FLS, Volume XXXVII, 2010 Stealing the Fire

Hélène Maurel-Indart Université de Tours

Literary Plagiarism

The notion of literary plagiarism is at the heart of the process of writing, even if the meaning of the term “plagiarism” varies according to the pe- riod. First, we must specify the meaning and the context of this notion from ancient times to the present, choosing examples from among the most famous writers. For the contemporary period, it is necessary to highlight the reasons why plagiarism has not disappeared, in spite of copyright law. Economic and cultural elements can explain this phe- nomenon. The Paul Celan-Yvan Goll case is a perfect yet tragic illus- tration of all the crucial questions that literary creation, originality, and plagiarism can raise.

______

Is the notion of literary plagiarism not a contradiction in terms? Usually, plagiarism is taken to be writing without literary value, mere copying that is devoid of personality and style. The plagiarist is a usurper who steals someone else’s work and signs it with his own name. From this point of view, it is distinguished from a forgery, which is its opposite: the forger produces a new work by faithfully imitating the stylistic characteristics of the work of an author whose signature he is stealing. The forger’s purpose is to give his work a value that his own signature would not have guaranteed. The plagia- rist’s purpose is to give himself value by pretending to be the author of a work he has stolen. A further element to characterise plagiarism: the writer of pastiches has something in common with the forger in- asmuch as the signature of the writer he has pastiched comes through into his work, which is pure imitation. But he also has points in com- mon with the plagiarist through the distance he attempts to maintain from his model. Nevertheless, the intention is different in the case of pastiche and plagiarism: while the plagiarist cleverly disguises the 2 FLS, Vol. XXXVII, 2010 original text by seeking to hide his misdemeanour and make us forget his source, the author of pastiches signals to the reader, through over- wrought stylistic devices, that a game is being played. He does not intend to steal the work, as does the plagiarist, or steal the author’s signature, as does the forger. The author of pastiches is not a cheat but a prankster. Such comparisons with these more or less genuine literary prac- tises show that plagiarism cannot be excluded from reflection on literary creation. Plagiarism remains a point of interest or even an ob- session for some authors, including the most traditional. Giraudoux’s famous quotation springs to mind: “Plagiarism is the basis of all liter- ary expression, except the first, which is in fact unknown” (Siegfried I, 6). More seriously, Proust was fully aware that the influence or even the hold some writers had over his work could lead to plagiarism, to servile replication. He recommended that one should consciously practise pastiche in order to “purge oneself of the natural vice of idolatry and imitation” in order to avoid it.1 The idea of plagiarism cannot therefore be put aside when considering the process of literary creation. Literature is made of borrowings, whether servile or creative. From this standpoint, the dream of absolute originality is pure illusion and stems from an idealistic but oversimplified concept of literature. But what is the limit between servile and creative borrowing? What criterion will assess the originality of a text, which necessarily draws its substance from a common wealth of ideas and is subjected to the influence of its predecessors? The systematic reproduction of a text hijacked by a plagiarist is very uncommon. Demarcation, for the pur- pose of hiding the crime, already makes use of literary transformation processes: synonyms, additions, deletions, changes in rhythm or syn- tax. Is this plagiarism or is it already another text? The criteria of appreciation have evolved through history. A tradition of imitation dominated until the seventeenth century. The concept of literary prop- erty does not occur before the eighteenth century, and the concept of a unique and original creative persona only occurs with the Romantics. Nowadays, studies on intertextuality show that works are like palimp- sests, on which texts are superimposed ad infinitum. Plagiarism is now part of the aesthetics of rewriting, which as a result is freed of all moral connotation to become a real literary question. –––––––––– 1 Proust, vol. XVIII, août 1919 (À Ramon Fernandez), 380; my translation.