i*" s. ii. OCT. 22, '98. j NOTES AND QUERIES.
323
done hitherto. For example, the 'H.E.D.,'
and, following it, the 'Century Dictionary,'
describe anonym as a pseudonym "an assumed
or false name," which is exactly what it is not.
I contend that (under the second meaning of
anonym) Dr. Murray might, as he does in
many other cases, have said, "Sometimes
used improperly for pseudonym." Take his
examples : " 1866. The writer, who signs
himself St. Jago de la Vega, is scarcely veiled
under his anonym"; " 1882. The critic crowing
loudly behind his anonym sneers at," &c. Is
this not simple ignorance of the meaning
of words ] It is perfectly clear that Vega is
a pseudonym. Both dictionaries describe
anonymous correctly (or fairly so) ; the
meaning of anonym as a " bi-term " is a
book without an author's name, not, as
Dr. Murray adds, "on the title." I regret
to say the words " on the title " have been
taken from me ; but I was a young man and
less thoughtful in 1867.* I apprehend that
a modern bibliographer would not consider
a book an anonym (or anonymous) if the real
name of the author was given anywhere in
the book, though that it was thought to be
anonymous in early days if it had no name in
the title is shown by A. A. Barbier including
autonymous works in the first edition of his
'Dictionary,' because the names of the authors
did not occur on the title-pages. But by 1826,
the date of the second edition, he had made
up his mind and excluded them.
We may pardon people who have not studied the matter at all using anonym with- out knowing its meaning ; but what are we to think when a writer who is publishing a book devoted to anonymous works uses it in a slipshod sense ? This is what I find in a work emanating from America with the title ' Anonyms.' I admit I was surprised to find that Mr. Gushing no more understands the meaning of the word than he does technical bibliography. The very first entry is ol a pseudonymous book, and 'Anonyms' is reprinted, without bibliographical knowledge and without the slightest acknowledg- ment, from Halkett and Laing's great ' Dic- tionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymou Literature,' a title which might now be i 'Dictionary of the Anonyma of English
- 1 should prefer to stand by the description ]
gave some years later in ' Aggravating Ladies, which I may quote, that work not being at all * common one : " An anonymous book is one withou the author's name, whether on the title-page or anj part of the book " ; and I go on to say : " Th word anonymous has been and still is very indis criminately used to include pseudonymous. Th cataloguer must be careful not to be betrayed int this error, so fruitful of inaccuracy."
literature.' It will, however, be observed
lat Halkett distinguishes, as any one who
as studied the subject would, between
nonymous and pseudonymous, though no-
ody would have grumbled (for his time)
- he had left out pseudonymous.
It is very necessary to make a protest gainst Mr. Cushing's abuse or misuse of his word, or it may soon become general mongst his countrymen. Bibliographical vords have been quite loose enough in their ignifications without debasing modern in- roductions.
Autonym. It is no doubt difficult to use vords properly at first, especially when only ,o be found in two of our dictionaries. This word is given for the first time in any dic- ,ionary in the 'H.E.D.'* and, following it, n the ' Century.' I regret to say that it has already gone wrong.
In the Argonaut of 28 May, 1894, there is an article entitled ' The New Dictionary,' &c., on that most laborious work of Funk & Wagnalls the 'Standard Dictionary.' In
- his review the critic says
- " The treatment
of synonyms and autonyms is characteristic." This article was sent to me by a friend who snows my weakness, in the pride of having introduced the word autonym, to show me bow it was being used. I am afraid, however, bhe critic never heard of autonym, but wrote bis ris like w's, and the printer consequently put autonym, a word I do not find in the
Standard Dictionary.' The word intended was no doubt antonyms.
Mr. Fisher Un win's series published under the title of the " Pseudonym Library " is well known. Its success, I presume, led to the word autonym being used for another series published with the authors' real names, and called the " Autonym Library." This was the first time thousands of people had ever seen that word. I never came across any readers who knew its meaning, although they had read several of the series. Neither would they be able to find it in any of our ordinary dictionaries, as it is in the ' Historical Eng- lish Dictionary,' as I have said, for the first time in any dictionary.
What was my astonishment when at Dieppe in June, 1896, on seeing in the window of a bookseller's shop, on the cover of one of the series, " Autonym Library :
- I am unable to give the exact date, as the cover
of the first part is not to the copy I have access to, nor are any of the covers to the officially issued volumes. If at the Bodleian I could tell at once. Why should not the date in figures be put to each signature ? The first volume is dated 1888, but the first part was issued in 1884, I am informed.
