24 



The EiKjiiirer. — At/. XA'A"/. 



[Feb. 1, 



dingly been discussed by various per- 

 sons with considerable zeal and ability, 

 and their sentiments on the subject 

 hare been found pretty nearly to coin- 

 cide. i^u<•h inquiries deserve tlie high- 

 est commendation ; as they shew a pro- 

 per respect for tlie rights of literature, 

 and a desire to keep them free from in- 

 novatinn. Tlie advant.iges resulting 

 from the cultivatidu of its diftcreiit 

 branches are now become too valuable 

 (o be disregarded, and it tlierefore be- 

 comes an iuiperati'.e duty on all those 

 who wish for their continuance, to pre- 

 serve them by the use of every neces- 

 sary precaution, from injury or neglect ; 

 — to guard at once against the invasions 

 of the literary plunderer, and the insi- 

 dious attacks of wanton hostility: — 

 to prevent the intrusions of unqiialified 

 pretenders, and at the same time en- 

 deavour to distinguish themselves by 

 the genuine merit of their own pro- 

 ductions. 



The immediate object of the present 

 essay, is to remark generally upon the 

 striking resemblance between various 

 parts of Pope's works, and those of 

 other writers ; to introduce those pas- 

 sages with the probable sources from 

 which they were obtained, and, lastly, 

 to enquire whether this species of imi- 

 tation is allowable, {)rovided it does not 

 extend to direct plagiarism. To eluci- 

 date the latter part of this enquiry, it 

 may be useful to observe the following 

 just remarks made by Dr. Warton in 

 one of his papers in the Adventurer.' 

 " It happens unfortunately in poetry, 

 which i)rincipally claims the merit of 

 novelty and invention, that the want 

 of originality too generally shewn, ari- 

 ses frequently not from a barrenness and 

 timidity of genius, but from unavoid- 

 able necessity, and the nature of things. 

 The works of those wlio profess an art 

 whose essence is imitation, must needs 

 be stamped with a close resemblance 

 to each other, since the various objects 

 whidi they imitate, lie equally open 

 to the observation of all, and are j)cf- 

 fectly similar. Descriptions, therefore, 

 that are faithful and just >«?«/ be uni- 

 form nnd alike ; the first copier may 

 perhaps be entitled to the praise of pri- 

 ority, but his successors certainly ought 

 not to be condemned for plagiarism." 



Another eminent critic has also made 

 some observations of the same nature 

 as the preceding, which may with pro- 

 priety be here introduced. t " The 



' • No. 63. 



t Rambler, No. 143. 



allegation of resemblance between au- 

 thors, so frequently biought forward in 

 the present day is indisputably true: but 

 the charge of plagiarism whicli is raised 

 upon it, is not readily to be allowed, 

 A coincidencsof sentiment may easily 

 happen without any communication, 

 since there are many occasions on which 

 all reasonable inen will think alike. 

 Writers in every age have had the same 

 sentiments to describe, the same cha- 

 racters to delineate, and the same 

 scenes to pourtray: consequently there 

 must be some degree of similarity in 

 their descriptions. Indeed almost all 

 subjects are of so general a nature, 

 tiiat whoever attempts any common to- 

 pic will find unexjwcted coincidences 

 of his thoughts with those of other 

 writers, nor can the nicest judgment 

 always distinguisii accidental similitude 

 from direct imitation.'" Thus €or- 

 ueille, as Meuiige informs us, inserted 

 tv/o lines' on fortune in his Polyeuc'e, 

 without being aware of their having 

 been written many years before by 

 Godeai!, bishop of "\>nce, in an ode to 

 Cardinal Richelieu, Two other French 

 poets made use of another passage,! 

 without knowing it to be the property 

 of Maliierbes. Thus also the works of 

 Cardinal Bembo, Casa. Anuibal Caro, 

 and even Tasso himself, are full of imi- 

 tations of Dante and Petrarch, either 

 direct or I'.nintentional. As not every 

 instance of similitude, therefore, can 

 be considered as a proof of iioilatiou, 

 so not every imitation ought to be stig- 

 matized as plagiarism. The introduc- 

 tion of a noble sentiment, or borrowed 

 ornament, may sometimes display such 

 art and judgment as almost to compen- 

 sate for its want of originality. 



But although it may appear difficult 

 to distinguish imitation and plagiarism 

 from necessary resemblance and un- 

 avoidable analogy, the penetration of 

 the critic can generally distinguish the 

 one from the otiier. Thus Dr. Wliar- 

 ton in the essay before referred to, and 

 Dr. Johnson in his Rambler, have 

 severally pointe<i out various instances 

 in which Pope has bon-owed thoughts 



• " Et coDiine elle a I'eclat du verre 

 Eileen a la fragilite'." 

 t " D'arbiires de la paix, rfe /oarfre* dela 

 rjuerre." 

 Virgil licis a passage in his .S^neid from 

 whicli Malherbe probably derived lliis epi- 

 thet ; 



" Quis Gracchi ?enus, aut geminos duo/ul- 

 mina belli 

 Scipiadas, cladem Libyce." -VI. 843. 



and 



