Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. A Complete Collection of Genteel and Ingenious Conversation (1738), in Herbert Davis et al. (eds) The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, 14 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939–68), 4: 102. 2. OED 2. 3. See Ricks’s essay on ‘Plagiarism’, originally published in Proceedings of the British Academy 97, reprinted in his Allusion to the Poets (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 219–40, 220. 4. See Chapter 1 for more detail on the lexicographical history. 5. Martial, Epigrams, I. 52. 6. See Stockdale’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Genuine Laws of Poetry (1778). Stockdale’s ideas about plagiarism are discussed in Chapter 8. 7. On modern ‘plagiarism studies’, see my ‘Plagiarism and Plagiarism Studies’, English Subject Centre Newsletter, 13 (October 2007): 6–8. The explosion of studies in this area can be deduced from two major studies published in 2007 alone: Tilar J. Mazzeo’s Plagiarism and Literary Property in the Romantic Period (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007) and Robert Macfarlane’s Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in Nineteenth-Century Literature (Oxford University Press, 2007). 8. My methodology is indebted to Quentin Skinner, ‘The Idea of a Cultural Lexicon’, Essays in Criticism, 29 (1979): 205–24. 9. It is worth stressing here that this book does not propose itself as a contri- bution to the debate about the development of copyright. My general view is that no necessary relation exists between issues of literary originality and those concerning the definition of literary property as enshrined in eighteenth-century copyright legislation. See Simon Stern’s lucid analysis of these issues in ‘Copyright, Originality, and the Public Domain in Eighteenth- Century England’, in Reginald McGinnis (ed.) Originality and Intellectual Property in the French and English Enlightenment (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 69–101. See in particular his remark that ‘there is little reason to con- clude that in the eighteenth century, originality (understood as novelty or creativity) played even a tacit role in the definition of literary property’ (p. 70). I am grateful to Dr Stern for allowing me to see his essay prior to publication. For other recent treatments of the relation between copyright legislation and literary creativity, see Paul K. Saint-Amour, The Copywrights: Intellectual Property and the Literary Imagination (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003) and Jody Greene, The Trouble with Ownership: Literary Property and Authorial Liability in England, 1660–1730 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005). 10. Allusion to the Poets, p. 231. 172 Notes 173 1 ‘Plagiarism’: The Emergence of a Literary Concept 1. For an overview of the concept in the classical period, see the Oxford Classical Dictionary (Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (eds)), third edn. revised (Oxford University Press, 2003), ‘plagiarism’. See also David West and Tony Woodman (eds) Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1979). 2. For discussions of literary theft in early modern England, see H.M. Paull, Literary Ethics: A Study of the Growth of the Literary Conscience (London: Thornton Butterworth Ltd, 1928); Harold Ogden White, Plagiarism and Imitation During the English Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935); Stephen Orgel, ‘The Renaissance Artist as Plagiarist’, ELH 48 (1981): 476–95; Laura J. Rosenthal, Playwrights and Plagiarists in Early Modern England: Gender, Authorship, Literary Property (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996); Brean S. Hammond, Professional Imaginative Writing in England 1670–1740: ‘Hackney for Bread’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 83–104; Paulina Kewes, Authorship and Appropriation: Writing for the Stage in England, 1660–1710 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); and Paulina Kewes (ed.) Plagiarism in Early Modern England (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). 3. Cited from Martial, Epigrams, Loeb Classical Library edition (D.R. Shackleton Bailey (ed. and trans.)), three vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), 1: 79–81. Poems concerned with plagiarism are indexed. 4. Several epigrams, though not the one just quoted, name Martial’s plagiarizing rival as Fidentius. I use the name here, with licence, as a generic cognomen for the plagiarist. 5. See Epigrams X. 100: ‘Fool, why do you mix your verses with mine? What do you want, wretch, with a book at odds with itself?’ Loeb edn, 3: 415. 6. See Loeb edn, 1: 89–91. This epigram is cited, and its implications discussed, in Christopher Ricks’s 1997 British Academy lecture on ‘Plagiarism’, subse- quently reprinted in Kewes (ed.), pp. 21–40, and in Ricks’s Allusion to the Poets, pp. 219–40. 7. Epigrams I. 29, in Loeb edn, 1: 61. 8. For Martial’s influence on English poets, see J.P. Sullivan and A.J. Boyle (eds) Martial in English (London: Penguin Books, 1996). 9. The Proverbs and Epigrams of John Heywood, reprinted from the original edi- tion of 1562 for the Spenser Society (1867), p. 130. 10. Flowers and Epigrammes of Timothe Kendall, reprinted from the origi- nal edition of 1577 for the Spenser Society (1874), p. 22. See also pp. 25, 26. 11. See Harington, Epigrams, 1618 (Menston: Scolar Press, 1970), ‘Of Don Pedro and his Poetry’. 12. For Jonson’s relation to the plagiarism issue, see Ian Donaldson ‘“The Fripperie of Wit”: Jonson and Plagiarism’, in Kewes (ed.), pp. 119–33. 13. Cited from Jonson, The Complete Poems (George Parfitt (ed.)) (Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1975), p. 60. 174 Notes 14. Ben Jonson, Poetaster (Tom Cain (ed.)) (Manchester University Press, 1995), p. 181. 15. Sir Thomas Browne’s Pseudodoxia Epidemica (Robin Robbins (ed.)), two vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 1: 34–5. 16. See Samuel Butler’s Contradictions: ‘There is no one Originall Author of any one Science among the Antients known to the world, ... for the old Philosophers stole all their Doctrines from some others that were before them, as Plato from Epicharmus and as Diognes Laertius say’s, Homer stole his Poems out of the Temple of Vulcan in Ægypt where they were kept, and sayd to have been written by a woman, and from him and Ennius, Virgill is sayd to have stole his.’ Cited from Samuel Butler, Characters and Passages from Note-books (A.R. Waller (ed.)) (Cambridge University Press, 1908), p. 429. See also Dryden, Preface to An Evening’s Love (1671): ‘Virgil has evidently translated Theocritus, Hesiod, and Homer, in many places; besides what he has taken from Ennius in his own language.’ Cited from John Dryden, Of Dramatic Poesy and other Critical Essays (George Watson (ed.)), two vols. (London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1962), 1: 154. 17. Langbaine, Momus Triumphans: or, The Plagiaries of the English Stage (1688), sig. A4v. 18. Hugh Macdonald (ed.) A Journal from Parnassus (London: P.J. Dobell, 1937), pp. 44–5. 19. For the relation of allusion to plagiarism, see Ricks, ‘Plagiarism’, in Kewes (ed.), pp. 31–3. 20. The Life and Death of Mrs. Mary Frith. Commonly Called Mal Cutpurse. (1662), in Janet Todd and Elizabeth Spearing (eds) Counterfeit Ladies (London: William Pickering, 1994), p. 33. 21. For an historical view of literary piracy, see John Feather, Publishing, Piracy and Politics: An Historical Study of Copyright in Britain (London: Mansell Publishing Ltd, 1994). 22. Edward Ward, A Journey to Hell Part II (1700), Canto VII, 11–12; cited from http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk. 23. Nathan Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum (1730), ‘pirate’. 24. Thomas Cooke, The Candidates for the Bays. A Poem. (1730), fn to line 154. 25. Samuel Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (1755), ‘Pirate 2’. 26. Book IV, Satire ii, line 84; cited from A. Davenport (ed.) The Collected Poems of Joseph Hall (Liverpool University Press, 1949), p. 57. See also I. vii. 11; VI. i. 251–2; and editorial note (pp. 259–60). 27. Cain (ed.), p. 181. 28. For the general development of English lexicography, see De Witt T. Starnes and Gertrude E. Noyes, The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson, 1604–1755 (1946), rev. Gabrielle Stein (Amsterdam: J. Benjamin Pub. Co., 1991). For verification of the absence of ‘plagiarism’ (or any variant) as a lemma in pre-1640 dictionaries, see Jürgen Schäfer, Early Modern English Lexicography, two vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). Schäfer surveys all lemmas in printed glossaries and dictionaries between 1475 and 1640. 29. John Bullokar, An English Expositor, or Compleat English Dictionary (1695), ‘Plagiary’. 30. Dryden, Of Dramatic Poesy, 1: 31. Notes 175 31. Dryden, Of Dramatic Poesy, 1: 154. See also Dryden’s Preface to his translation of Fresnoy’s De Arte Graphica: The Art of Painting (1695): ‘Without invention a painter is but a copier, and a poet but a plagiary of others.’ Dryden, Of Dramatic Poesy, 2: 195. 32. For a concise overview of the Lauder affair, see Michael J. Marcuse, ‘Miltonoklastes: The Lauder Affair Reconsidered’, Eighteenth-Century Life 4 (1978): 86–91. 33. Letter of 27 August 1756, in Paget Toynbee and Leonard Whibley (eds) Correspondence of Thomas Gray (with corrections and additions by H.W. Starr), three vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 2: 477. See Roger Lonsdale, ‘Gray and “Allusion”: the Poet as Debtor’, in R.F. Brissenden and J.C. Eade (eds) Studies in the Eighteenth Century IV (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 31–55. 34. Matthew Green, The Spleen: An Epistle, second edn corrected (1737), lines 524–7 (pp. 29–30). See also lines 11–32 (pp. 2–3) for a discussion of the dif- ference between stealing from living authors and from dead ones. 35. Colley Cibber, An Apology for his Life (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1938), p. 138. 36. Poetical Characteristics, Canto I, line 250, published in Stevenson, Original Poems on Several Subjects. Volume II. Satires (1765). Cited from http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk. 2 Plagiarism, Authorial Fame and Proprietary Authorship 1. See Richard C.