PLAGIARISM.

As the word "Plagiarism " is often misapplied, it may be as well to explain, at the outset, in what sense it should be understood.

One writer appropriates the work of another, in the form in which he finds it, giving it to the world in his own name, and as his own production. Here the term "plagiarism" is inadequate to describe the offence; and by universal consent, the writer who is guilty of such wholesale appropriation, is deemed no better than a thief.

Another writer borrows the subject of his work, moulding it, both as to form and language, in a fashion peculiarly his own. Of this species of borrowing, instances will be found in writers even of the highest genius. But as themes and subjects are held to be common property, no one is accounted a plagiarist for the mere adoption of a subject or theme which has been handled by another.

A third writer appropriates the thoughts or

images, which are the mental property of another; and this is what is commonly called "plagiarism." To constitute such, however, it is necessary that the borrowed thought or image should be a striking one, and be peculiar to the writer from whom it is adopted. Plagiarism of this kind has been more or less prevalent in all ages; and it -has become so common among the moderns, that there is scarcely an author of any distinction whose works do not contain some examples of it. The learned reader who, by the light of a detective memory, shall carefully peruse the Greek, Latin, and French classics; and then run over our English poets, from Chaucer to Tennyson, shall meet with some hundreds of borrowed thoughts, which, so far as I know, have never been noticed by any commentator.

The imputation of "plagiarism," however, is one of a grave nature, and should never be made upon slight or insufficient grounds. Apart from the charge of dishonesty which it implies, it detracts by so much from the originality and merit of the writer against whom it is thrown out. From that character, therefore, we must except, first, everything that may be fairly presumed to be a coincidence, whenever the difficulty of distinguishing between intentional borrowings and accidental resemblances can be got over; secondly, common-place thoughts and sentiments, which, being the current coin of the intellectual realm,

are alike palpable to all; thirdly, single words and expressions which in themselves convey no image or sentiment, but what will be found attached to them, by any one who can turn over the leaves of a dictionary.

Originality, the opposite of plagiarism, is of various kinds, and may be evinced either in the choice of the theme, the mode of treating it, or the language with which it is embellished. An author may be totally free from plagiarism, and yet be totally destitute of originality; and he may, on the other hand, be a frequent plagiarist, and exhibit in other respects undoubted originality.

Plagiarism is a subject which has seldom engaged the attention of the literary historian. In this, as in other fields of investigation, the Germans have laboured with success; but it is chiefly to the French, so remarkable for method and lucidity in their treatment of literary questions, that we are indebted for the information we possess on this subject. Their contributions on "Plagiarism are not only the most recent, but the most valuable; while the writings of Nodier and Quérard contain some of the most startling revelations that have yet been given to the world. For instance, Montaigne is shown to have borrowed much from Seneca and Plutarch; and what he has copied without acknowledgment from them, Charron and Corneille have adopted in the same

Fréron, too, in the describes a whole copied from "Les

instances of plagiarism in Voltaire, and especially in his romance of "Zadig." "Année Littéraire," 1767, chapter in this romance as Voyages et Aventures de trois Princes de Sarrendip," a work translated from the Italian, and published at Paris in 1719; and the same writer has shown that Voltaire's "Episode de l'Ermite " is adopted from Parnel's poem of "The Hermit."

J.-J. Rousseau, Voltaire's great contemporary and rival, presents a parallel case. He reproaches Mably with having borrowed, without acknowledgment, his philosophical systems; and the Benedictine, Don Joseph Cajot, brings a charge of plagiarism against Rousseau's "Emile." Nor is this all the Abbé Du Laurens, known as the author of "Compère Mathieu," in a work published in 1788, asserts that Rousseau copied his "Contrat Social," word for word, from Ulric Huber's Latin work, "De Jure Civitatis Libri III.” "We shall be told," adds Du Laurens, "that M. Rousseau, like a second Prometheus, stole the sacred fire from heaven: our answer is, that he stole his fire, not from heaven, but from a library."

Among the plagiarists of less note (cited by Quérard) may be named M. Langlès, the orientalist, stealing his " Voyage d'Abdoul Rizzac " from Galland's "Arabian Nights;" M. Lefebre de Villebrune, in his translation of Athenæus,