A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
THE completion of that monumental undertaking, The History of " The Times" from 1788 to 1948, in five massive volumes, by an anonymous writer prompts many reflections. One is that the writer in question should certainly not be deprived by anonymity of the credit he so richly deserves. That presents an embarrassing problem. If he, or The Times, wishes that he still remain anonymous who am I to tear any veil aside ? There are persons so sacrilegious as to attempt to penetrate the disguise of my own pseudonym. I am quite certain Mr. Stanley Morison would disapprove of such conduct as strongly as I do. I shall therefore not say a word to associate Mr. Stanley Morison with The History of "The Times"—beyond speculating a little on how he will employ himself now. The whole question of anonymity in a historian is interesting. There are those who hold that since he must necessarily com- mit himself to many judgements, some of them disputable, he ought to take responsibility for them over his own name. I think as a general principle that is true. But The Times has a long tradition of anonymity; the whole question of the History must have been fully considered at the outset, and no doubt the view was deliberately taken that the tradition should be observed even in the case of the history. Moreover, though the mysterious Mr. X is genuinely the author, various of his colleagues are understood to have collaborated in greater or lesser degree. That makes anonymity appropriate.
* * * *
Previous page
