On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (5)
-
%ittv'atnn.
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
%Ittv'atnn.
% ittv ' atnn .
Untitled Article
cAJcrJ f Y . Ihxsil : a til ory of " Modern TAfv . Hy W . Wilkio Collins , auUior of Antonhia , &e . ; 5 vols . ' ' ' . Hentley . liasil is emphatically a Story . It is not a ( collection of . sketches , . satirical and pathetic , threaded by a narrative of more or less interest , . such a > s the modern novel commonly is ; but a , story filling- the three volumes , —never Cor one moment lost ni ^ htof by the writer , —never retiring to the second place , while episodic or philosophic matter usurps tin ; scene . And this story hurries you along with it , in such continued and breathless interest , that < m > on you must without pause to the end . As may be supposed , we
are somewhat , hardened novel-readers ; the fascination exercised by fiction over the youthful mind cannot often he exercised on the critic , who in the course of duty lias to read so many novels tliathe knows every trick " and winding of the . . story ; yet we must declare that liasil forced us to do I . lml , which we have ; not done for years—to read the v \ 'hole at one sitting . As a . ( Story , then , . liasil- fulfils to perfection the primary requisite of keeping utienl ion fixed and either . That Willcie Collins possesses the dillicult art , I ' art dc confer , in an extraordinary decree , this story amply proves , for its narrative skill is ho great as to overcome all sense of nnprohahiljty and unreality , and to force attention in t heir despite . So rare an accomplishment is this of slorytelling Hint , it merits peculiar notice .
Were the author of liusil , simply a , writer for circulating libraries , our criticism would probably oul here . He resolved on writing a , story that ; should grasp the mind with unrelaxing vigour ; what lie resolved to do bo has done . lint is this all we , his friends and the public , have a right , to demand of liiiuH Nay , is it all that he * himself professes to have done F I 5 y no menus , Willcie Collins is a Man of . Letters , who regards his Profession with respect , and his Art with love ; criticism therefore with linn must use no more courtesy than the courtesy of friendship , which so far from excluding candour , insists on it . Hi * rightly claims to be tried by a high standard : — " I let ween tlie purpose liinted at here , and the execution of that purpose contained in tlie succeeding pages , lies tlie broad line of Hoparid . ion which distingtUHhen between the will and the deed . How far I may Kill short of another man ' s Htandard . rcnuiiiiu to bo uncovered : but how Jar 1 huvo iallun short ofvny own , X know
Untitled Article
n \ if ? are not the legislators , but the judges and police of literature . They do not ° make laws— they interpret and try to enforce them . — Edinburgh Review .
Untitled Article
« If I steal from the ancients , " says Lacon , " it is cried up as erudition j if I steal from the moderns it is cried down as plagiarism . " This is one of the flashy and foolish epigrams in which that overrated work abounds . The distinction between erudition and plagiarism does not lie there , but in the open avowal of erudition , and the attempted concealment of plagiarism . ^ is the distinction between borrowing and stealing . The work s of the ancients are , or are supposed to be , open to all , known to all , therefore common property . When we adopt an image from Homer , or a sarcasm from Horace , it is not always necessary to give the original , or to mention the obligation , because we know that the passage must be familiar to thousands , and no one will accuse us of a desire to shine by borrowed lustre . "When Boileau says" Chassez le nature ! il revient au galop , " every Latinist knows the passage he is paraphrasing , and no one supposes Boileau to be plagiarizing : II reprend son Men oil il le trouve . When a man like Mr . Grote quotes copiously from German writers , we speak of that quotation as erudition ; but when a man like Coleridge brings forward , as his own , ideas and metaphors , reasonings and illustratrations , which he has translated from Schelling , and thereby attempts to gain acceptance as a philosopher , we call that plagiarism ; for Schellin was known to very few , and the chances of detection were slight . It is perfectly impossible for any writer or speaker not to borrow ideas , images , and illustrations from some predecessor or predecessors ; but the public justly discriminates between the borrowing which may be called intellectual assimilation , the borrowing which may be called erudition , and the borrowing which must be called plagiarism . Let friends and critics put forward what excuse they may , the moral sense of the public is not to be led astray on those points . And with respect to the great Disraeli case , this week varying the gossip of all circles , we do not think there can be any real difference of opinion . The charge against him is that he has been guilty of a plagiarism , and under circumstances which aggravate the offence . The source from which lie borrowed the passage was an extremely obscure one ; the letter of Mr . Smythe , which attempts to explain the mystery , only serves to show how vividly Disraeli remembered the source from which he ? vas borrowing ; so that the want of openness , which constitutes the crime of plagiarism , is demonstrable . The Times has , however , attempted to vindicate its friend . It has done so with its usual ability . It has put the very best face on the matter ; but it has not removed one tittle of the evidence upon which the public judged . What we last week said en badinage about Disraeli referring to his common-place book , the Times gravely assures us was the laudable process by which the orator manufactured his oration , and calls upon all orators to do likewise . The Times does more than this . It endeavours to divert the attention from the plagiarism to a question of literary ennvenance , and in so doing lends its powerful advocacy to what we consider a most dangerous cause , and one which is too much in harmony with some prevailing misconceptions on the literary function , not to extort from us a protest . " Now , wo beg to suggest to these gentlemen , whether it is worth their while to be Hinging as much dirt as they can on the only litterateur who has ever yet succeeded in breaking that , solid aristocratieal phalanx which has hitherto monopolized the high offices of the State . Why are authors to drag down every one of their fraternity who may happen to become a Minister of State ? It is thus that literature cuts its own throat in this country . We may depend upon it , that authors will never have their proper consideration , in the face of dukes , millionaires , H (| uires , and prize cuttle , /' ' // they aw loyal to their own body , and help one another to rise , when the opportunity oilers . Chastise Disraeli ' s political errors us much as you please , but don't help the country party to throw oil' the accomplished horseman who is riding them with such admirable eHecl ,. We are delighted to sec ; them put through their puces by one not of themselves . They would rather , of course ! , he were a descendant of William the Conqueror , even though ho had a dozen bars of bastard y in the quarterings of his shield . Unfortunately , however , the aristoenicy of Mngland is not lertilo in Ministerial or any other talent , and they are , forced to look abroad , not , only for money , but even for intellect . Their necessity 1 S the opportunity of literature , and we trust it will tuvn to good account . " r l'his appeals to authors through their weak points—1 st , the desire to he " recognized" by dukes and millionaires ( a supremely indifferent result '"' >»• "' nature's aristocrats" to desire !) ; and , L ' ndly , the mistaken ambition () becoming Cabinet Ministers , " as they do in France . " On ( In : question of literary dignity , The . Leader has never been silent 'when fit ; opportunity offered ; but ; we place that dignity in loyalty to Truth il "d in unostentatious self-respect , not in getting ducul " recognition" not in helping authors to a seat in the Cabinet . It seems to us that if men would do their work honest . lv , with labour and with love , with patience and with loyalty , and find it of more intrinsic worth to realize their aims than * ° realize ducal recognition ; if , when their work was done , they would N-specl ; the dignity of literature , so i ' uv as not . to tamper with their critics , ° i' inaiuieuvre to " get praised in the newspapers ; " if they would speak ° "fc , in all honesty , the thought that lives within them , and not keep the thought suppressed , or utter it in equivocal language , for fear of losing " recognition ; " if they would boar in mind that speaking the truth was
their specific function in this world , and that in proportion as they spoke what they knew was not the truth , they were disloyal to Literature ; if they would do this , and more , their " dignity" would need no bulwarks ! Let us cite a recent instance . A gentleman holding a public position , and known to the writer of these lines , published a very foolish book . He sent it to The Leader , heralding it with a charming note , in which he asked if it would be noticed . The reply was , that if tlie book were not on a subject lying beyond the province of the journal , it would certainly be noticed . On inspection , it turned out to be a work so foolish that , in accordance with our plan never to occmw space unnecessarily , we thrust it
aside . After several indirect applications , in the shape of notes , inquiring when the review could appear , and highly laudatory criticisms extracted from other papers obligingly forwarded , we presume , to show us what a remarkable book it was thought by others , our reserve was broken , and we expressed briefly , yet plainly , what we did think of the book . We made an enemy for life ; " but that ' s not much ] " tho point of the story is , that the indignant author , having failed in his manoeuvres , actually wrote this reproach : " You promised to review my work favourably , as all the other papers did . What was your promise worth ? " The unhappy man could not understand a promise to review his work otherwise than as a pledge to review it favourably !
What says the Dignity of Literature to such things ? They are of daily occurrence . And until men learn that writing a lie is not less dishonourable than telling a lie , these things must continue . The reform , therefore , must be a moral , not a political , reform . Men must not shrink from speaking their thoughts , even of Chancellors and eminent authors who have broken the aristocratical phalanx . If Disraeli is guilty of plagiarism , and the plagiarism be a reprehensible one , all the " mob of authors'" were bound to do that which the Times sneers at them for doing . They were bound not to 'bate their breath because the offender was high-placed . It is snobbishness to suggest such a course .
The feeling to which the Times indirectly appeals is the desire for some corporate action on the part of authors , the desire to band writers together in a fraternity like lawyers , physicians , clergymen , and others ; by means of which their " status" may be elevated , and the Cabinet opened to a few . We so strongly oppose this desire , that , as the subject is important , we shall ask permission to return to it . Meanwhile , having made a protest , we pass on to say that the Times hits wide of the mark in this attack upon
the authors ; firstly , because Disraeli cannot fairly be said to have broken the aristocratic phalanx by means of literature , although he has found literature useful as an ally : secondly , because Macaulay , who is , par excellence , a Man of Letters , has also broken the phalanx , has been a minister , was carried there by Literature , and has uniformly been treated by all men of letters with that respect due to an honourable and consistent course , a respect which docs not exclude frank opinion .
We sum up by saying that the charge of plagiarism has been clearly made out against Disraeli , and that the " mob of authors" were more than justified in exposing him ; they were bound by their office to do so without reticence or " brotherly feeling . " Is Jonks to be scarified for his " barefaced plagiarism , " when perhaps he steals to keep alive a family , and Disraeli not to be exposed for the same offence , when the mere vanity of oratorical display is the motive ' !¦ " A question not to be asked !"
Untitled Article
November 27 , 1852 . ] THE LEADER . 1141
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Nov. 27, 1852, page 1141, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1962/page/17/
-