The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1886-12-23
A CRIME.
The Law Of Plagiarism ~ Laid Down !
Two English Magazines.

Enc LAW OF Il0gtoriSm ~ A9to OoWn ny
Two English Magazines.
Two or three years ago the Saturday
RecieW laid down the law of plagiarism
in three clauses: (1) I'm the first place,
we would permit any great modern
artist to recut and set anew the literary
gems of classic times and of the Middle
Ages" (2) .'Our second rule
would be that all authors have
an equal right to the stock situa-
tons which are the common store of
humanity" (3) FINALLY, we presume
that an author has a right to borrow
or buy an idea. if he frankly acknowl-
edges the transaction" In comment
ing on this code l suggested that there
m ight be a difficulty of Interpretation in
the first clause. for who is to declare
any mode in a great artistp In the
second clause, the law is clearly stated.
and whether any given situation is or Is
not common property is a question OF
fact for the jury. The only difficulty in
applying the third clause Is in defining
prec sely tn degree OF frankness and full
ness required n acknowledging the in
~debtedness. But hypercriticism is out OF
place in considering a suggestion as
valuable. as needfuf just now, and as
neatly put as this triple law Of the con-
tributor to the Saturday RevieaO. A
general acceptance of this code would
tend to clear the air of the vague
charges of plagiarism which hang in
heavy clouds owe the Literary journals.
Before W. car decide whether
an author is guilty of the ofense we
must he agreed on what constitutes the
CT me, what are its elements, aud what
are the except ons. l have Won't
ured to draw up the statute of 'exemp-
items in a form slightly different from
that given in the Saturday RecteU, a
little broader AID stronger, and perhaps
a little simpler: "A writer is at liberty
to use the work of his predecessors as
he will, provided always tina Q)he does
not take credit, ven by impl cation, for
what he has not invented. and (2) that
he does not in any way infringe on the
pecun'ary rights OF the original owner"
When M. Victor en- S.rdou brought out
the fare cal comedy, Lies Pommes
du Vosin." he was ac-
sused of having stolen it from q
tale of Charles de Barnard, and he re-
torted instantly with evidence that no
had the perm ssion of the holders of the
Bernard copyrights, who were to share
in the profits of the play. Here M. Sar-
dou was innocent under the second
clause of my law, but guilty under the
first, inasmuch as he had concealed his
Indebtedness to Charles de Bernard and
had taken credit for an inventory which
was not his own. When Mr.. Charles
Reade turned Mrs. Burnett's ..That
Lass O. Lowrie's" into a play
called "Joan," without ask.
ing the permission of the Amer
lean author, he was guilty under the
second clause and innocent under the
first, for there was no concealment of
the source of the drama. With a proper
understanding of what is and what is
not plagiarism, there should 60 a
| greater circumspect;on in bringing the
accusation. Plagiarism is the worst of
literary or mes. 1t is theft, neither
| more nor less. All who desire to up
| hold the honor of literature, and to see
| petty larceny and highway robbery meet
with their just punishment, are con-
| cerned that the charge shall not be idly
brought or carelessly answered. But
how SO often has the amateur literary
| detective cried wolf" that patience
is exhausted, and accusations of literary
theft have been flung broadcast, until
| they may be met with a SIN 10 of CON
tempt. This is not as it should be. 1t
is contrary to public policy that the
literary consc ence should become cal
lous. The charge of plagiarism is verv
serious, and it should not be lightly
brought or Lightly borne.-Longman 8
Magazine.