Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-21

reader will create in his own mind
his special conception of s. 8. Van Dine,
for example; will visualize him ana
build up personality for him, and the
fact that 1t merely is pen name raises
no bar to the imagination. But VINO
can picture Anonymous? His writings
are too prolific and various to furnish
an index to personality or character
opinions, or even nationality. Nor even
to sex.
Women writing under mems names
60 some way toward accomplishing TINS
banning OF the reader, but only so tar
as themselves and those who are aware
Of their identity are concerned. Unin.
formed readers of George Eliot, OF
George Sand or Of Michael Strange pic
ture q man rs the author. But they
do picture a person. But Anonymous
utterly defeats them.
IN the past there were very good
reasons for writing anonymously which
no longer exist to any very great ex-
tent Political writings, If they ex-
pressed opinions at all liberal endan-
gered liberty, and even life. So in every
country there have been great out
pourings on political subjects by Anony-
nous. Even q pseudonym in such mat
| ters sometimes is dangerous, as the
choice of pen name sometimes is an
index to the type Of person using 1t.
Political controversial writings in our
own early and somewhat dangerous
history furnish an excellent example.
The author of the famous Letters OF
Junius," which appeared in the Fed
eralist, has never been positively iden-
titled, although there Is strong reason
to suspect Thomas Jefferson. In days
when people were shot by private per-
sons or executed by public order for
their opinions 1t was not safe to write
| frankly under ones own name.
! The same applies with even more
/ force to early religious writings. Persecu-
ton, torture, the stake might well follow
Identification Of the writer of what the
powers regarded as hayward doctrine.
Not q GentIeman's Business.
Then, too, when writing was not
gentleman's business, good many gen.
tlemen, mobiles and the like who felt
the literary urge wrote either anony-
rnously or under assumed names. An
interesting example is sir Walter Scott
Of the stiff-necked landed gentry, who
normally looked down on writer's. He
published 'Waverley" entirely anony-
mously. It is said that not soul save
his publisher knew who he was. Sub
Author of 'Waverley.'" II was years
before he came into the open with his
name.
The very basis Of the Shakespeare
Bacon controversy is that Lord Bacon
did not want to appear publicly as q
writer Of popular plays and hid under
another name. The writings which
he claimed were somewhat heavily
phllosophic, such as a peer might
properly produce,
Maidenly modesty has obscured the
identity OF many writer's. In English
/ literature alone there are more than
LOCO works, mostly poetry, signed
merely "a Lady" One must Judge by
the text and quality Of the writing as
to the accuracy of the descriptive sig
nature. Scott and more recently Kip
ling signed many verses odd Play or
"Old Ballad"
Daniel Defoe. author Of Robinson
Crusoe, . first wrote anonymously. So did
Dryden. So did Sir Robert Bridges,
late poet laureate Of Great Britain.
Even Thomas Hardy began anonymous
", as did George Meredith and Samuel
Butler. Lord Lytton started writing
ANONYMOUSLY and then took the pseu-
donym. Owen Meredith, by which he
still is best known in the field Of poetry.
AS early as 1906 Antoine alexandra
Barber In his Dictionaire. using the
result Of years of patient research,
published the identity OF no less than
$4,000 anonymous writer's. ~
II this new French scheme takes
mold and the public can be educated
into looking for real merit in books
and magazines rather than for names
OF celebrities such as politicians, &C.
tresses, flyers, and foot bali stars and
the like, the muse Of literature will have
q fresh, untrammeled start. A full stop
VIII be put to such incidents as that
in which a base ball star said to a
| pugi1ist: That was great piece you
wrote in the paper this morning." and
the pugilist replied: $50 hear I wish
I could read ~