Note 14 — JOSEPH-MARIE QUÉRARD.

In the preface the following observations occur:—The English who have so many special bibliographers, have not one who has occupied himself with anonyms and pseudonyms; we will not say universal, but not even of their own nation. Watt does not cite any in his Bibliotheca Britannica. M. Philarète Chasles, one of those French writers who has been greatly instrumental in introducing foreign literature to us, has recently traced out a most exhaustive plan for English literature, similar to that which other civilized nations already possess. The Revue des deux Mondes, (Series 5, VI. 757, 1844) contains an excellent article from his pen, which begins thus:—“In the whole history of literature, there is not a more fantastical group of whimsicalities than that of the English pseudonyms which abound between 1688 and 1800; nor is there any subject so new and unexplored, and yet so little explained. It was at that time some hundreds of writers, amongst whom I shall only take certain notabilities, deliberately renounced the lustre of their own names, and sacrificed their vanity to their interest or passion. If they concealed their names and disguised their hand it was to carry out their work better: one wishes to destroy an ancient reputation which is in his way; another wants to popularise sentiments which he considers useful; others to glorify the national vanity; the greater part to make their fortunes. There are the innocent and honest, as De Foe; the violent and imprudent, like Chatterton; the foolish, like Ireland; the unskilful and the calumniators, like Landor; and lastly, the expert, the Scotchman Macpherson, who deceived an entire generation of Europe and America.” Burke’s “imitation” of Bolingbroke may amongst numerous others be mentioned. It would perhaps be difficult to find a better example of the necessity there is for a good English bibliographical work, like La France Littéraire, than the information Bohn’s Lowndes gives about Burke’s writings. The “imitation” is not even mentioned, and in the life, by Prior, there is scarcely a scrap of bibliographical information. Generally, we concur in Mr. Hazlett’s very severe condemnation of Lowndes, though it must not be forgotten it is the only one we have. Mr. H. while professing not to be critical, in reality “damns the book.” “It may have been a well-meant scheme.” Hand-book to early English Literature, 1867, p. VI.

A masterly article upon Burke will be found in Allibone’s Critical Dict. of Eng. Lit. 1859. This is without doubt one of the most extensive and boldest literary enterprises of the day, entirely executed by one man. It does not contain much bibliographical matter, as the plan precluded it.

As Dr. Petzholdt remarks:—“Enthält zwar eine grosse Masse litterarischer Materialien, die aber mit allzu grosser Oekonomie zusammengetragen sind, als dass sie für bibliographische Zwecke sonderlichen Nutzen haben.” Bibliotheca Bibliographica, p. 419.

“And the judgment of the learned upon English authors” is no longer a desideratum. Bolton Corney, Curiosities of Lit. Illustrated.