Robert Folkenflik: Anonymous has been a prolific writer over the years
You can't keep Anonymous down. The most recent heralded appearance of this ubiquitous author was as the title of a film that's already faded, but not without kicking up debate about the claims of a band of Shakespeare Birthers that the real author of the most famous plays in the world was Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford. Given that Shakespeare's name appeared on numerous printed versions of his plays during his lifetime, the film should have been called "Pseudonymous." It was filled with errors about Shakespeare and Oxford, but it got at something right about authorship: It's sometimes convenient to avoid signing your name to your work.
Anonymity and pseudonymity have a long history. We think of medieval authors laboring anonymously, but even the first age of literary celebrities, the 18th century, was also paradoxically an age of anonymity. Book historian James Raven estimates that "over 80 percent of all novels published in Britain between 1750 and 1790 were published anonymously." Given that only Henry Fielding (best known for "Tom Jones") of the major 18th century novelists put his name on the title page, we ought to think of anonymity as the default position for the novel, thought to be a low form.
Satirists such as Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope published anonymously, often for legal and political reasons. Anonymity protected Swift from arrest when a reward was offered for the author of his "Drapier's Letters," pamphlets advising the Irish not to take copper half-pence from England. The novels of Daniel Defoe, Samuel Richardson, Laurence Sterne, Tobias Smollett and Fanny Burney were all anonymous. Defoe's fictions were even putatively authored by their main characters: Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, Roxana. (He was probably writing counterfeit autobiographies, not novels.)
Oliver Goldsmith comically presented some problems of the author that anonymity entailed in the preface to his "Essays" (1765): "I have seen some of my labours sixteen times reprinted, and claimed by different parents. ... These gentlemen have kindly stood sponsors to my productions, and to flatter me more, have always past them as their own."
Journalism too was generally anonymous. Joseph Addison and Richard Steele were "Mr. Spectator" with an initial at the end of each daily Spectator essay providing a clue to the author's identity.
Samuel Johnson, the subject of the world's most famous literary biography, is far from unknown to literary history, yet until he was nearly 40, his name only appeared on a handful of his writings. And even after his "Dictionary of the English Language" was published with his name in 1755, he often remained anonymous. Johnson wrote to the printer of "Rasselas," his only long fiction, "I will not print my name, but expect it to be known." Printers and booksellers would be in the know; readers familiar with his style would guess.
Johnson once responded in his "Rambler" to a letter seeking his identity by relaying "the answer of a philosopher to a man, who, meeting him in the street, desired to see what he carried under his cloak; 'I carry it there,' says he, 'that you may not see it.'"
Samuel Richardson wrote to the publisher of Johnson's anonymous "Rambler" essays, Edward Cave, "The author I can only guess at. There is but one man, I think, that could write them; I desire not to know his name; but I should rejoice to hear that they succeed." Cave wrote back, "Mr. Johnson is the Great Rambler, being, as you observe, the only man who can furnish two such papers in a week, besides his other great business."
Making slow progress on his dictionary, worried about the discrepancy between his own morality and that which he advised, Johnson had his reasons for anonymity.
Among the Romantics, Sir Walter Scott as novelist was called the Great Unknown in reviews. In fact, assigning a range of his copyrights to Archibald Constable in 1820, Scott insisted on a clause stipulating that if his publisher divulged his name as the author of the Waverley novels, he would pay Scott 2,000 pounds.
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: Chaffetz named ‘politician of...
- Letter: Police not the problem
- David Blankenhorn: Berlin boasts a wise use...
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change...