New-York tribune., 1905-12-19

Some weeks ago Mr.. Sidney Lee showed by
the simple use of parallel columns. in Modern
Phiology," the periodical issued in Chicago,
that the poem called, 1.-The Amorous Zodacke"
which George Chapman published in 1885,
nothing more nor less than a translation of
Giles Durant's lie Zodiadue Anoureux," first
published in France in 1881. AS Mr.. Lee could
not find that Chapman had ever confessed the
source Of his Inspiration he accused the old
poet of IAN Unblushing act OF piracy" Some
scholars have protested against the use of such
words as piracy" even plagiarism" in the
circumstances, maintaining that throughout
the early periods of European literature the
right of authors to borrow literally from for
eign contemporaries without specific acknowl-
edgment was generally recognized. and was not
held TO constitute any offence" Mr.. Lee admits
that these borrowings were common, and he is
in fact now accommodating evidence with which,
in a forthcoming volume he purposes to demon
strate "the closeness Of the relations between
Elzabetnan literary effort and that of contem-
porary France and Italy. and of the community
of literary taste and feeling which almost rem
dered literary Europe at the end of the sixteenth
century a single commonwealth of letters But
in the same letter to "The Athenaum' from
which we take these remarks of his he argues
not only that George Chapman literary
pirate but that acts like his were regarded with
stern disapproval by his contemporaries. He
cites more than one Elizabethan in support OF
his case follows:
Puttenham's .Are Of English Poesie', g5Sg is
the production of Elizabethan literature. OF ono
who published without acknowledgment render
(Which. as a matter of fact we're far from being
quite literaD Puttenham wrote thus
This deserues to be endited of petty ldrceny
for pilferng other mems deuises from them and
conuerting them to his own vse, for in DECIDE as l
poet to receaue the prayses of his inuention. so
be acknowen of his translation
The word larceny" is italicized in the original
edition Michael Drayton in the dedication ion OF his
ly demonstrates that the prevalent habit of literal
Drayton charged the literal borrowers with ''alch-
ing and declared himself gu!ltess Of any such |
yet these mine owne; wrong not other men,
Nor trafque further than thys happy clyme,
Nor hIch from IDes-IPor'cs. nor from Petrdrc@s |
4. fault 100 common in thys latter TYNE.
I am no Pickpurse of arothers wit
The point of these lines is 10 wise bunted by the
sin which hc he here condemned Edward Gupin
writes apologctcaly in his 'Skialetheia" 1898 led.
Irosart p 64. Satyre Wiz
,Draytons condemn'd of some, for Imitation:
But others say twas the best Poets fashion"
a 16 vrI Pof5 on the era s frfa a
lptration of foreign verse. was forclbIy rebuked
practice which was declared without any qualihca-
ion TO be base In the play Of The Faeturne
rom Parnassus' (oart II, Act l. sc. I'D this warn
ng is addressed to Daniel:-
only, let him more sparingly make use
OF others wit, and use his own the more,
That well may scorn base imitation"
To the same effect runs Sir John Harfngton's
ronical epigran, 1913 ok. H. No. 800. headed 'Of
onest theft To my good friend Master Samuel
)aniel.' which concludes thus
Then fellow-Thiefe, let's shake together hands,
ith both our wares are nlcht from forren lands.
You'll spoile the Spaniards, by your writ Of Mart:
And I the Romans rob by wit and Art"
The extrayagant character of the denuncation |
4 which contemporary critics of the plagar-
ting habit INDUCED is well illustrated by another
Z Harington's epigrams (Bk. II, No. ~, which | $
j headed "Of censurer Of English writer's: 1t |
pens thus
That Englishmen hare small invention,
Id GuIBdn gath, and all our works are barren,
tut for the stuffe We get from Authors forFen."
Only the other day reviewing book