|
|
|
|
|
by bcbrown
1149 days ago
|
|
I'm not certain that this is exactly what you're talking about, but one of my dictionaries (Webster's New International, 1916) includes this under the entry for Authentic, which brings me great joy: Authentic, Genuine. The prevailing sense of authentic is authoritative, trustworthy, with the implication of accordance with fact; as "confirmed both by legend and authentic record" (Froude); "assurances more or less authentic" (Wordsworth); an authentic portrait. The prevailing sense of Genuine is native, real, true (see Real), often with the implication of descent from, or correspondence to, an original source or stock; as, a genuine merino, genuine piety; "true simplicity and genuine pathos" (Wordsworth); cf (colloq.) "the genuine article" with "the real thing." Both terms are used - genuine more frequently than authentic - as opposed to spurious, counterfeit, apocryphal; as "Let them contrast their own fantastical personages ... with the authentic rustics of Burns" (Jeffrey); "What is genuine knowledge and what is its counterfeit" (J.H. Newman). The 18th century distinction between the two terms, as applied to documents - "A genuine book is that which was written by the person whose name it bears as the author of it; an authentic book is that which relates matters of fact as they really happened" (Bp. Watson) - while still often observed, is becoming obliterated in present usage; as "The criticism which thus so freely diminishes the numer of his [Giorgione's] authentic works" (W. Pater); "Some collectors frankly take the ground that they buy what pleases them, and that age and authenticity are minor considerations" (The Nation). See Real, Correct. |
|
On the whole, Wikipedia et al. are improvements in comprehensiveness and timeliness, but god damn do the gems of prior methods still shine brightly.