or last to the paper" The Idea was carried out and this interesting paper is preserved with other valuable English manuscripts.
 The Round Robin is thus described: pTt Is a communication, letter, remon- strance, warning or the like, the sigma lures to which are written around the circumference of the circle which encloses the body of the epistle, or radiating there from like the spokes of a wheel from the hub, so that the responsibility of signing is equally shared. No one sigma tory can be accused of being the first or the last to sign.'' It is of interest to us to note that Dr. Johnson refused to disgrace the walls of Westminster Ab- Oey with an English inscription"
 Disputed Ownership.
 The most unfortunate thing about anonymous writing is the disputed ownership of the waif, which is sure to