Matt, thanks for the followup on Publius.
You’re right in your fuller explanation, and I didn’t put it very well. I think all of the reasons we both advanced were at work in 1787. I was trying to point out that the Framers’ pseudonym was deployed in part to to advance the reasons for ratification of the Constitution without being tied to a particular personality . . . for the ideas to stand on their own. “Sharing” was a bad word.
And you’re right to imply that I was getting at the “dishonorable” aspect of the antics of Ed’s antagonist, who can claim none of the multiple and excellent reasons that the Framers and others who have contributed important political speech have written anonymously.