Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© Robert Macfarlane 2007
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2007
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by Laserwords Private Limited, Chennai, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk
ISBN 978–0–19–929650–7
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
To my parents, Rosamund and John
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations xi
Introduction 1
Two theories of originality 1
Victorian originalities 6
1. ‘Romantic’ Originality 18
Introduction 18
The new shibboleth 27
The Romantic handover 33
Purloined letters and plagiarism hunters 41
2. Legitimizing Appropriation 50
Introduction 50
Composition and decomposition 52
Victorian selves and plagiarism 67
‘They wot not of it’: unconscious plagiarism 77
Noble contagion 82
Conclusions 88
Bibliography 212
Index 237
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations have been used in the footnotes for fre-
quently cited works.
T WO T H E O R I E S O F O R I G I N A L I T Y
of God; who … made all the world out of nought’.⁴ Puttenham used
his analogy between poet and God to discriminate between ‘original’
poems and ‘copies’, and thereby also to sort writers into a hierarchy
of importance. He excluded translators from the primary category of
‘maker’ on the grounds that the matter from which they formed their
poems was pre-existing.⁵ What distinguished ‘the very Poet’, according
to Puttenham, was his ability to ‘make and contriue out of his owne
braine both the verse and matter of his poeme’.⁶ John A. Héraud, in
an article for an 1830 issue of Fraser’s Magazine, proposed a similar
account of creativity. For Héraud, the defining power of the ‘poetic’
mind was that of fashioning ideas out of nothing. ‘What are called
original thoughts’, he stated, ‘are underived, indeed original, existent
in the individual soul … the imagination creates its ideas … from
nothing!’⁷ Such visions of literary making are intimately linked with
the concept of a singular creator: the creative urge is dramatized as
pulsing deep within the fastness of the individual self, and the solitary
writer is seen to conjure ideas into the influence-proofed chamber of
his or her imagination. When the work of literature thus conceived is
presented to the world, it is therefore, to borrow Coleridge’s accolade
for Wordsworth’s poetry, ‘perfectly unborrowed and [the poet’s] own’.⁸
It is unindebted either to peer or to predecessor. Creation of this order
is not conventionally associated with labour, but is rather spontaneous
and unbidden: the writer effortlessly constellates words into an entirely
new and unforeseen formation. Historically, such theories of creation
have tended to be accompanied by a well-defined sense both of literary
property (the ownership of words) and of literary propriety (how to
behave with regard to the words of others). The possibility of pure
⁴ George Puttenham, ‘The Arte of English Poesie’, repr. in G. Gregory Smith (ed.),
Elizabethan Critical Essays (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1904), ii. 3.
⁵ For specific discussions of Renaissance theories of poetic origin, see Maren-Sofie
Røstvig, ‘Ars Aeterna: Renaissance Poetics and Theories of Divine Creation’, Mosaic,
3:2 (Winter 1970), 40–61; E. N. Tigerstedt, ‘The Poet as Creator: Origins of a
Metaphor’, Comparative Literary Studies, 5:4 (1968), 455–88; David Quentin, ‘Upon
Nothing’, in Nicholas Fisher (ed.), That Second Bottle: Essays on John Wilmot, Earl of
Rochester (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), 89–100; and David Quint,
Origins and Originality in Renaissance Literature: Versions of the Source (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1983).
⁶ Puttenham, ‘English Poesie’, 3.
⁷ J. A. Héraud, ‘On Poetical Genius Considered as a Creative Power’, Fraser’s
Magazine, 1 (1830), 59, 63.
⁸ Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Biographia Literaria [1817], ed. J. Shawcross (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907), ii. 124.
Introduction 3
end of the spectrum, clustered around the verb ‘to invent’, are those
theories of literary creation which refuse to believe in the possibility of
creation out of nothing, or in the uninfluenced literary work. These
inventorial or recombinative theories—such as those espoused by the
imaginative logic of literary postmodernism, or by Augustan aesthetics,
which privileged the act of making out of extant material; consider, for
instance, Johnson’s Platonically inflected third definition of ‘original’
in his Dictionary (1755–6) as ‘first copy’—assume that the writer is
merely a rearranger of bits and pieces: an administrator rather than
a producer.⁹ Given that language is an inherently communal medi-
um—‘a sort of monument’, as Emerson put it, ‘to which each forcible
individual in a course of many hundreds of years has contributed a
stone’—it is unfeasible for a work of literature to be ‘perfectly unbor-
rowed’.¹⁰ As social beings, working with and in the social emulsion of
language, each writer is compulsorily heir to innumerable predecessors,
and indebted to innumerable contemporaries. These theories hold, as
Auden put it, that ‘[I]t is both the glory and the shame of poetry that
its medium is not its private property, that a poet cannot invent his
words and that words are products, not of nature, but of a human
society which uses them for a thousand different purposes. … Even
the language of Finnegans Wake was not created by Joyce ex nihilo; a
purely private verbal world is not possible.’¹¹ The shaping pressures of
historical context, and of contemporary literary expectations and con-
ventions, mould the work of literature from the outside. It is therefore
more accurate, according to these recombinative theories, to think of
the creating mind as a lumber-room in which are stored innumerable
verbal odds and ends. The supposedly ‘original’ writer in fact works
with ‘inherited lexical, grammatical, and semantic counters, combining
and recombining them into expressive-executive sequences’.¹² For this
reason, these recombinative theories treat originality not as a privileged,
trans-historical category, but as a cultural convention. An exposition of
them can be found in Paul Valéry’s ‘Letter about Mallarmé’. ‘We say
that an author is original’, Valéry wrote there, ‘when we cannot trace
⁹ Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language: In Which the Words Are
Deduced from their Originals (London: J. and P. Knapton et al., 1755), ii, sig. 18S1v .
¹⁰ RWE, iii. 136.
¹¹ W. H. Auden, The Dyer’s Hand (London: Faber and Faber, 1975), 23.
¹² GC, 150.
Introduction 5
¹³ Paul Valéry, Leonardo, Poe, Mallarmé, trans. Malcolm Cowley and James R. Lawler
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), 241.
¹⁴ Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman [1759–67],
ed. Ian Campbell Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 275.
¹⁵ Jacques Derrida, ‘Signature, Event, Context’, in A Derrida Reader: Between the
Blinds, ed. Peggy Kamuf (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), 90.
¹⁶ Jorge Luis Borges, ‘Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote’, in Labyrinths, ed. and
trans. Donald A. Yates et al. (London: Penguin, 1970), 67.
6 Introduction
V I C TO R I A N O R I G I N A L I T I E S
¹⁷ See Alasdair Gray, Lanark: A Life in Four Books (Edinburgh: Canongate, 1981),
485–99.
Introduction 7
¹⁸ For scholarly surveys of originality and plagiarism in the Renaissance, see Harold
Ogden White, Plagiarism and Imitation during the English Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1935); Stephen Orgel’s influential article ‘The Renaissance
Artist as Plagiarist’, ELH 48 (1981), 476–95; and Laura J. Rosenthal, Playwrights and
Plagiarists in Early Modern England (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991). On
originality and plagiarism in the Augustan period, see BP; and Patricia Phillips, The
Adventurous Muse: Theories of Originality in English Poetics, 1670–1750 (Stockholm:
Uppsala, 1984). On originality and plagiarism in the Romantic period, see SERI ; Leslie
Brisman, Romantic Origins (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978); Paul A. Cantor,
Creature and Creator: Myth-Making and English Romanticism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994); Zachary Leader, Revision and Romantic Authorship (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996); and Jack Stillinger, Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary
Genius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). On originality and plagiarism in
modernism, see Elizabeth Gregory, Quotation and Modern American Poetry (Houston:
Rice University Press, 1996); Stan Smith, The Origins of Modernism (Hemel Hempstead:
Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994); Louis Menand, Discovering Modernism (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1987); and Rosalind E. Krauss, The Originality of the Avant-garde and
Other Modernist Myths (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985). Beyond these period-based
studies, there have been a series of trans-historical surveys, of which the two most useful
are PP; and Thomas McFarland, Originality and Imagination (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1985).
¹⁹ The only book-length study which exists is SA. Saint-Amour’s brilliant book,
which Original Copy both draws on and hopes to draw out, focuses on the transition
to modernism: he has insightful chapters on Wilde, Joyce, and T. S. Eliot, and also
usefully maps late nineteenth-century shifts in economic theories of value onto shifts
in theories of literary value. Excellent work on the adjacent subjects of forgery, and
intellectual property, is to be found in, respectively, Nick Groom, The Forger’s Shadow
(London: Picador, 2002), and Clare Pettitt, Patent Inventions: Intellectual Property and
the Victorian Novel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Valuable author-specific
work has been carried out by Lilian Nayder, in Unequal Partners: Charles Dickens,
Wilkie Collins and Victorian Authorship (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002),
Josephine M. Guy, ‘Self-Plagiarism, Creativity and Craftsmanship in Oscar Wilde’,
English Literature in Transition (1880–1920), 41:1 (1998), 6–23, and Christopher
Ricks, ‘Tennyson Inheriting the Earth’, in Hallam Tennyson (ed.), Studies in Tennyson
(London: Macmillan, 1981), 66–104.
8 Introduction
²³ Steven Connor, Samuel Beckett: Repetition, Theory and Text (Oxford: Basil Black-
well, 1988), 3.
²⁴ Alain Robbe-Grillet, ‘Towards a New Novel’, in Snapshots and Towards a New
Novel, trans. Barbara Wright (London: Calder & Boyars, 1965), 46–7, 63.
10 Introduction
²⁹ Nancy Aycock Metz, ‘The Artistic Reclamation of Waste in Our Mutual Friend ’,
Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 34:1 (June 1979), 60–1.
³⁰ Isobel Armstrong, Victorian Poetry: Poetry, Poetics and Politics (London: Routledge,
1988), 1.
12 Introduction
³¹ Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight, 2nd edn. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1983), 148.
³² W. T. J. Mitchell, ‘Influence, Autobiography, and Literary History: Rousseau’s
Confessions and Wordsworth’s The Prelude’, ELH 57 (1990), 646.
Introduction 13
³³ Original emphasis. Augustine Birrell, Seven Lectures on the Law and History of
Copyright in Books (London: Cassell and Co., 1899), 15.
14 Introduction
³⁷ SERI, 12.
³⁸ Hugh Kingsmill, ‘1932 and the Victorians’, English Review, 9 (June 1932), 684. I
am grateful to Stefan Collini for drawing my attention to Kingsmill’s observation.
³⁹ E. C. Stedman, Victorian Poets (London: Chatto & Windus, 1876), 21–3.
⁴⁰ For instance, T. E. Hulme’s essay ‘Romanticism and Classicism’ took its cue
from Pierre Lasserre’s attack on the ‘Romantic’ aesthetic in Le Romantisme français. See
16 Introduction
I N T RO D U C T I O N
¹ Thus Christopher Ricks’s comment that ‘Edward Young … is usually blamed these
days for having … set the world on a grievously wrong course’ (that is, for having
asserted that originality could exist in and of itself). Christopher Ricks, ‘Plagiarism’,
Proceedings of the British Academy: 1997 Lectures and Memoirs, 97 (1997), 164. Compare
Marilyn Randall: ‘The watershed moment in eighteenth-century development of theories
of originality is generally considered to be Edward Young’s Conjectures on Original
Composition.’ PP, 49. Nick Groom characterizes Young’s tract as heralding ‘a change
of mood’ regarding originality. Groom, Forger’s Shadow, 43. Joel Weinsheimer makes
the important point that Young was not in fact the first to try to distinguish between
imitation and originality. Joel Weinsheimer, ‘Conjectures on Unoriginal Composition’,
Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation, 22 (1981), 58–73.
² Benjamin Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1967), 23.
³ COC, 7.
‘Romantic’ Originality 19
⁴ Ibid. 80.
⁵ Alexander Pope, ‘The Preface of the Edition to The Works of Shakspear’, in The
Prose Works of Alexander Pope, ed. Rosemary Cowler and Norman Ault (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1936–86), ii. 13.
⁶ Nicholas Rowe, ‘Some Account of the Life &c. of Mr William Shakespear’, in The
Works of Mr. William Shakspear (London: Jacob Tonson, 1709), i. 35.
20 ‘Romantic’ Originality
by the word original, when applied to Genius, we mean that native and
radical power which the mind possesses, of discovering something new and
uncommon in every subject on which it employs its faculties.⁷
⁷ William Duff, An Essay on Original Genius (London: Edward and Charles Dilly,
1767), 86. Compare also Alexander Gerard in 1774: ‘In order to determine, how far
[a man] merits this character [of a genius], we must enquire … whether he has … in
the arts, designed some new work, different from those of his predecessors.’ Alexander
Gerard, An Essay on Genius (London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1774), 8–9.
‘Romantic’ Originality 21
for the archetypical ‘great writer’. His book was, in effect, a statistical
analysis of the nature of literary genius—and he slanted his statistics
in order to substantiate his firm belief in the doctrine of poeta nascitur
non fit. For D’Israeli, greatness in letters was thrust upon individuals, it
was not earned. His increasing interest in the biological ‘temperament’
of original genius can be seen by comparing subsequent editions of the
work (it ran through four editions between 1795 and 1828, Byron con-
sulted with D’Israeli for the 1818 edition, approving reference was still
being made to it in periodical articles from the 1830s, and it continued
to sell briskly through the remainder of the nineteenth century). Over
the course of his revisions, D’Israeli increasingly pathologized the ‘man
of genius’, completely turning around, for example, his characterization
of Rousseau between the 1795 and the 1818 editions.
In the opening chapters of The Literary Character, D’Israeli mounted
a general assault upon the idea of the tabula rasa, as well as upon the
work of the contemporary associationist philosopher Dugald Stewart,
whose writings explicitly built on Locke’s thought, and that of Dr James
Currie, who had used Locke’s work to refute the idea of pure literary
originality in his 1800 Life and Letters of Robert Burns.⁸ D’Israeli
found the doctrine ‘of the equality of men’, which lay at the political
heart of the Lockian epistemology, to be ‘monstrous’, and proposed
instead an account of human nature which emphasized endowment
over acquisition. He then teased out the implications of this account
of human nature for conceptions of literary talent. Original genius, he
proposed uncompromisingly, ‘originates in constitutional dispositions’
and is ‘that creative part of art which individualises the artist, belonging
to him and no other’. Thus, you ‘cannot invent invention’.⁹ D’Israeli’s
account of originality, like that of Duff, was based upon a highly
possessive theory of mind, which arrogated the power of verbal creation
only to specific elect individuals.
Due in part to the writings of Young, Duff, Gerard, D’Israeli, and
others, over the closing decades of the eighteenth century increasing
reverence was directed at the quality of originality in literature, and
increasing disparagement directed at imitation. Originality came to
be understood as consisting chiefly in a resistance to influence from
⁸ James Currie, The Works of Robert Burns; with an Account of his Life and a Criticism
on his Writings (London: W. Davies and W. Creech, 1800).
⁹ Isaac D’Israeli, The Literary Character [1795], 3rd edn. (London: John Murray,
1822), 33, 36, 14, 32.
22 ‘Romantic’ Originality
¹⁰ See SERI, 1–21; and BP, 105, where Bate notes that from the 1750s onwards ‘some
of the least original minds of the time were beginning to prate constantly of originality,
thus setting a precedent with which the intellectual has since been condemned to live’.
¹¹ PWWW, iii. 73.
¹² Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, ed. R. R. Wark (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1981), 96.
¹³ The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson, ed. W. J. Bate, Albrecht B. Strauss,
et al. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958–71), v. 107.
¹⁴ COC, 7.
‘Romantic’ Originality 23
preoccupation with originality, which in its turn fed back into British
thought. In 1790, Kant could declare in his Critique of Judgement
that ‘Genius’ is defined by ‘a talent for producing that for which no
definite rule can be given … Hence originality must be its first property
… Everyone is agreed that genius is entirely opposed to the spirit of
imitation.’¹⁵ In the same year, Novalis declared poetry to be ‘the true
absolute Real. … The genuine poet is all-knowing—he is an actual
world in miniature.’¹⁶ This burgeoning cult of original genius to which
Kant referred (‘everyone is agreed’) celebrated a literature that was both
independent and self-begetting.
As a consequence, those forms of writing which relied on techniques
of repetition or resemblance for their effects were often stigmatized
as derivative, and transgressive of the literary qualities of sincerity,
authenticity, and uniqueness. Repetitive literature was widely held to be
bogus literature. As Kaplan puts it, the new attitude evoked by Edward
Young and his compatriots also served to ‘justify strong (legal) protection
of intellectual structures in some respects ‘‘new’’ [and] encourage[d] a
more suspicious search for appropriations even of the less obvious types,
and to condemn these more roundly when found’.¹⁷ By the end of
the century, in Roland Mortier’s account, ‘preference [was] accorded to
direct and immediate expression that was faithful and sincere to feelings
and ideas. The fact of borrowing images, formal schemas, and existing
structures [was] considered as an infraction of that sincerity.’¹⁸
Why did originality become so highly regarded as a literary value?
One reason concerns what Walter Jackson Bate memorably names ‘the
burden of the past’. Bate suggests that by the middle of the eighteenth
century a ‘remorseless deepening of self-consciousness’ was under way in
Britain concerning the extent to which, in literature, all had already been
said and done.¹⁹ According to Bate, ‘the Augustans’, more acutely than
any previous literary generation, were aware of the welter of published
words, the increasing impossibility of saying anything which had not
been said before, and the futility of adding to this verbal superfluity.
²⁰ William Empson, Some Versions of Pastoral (London: Chatto & Windus, 1935), 6.
²¹ John Beer, Providence and Love (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 2.
²² Groom, Forger’s Shadow, 43.
²³ Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’,
in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (London: Fontana, 1992),
211–44.
²⁴ Quoted Groom, Forger’s Shadow, 43.
‘Romantic’ Originality 25
³⁰ In The Imaginary Puritan: Literature, Intellectual Labor, and the Origins of Personal
Life (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992), Nancy Armstrong
and Leonard Tennenhouse date this process of relocation of subjectivity from outside to
inside the human body to the turn of the seventeenth century.
³¹ In ‘The Romantic Concept of Mimesis: Idem et Alter’, in John Beer (ed.),
Questioning Romanticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 179–208,
Frederick Burwick offers a valuable corrective to Abrams’s overly binary model. He
suggests that the ‘turn’ from mirror to lamp was less definite, and the barrier between
imitation and expression in Romantic doctrine more porous, than Abrams asserts.
³² PWWW, iii. 26. ³³ Ibid. i. 138.
³⁴ Justice Aston, opinion in Millar v. Taylor, 98, Eng. Rep. 201, 218 (1769). The
other being Donaldson v. Beckett, 1, Eng. Rep. 257 (1774), which recognized the
perpetual common law copyright of the author, but decreed that the 1710 Statute of
Anne replaced this with a statutory right, such that once a work had been published, the
‘Romantic’ Originality 27
T H E N EW S H I B B O L E T H
perpetual common law copyright was eliminated and the work instead became subject
to the chronological limits of statutory law. This represented a setback for authors and
publishers. See Rose’s discussion of Donaldson v. Beckett in Authors and Owners, 92–112,
and in his article ‘The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v. Beckett and the Genealogy of
Modern Authorship’, Representations, 23 (Summer 1988), 51–85.
³⁵ See George H. Putnam, Books and their Makers during the Middle Ages (New York:
Hillary House Ltd., 1962), i. passim.
³⁶ See Martha Woodmansee, ‘The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal
Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘‘Author’’ ’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 17 (1984),
425–48; and Roger F. Cook, The Demise of the Author: Autonomy & the German Writer
1770–1848 (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 112.
³⁷ Thomas Mallon, Stolen Words: Forays into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiarism
(New York: Harcourt, 1989), 24 (the quotation is from BP, 107); and Gregory,
Quotation, 12.
28 ‘Romantic’ Originality
Romantic poets. As they saw it, genuine authorship is originary in the sense that
it results not in a variation, an imitation, or an adaptation, but in an utterly
new, unique—in a word, ‘original’—work which, accordingly may be said to
be the property of its creator and to merit the law’s protection as such.³⁸
³⁸ Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi (eds.), The Construction of Authorship: Textual
Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994), 2–3.
³⁹ Jerome McGann, The Romantic Ideology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1983), p. ix.
⁴⁰ Anne Janowitz, Lyric and Labour in the Romantic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998), 1.
‘Romantic’ Originality 29
⁴³ Percy Bysshe Shelley, Shelley’s Prose, ed. David Lee Clark (London: Fourth Estate,
1988), 293.
⁴⁴ Ibid. 317.
⁴⁵ Letter to William Godwin, 25 July 1818. The Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley, ed. F.
L. Jones, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), ii. 22.
⁴⁶ Letter to Thomas Love Peacock, 25 July 1818. Ibid. 26.
⁴⁷ Letter to Leigh Hunt, 14–18 November 1819. Ibid. 153.
⁴⁸ Letter to Thomas Love Peacock, 10 August 1821. Ibid. 331.
‘Romantic’ Originality 31
⁵³ Leader, Revision, 1.
‘Romantic’ Originality 33
T H E RO M A N T I C H A N D OV E R
⁵⁴ Jonathan Bate, The Song of the Earth (London: Picador, 2000), 68–9.
⁵⁵ Original emphasis. WP, Appr., 257–8. The essay first appeared in Macmillan’s
Magazine in November 1876, and was reprinted in 1889 in Appreciations under the title
‘Postscript’.
34 ‘Romantic’ Originality
⁵⁶ Letter to J. H. Reynolds, 3 May 1818. John Keats, Letters of John Keats, ed. Hyder
Edward Rollins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958), i. 281.
⁵⁷ ‘Who shall point as with a wand, and say | ‘‘This portion of the river of my mind |
Came from yon fountain’’?’ William Wordsworth, The Prelude, ed. J. C. Maxwell (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 84.
⁵⁸ On the reception of Romanticism in the Victorian nineteenth century, see George
Whalley, ‘England: Romantic–Romanticism’, in Hans Eichner (ed.), ‘Romantic’ and
its Cognates: The European History of a Word (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1972), 157–262; Armstrong, Victorian Poetry; John Beer, Romantic Influences:
Contemporary, Victorian, Modern (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993); Andrew Elfenbein,
Byron and the Victorians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); and Stephen
Gill, Wordsworth and the Victorians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
⁵⁹ Whalley, ‘England’, 235, 244.
‘Romantic’ Originality 35
stress upon the idea that authentic literature flowed from a source within
the individual writer, and that it was this quality which furnished true
literature with its distinctive ‘originality’. In his essay on Walter Scott,
for instance, he defined true literature as ‘pure invention’, noting that ‘a
poet is essentially a maker’, who fashions his works out of ‘the resources
of his mind’.⁶⁰ Similarly, in his essay on William Godwin—whom
he compared favourably with Coleridge—Hazlitt applauded Godwin’s
writing for being so unmistakably a product of ‘the ardent workings of
his own mind, … the teeming and audible pulses of his own heart’. He
went on to admire the first-handedness of Godwin’s intellect, which he
contrasted with other ‘pilfering’ writers:
the chains with which he rivets our attention are forged out of his own thoughts,
link by link, blow for blow, with glowing enthusiasm: we see the genuine ore
melted in the furnace of fervid feeling … and this is so far better than peeping
into an old iron shop, or pilfering from a dealer in marine stores! ⁶¹
This same striking image of the poet’s mind as a furnace in which truly
original thoughts are smelted recurred in the essay on Byron, where
Hazlitt again accentuated the endogenous nature of authentic creation:
‘Instead of taking his impressions from without, [Byron] moulds them
according to his own temperament, and heats the materials of his
imagination in the furnace of his passions.’⁶²
Hazlitt’s most significant contribution to the simplifying of the idea
of originality was made in the last of his lectures, ‘On the Living Poets’,
delivered in 1818. In the course of the lecture, Hazlitt attempted to
partition the recent literary past into schools, and to identify affinities
and disjunctions between these schools. He was, in effect, trying to
draw the first major map of early nineteenth-century literature. The
most conspicuous feature of Hazlitt’s cartography was what he called
the ‘Lake School’, the group of poets headed by ‘Mr. Wordsworth’.
Hazlitt claimed that this school, in which he included Southey and
Coleridge among others, had effected a drastic revolution in British
literary principles and values. ‘The change in the belles-lettres’ brought
about by the Lake School, wrote Hazlitt:
was as complete, and to many persons as startling, as the change in politics,
with which it went hand in hand … According to the prevailing notions, all
⁶⁰ William Hazlitt, The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, ed. P. P. Howe (London:
J. M. Dent and Sons, 1930–4), xi. 60.
⁶¹ Ibid. 25. ⁶² Ibid. 69.
36 ‘Romantic’ Originality
was to be natural and new. Nothing that was established was to be tolerated. All
the common-place figures of poetry, tropes, allegories, personifications, with
the whole heathen mythology, were instantly discarded … A striking effect
produced where it was least expected, something new and original … was all
that was aimed at.⁶³
To the modern critical eye there appears to be a bad fit between Hazlitt’s
summary of the poetry of the Lake School, and its actual character and
ambitions. Consider, for example, Hazlitt’s suggestion that everything
‘common-place’ was instantly discarded. This will not square with the
Lyrical Ballads, a collection which was pervasively concerned both with
common places—the open ground, moorlands, and fellsides in which so
many of the characters of the Ballads, themselves ‘common-place figures’,
are encountered—and with the commonplaces of speech which make
up the language of men. However, despite its misrepresentation of the
Lake School poets—or rather because of it—this is an arresting passage.
For what Hazlitt says here is not incorrect, but incomplete; he aligns
originality (the ‘new’) with authenticity (the ‘natural’), and characterizes
the Lake School according to its disregard for the tradition and its wilful
rupture with all pre-existing convention. It is a partiality which would
be repeated in the numerous subsequent accounts of British Romantic
writers as unremittingly and unsubtly obsessed with originality. To give
only one instance of the reiteration of Hazlitt’s summary later in the
century, in Literary Epochs (1887), George Underhill devotes one of
seven chapters to the ‘Lake School’ and concludes after it that ‘the
essential qualit[y] for forming a new school of literature’ is ‘the creation
of original ideas never before conceived’.⁶⁴
Virgil Nemoianu suggests in The Taming of Romanticism that it
was during the late 1820s and 1830s that ‘the sheer energy of the
romantic breakthrough [was] captured and tamed in a long phase of
late romanticism that has a configuration of its own’.⁶⁵ In the case of
the idea of originality, this process of ‘taming’ and ‘capturing’ took the
form of a simplification, and the later 1820s and 1830s were the years
when this simplification was working at its fastest. During this period,
the connected topics of literary genius and literary originality were
frequently under discussion in the major literary periodicals, and the
⁶⁶ See, for example, ‘Specimens of German Genius I–V’, ed. and trans. Sarah Austin,
New Monthly Magazine, 28 (April 1830), 311–17; 28 (May 1830), 444–50; 28 (June
1830), 519–26; 28 (July 1830), 34–42; 28 (August 1830), 180–9; Isaac D’Israeli,
‘The Genius of Molière’, New Monthly Magazine, 37 (April 1833), 429–40; John
Forster, ‘Evidences for a New Genius for Dramatic Poetry I’, New Monthly Magazine, 46
(March 1836), 289–308; R. H. Horne, ‘Genius, Talent, Science and Learning’, Tait’s
Edinburgh Magazine, 4 (January 1834), 483–4; R. H. Horne, ‘Men of Genius and the
Public’, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, 3 (September 1833), 739–44; Harriet Martineau,
‘Characteristics of the Genius of Scott’, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, 2 (December 1832),
301–14; and Harriet Martineau, ‘The Achievements of the Genius of Scott’, Tait’s
Edinburgh Magazine, 2 (January 1833), 445–60.
⁶⁷ Leigh Hunt, ‘Lord Byron and his Contemporaries’, Blackwood’s Edinburgh
Magazine, 23 (March 1828), 362–4.
⁶⁸ John Wilson, ‘Moore’s Byron (Part I)’, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, 27
(February 1830), 389.
38 ‘Romantic’ Originality
⁷⁵ Thomas Carlyle, The Works of Thomas Carlyle, ed. H. D. Traill (London: Chapman
and Hall, 1896–9), v. 45.
⁷⁶ J. Hillis Miller, The Disappearance of God (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press,
1975), 101.
‘Romantic’ Originality 41
P U R LO I N E D L E T T E R S A N D P L AG I A R I S M
HUNTERS
⁷⁷ David E. Latané, Browning’s Sordello and the Aesthetics of Difficulty (Victoria, BC:
University of Victoria Press, 1987), 56.
42 ‘Romantic’ Originality
is no new thing under the sun’—both to provide a biblical precedent for their argument,
and reflexively to show that their idea was not itself new.
⁹¹ RWE, iv. 114. ⁹² ITS, 58. ⁹³ Carlyle, Works, v. 103.
⁹⁴ Walsh, Handy-Book, 892.
‘Romantic’ Originality 47
classics? Nay, what were the classics themselves without their classics,
the proto-poets of humanity, the first rude singers of the world?’⁹⁷
Again and again, the ‘sin’ of plagiarism was sophistically rinsed and
rehabilitated into a virtue, a practice absolutely integral to literature, its
methods, and its sustenance. It was presented not as a crime, but rather as
something akin to an inheritance handed down—patrilineally—from
generation to generation.⁹⁸ Inheritance, indeed, came to replace the
image of debt as a way of figuring intertextuality. Groom observes that
later Romantic writers translated Ossian into a figure of inspiration by
‘translating the congress of the Muses into an aesthetic of repetition.
It was a way in which the art of imitation could be practised, not as
‘‘imitation’’ in the neoclassical sense of the word, but instead as sublime
echoes or shadows.’⁹⁹ Half a century later, plagiarism underwent much
the same process of translation, or transfiguration, into a form of
glorious, ineluctable sin.
The second vital claim of those who, like Reade, Lang, and Benson,
summoned Shakespeare and other canonical authors as witnesses in their
defence of plagiarism, was that these authors had palpably improved
what they had taken, and that the common literary inheritance had
thereby been enriched. Priority (and origin) was far less meaningful
than quality. ‘The men who first conceive an idea, a situation, a melody,
a colour scheme, an effect in sculpture, are insignificant. The men
who best conceive these things are great’, wrote Wright.¹⁰⁰ In ringing
these changes, these ‘great’ men also hallmarked the appropriated
material, thereby making it their own. Thus Brander Matthews in
1884:
Shakespeare and Molière borrowed from Plautus, as Plautus had borrowed
from Menander; and this again is not plagiarism. Every literary worker has a
right to draw from the accumulated store of the past, so long as he does not
attempt to conceal what he has done … and so long as he has wholly absorbed
and assimilated and steeped in his own grey matter what he has derived from
his predecessors.¹⁰¹
I N T RO D U C T I O N
³ See Garret Stewart, Dickens and the Trials of Imagination (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1974), 201; Adrian Poole, introduction to Our Mutual Friend
(London: Penguin, 1997), p. xxiii; Michael Cotsell, introduction to OMF, p. xix; and
Patrick O’Donnell, ‘ ‘‘A Speech of Chaff ’’: Ventriloquy and Expression in Our Mutual
Friend’, Dickens Studies Annual, 19 (1990), 248.
⁴ Metz, ‘Artistic Reclamation’, 60–1.
⁵ ‘It is so difficult to find the beginning. Or, better: it is difficult to begin at the
beginning. And not try to go further back.’ Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, ed. G.
E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, trans. Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), 81.
52 Legitimizing Appropriation
Waste and a possible solution to waste, recycling, were ideas with new
relevance and charge in mid-nineteenth-century Britain. In his Essay
on the Principle of Population (1793), Thomas Malthus had designated
waste as the inevitable by-product of a healthy social body. By the early
1840s, however, due to the urban population boom and to medical
science’s miasmic theories of infection, which attributed not just the
spread but also the generation of disease to the accumulation of waste
matter, waste had come to be perceived as a symptom of societal
disorganization and ill-health. Reformers began to argue that social
systems should emulate the natural processes of decomposition and
recomposition, and that waste should not be disposed of but rather
reclaimed to become that paradox, a waste product.⁶ Order and ordure:
to many mid-century Victorians it seemed that to preserve the first, the
second must be redeemed.
The most high-profile recycling initiative in the 1840s and 1850s
concerned the use of human and animal sewage as a fertilizer for crops.⁷
The groundbreaking work of the German chemist Justus von Liebig on
⁶ The verb ‘to recycle’ is relatively new; the OED records its first usage as 1926.
Its Victorian cognates were ‘reclamation’, ‘restitution’, ‘redemption’—with its spiritu-
al overtones—or ‘recombination’; this last is among the slew of ‘re-’ prefixed words
newly coined in the mid-century, including ‘rearrangement’, ‘reordinate’, and ‘reorient’.
‘Recombination’ brought with it a sense of renewal, of newness arising out of reor-
ganization rather than out of generation. ‘Re-orient’ was first used by Tennyson in In
Memoriam (1850)—‘The life re-orient out of dust’—to mean re-arisen, or re-risen.
⁷ See Nicholas Goddard, ‘Nineteenth-Century Recycling: The Victorians and the
Agricultural Utilisation of Sewage’, History Today, 31:6 (June 1981), 32–6; and ‘ ‘‘A
Mine of Wealth?’’: The Victorians and the Agricultural Value of Sewage’, Journal of
Historical Geography, 22:3 (July 1996), 274–90. See also Tina Young Choi, ‘Completing
the Circle: The Victorian Sanitary Movement, Our Mutual Friend, and Narrative
Closure’, http://humwww.ucsc.edu/dickens/OMF/artarchive.html (November 2005).
For a useful essay on waste and recycling in Dickens, see Catherine Gallagher, ‘The
Bioeconomics of Our Mutual Friend ’, in David Simpson (ed.), Subject to History (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), 47–64.
Legitimizing Appropriation 53
quality of all natural things’.¹¹ It was a belief which spread across diverse
regions of thought. Reuse became as fertile a concept sociologically,
theologically, and philanthropically as it was nutritionally: the same
arguments and vocabularies of salvage and reclamation found them-
selves reused in dissimilar intellectual environments.¹² From the 1840s
onwards, a sense grew that the process of reclamation—whether that
be the object of worth redeemed from a context of waste (the valu-
ables which John Harmon rescues from the dust-heaps in Our Mutual
Friend), or waste matter metastasized from a state of uselessness into one
of utility (Jenny Wren’s dolls)—was admirable. What was perceived to
be ‘praiseworthy’, as Christopher Hamlin puts it, was ‘the transforma-
tion of matter from one beautiful and useful occupation to the next, or,
in more technical (and more evocative) terms, the putrefaction, decom-
position, or decay of organic matter and its subsequent reconstitution
in new form’.¹³ In 1842, the same year as its publication, the Poor
Law Commissioner Edwin Chadwick asked Henry Austin, Dickens’s
brother-in-law, to pass a copy of his Report on the Sanitary Condition of
the Labouring Population of Great Britain to Dickens. Although Dick-
ens was initially suspicious of Chadwick as an exponent of the Poor
Law which he so despised, over the course of the 1840s he became
increasingly involved with the issue of sanitary reform, collaborating on
speeches and newspaper articles with Austin, who in 1848 was made
Secretary to the General Board of Health.¹⁴ This political partnership
had significant consequences for Dickens’s fiction: as David Trotter has
convincingly shown, Dickens’s exposure to the socio-political discourse
of circularity and circulation during this decade ‘began to shape his
imagining of the disposition and regulation of society’.¹⁵ It also began
to shape his imagining of the imagination. Circulation—of money,
ideas, objects, particles—came to be one of Dickens’s most characterist-
ic metaphors. As a concept translated into imagery, circulation provided
Dickens with a way to map the lines of filiation which linked apparently
discrete individuals within Victorian society, and to plot what Jonathan
¹⁸ Edmund Saul Dixon, ‘Dirty Cleanliness’, Household Words, 435 (24 July 1858),
122–3. Compare Edmund Saul Dixon, ‘The Circulation’, Household Words, 377 (13
June 1857), 561–5.
¹⁹ Ernest Abraham Hart, ‘Lives of Plants’, Household Words, 200 (21 January 1854),
486. Compare Ernest Abraham Hart, ‘Nature’s Changes of Dress’, Household Words,
216 (13 May 1854), 304–6.
²⁰ George Dodd, ‘Done to a Jelly’, Household Words, 222 (24 June 1854), 438.
²¹ George Dodd, ‘Penny Wisdom’, Household Words, 134 (16 October 1852), 101.
²² Quoted by Anne Lohrli in Household Words (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1973), 262.
Legitimizing Appropriation 57
ideas out of thin air, but continually reworks and converts pre-existing
intellectual matter.
A telling contrast can be found between Bleak House (1852–3), a
novel in which dirt and waste is chafed and chased out of existence, and
Our Mutual Friend, which promotes throughout an economy not of
waste disposal but of waste conversion.²⁹ Disintegrity is acknowledged
in the novel as an inevitability, but it is countered, as we have seen,
by reorganization and transformation. Those who promote circulation
by the action of conversion—Rokesmith, Wren, Venus, even the
‘young dredgers and hulking mudlarks’ (214) who fossick through
the estuary mud of the Thames for objects which they can sell—are
portrayed as affirmative forces within the novel. All of these characters,
as Nancy Metz notes, ‘find ways to turn to positive account the natural
cycle of birth, growth, death, decomposition, and renewal invisibly
operative around them’.³⁰ Conversely, obviously oppressive characters
are associated with blockage. Mr Podsnap’s dogmatism, for instance,
prevents the circulation of free thought and conversation around the
dinner table; he is the intellectual equivalent of a blood-clot. His
domestic environment is deliberately constructed to impede freedom of
movement. ‘Hideous solidity’, as Dickens puts it, is the ‘sentiment’ of
decor which characterizes Podsnap’s house, and which extends from the
‘walnut and rosewood tables’ of the ‘dim drawing room’ right down
to the ‘pot-bellied silver salt-cellars’ (130–1). Imitation—another form
of transformation—also recurs in Our Mutual Friend, where it is
represented as a highly successful strategy. Jenny Wren sneaks into high-
society events, in order to be able to imitate the latest fashions in the
dresses of her dolls. Sloppy’s ability to impersonate and ventriloquize
is most valuably put to use when he pretends to be the foreman-
representative of the dust contractors, thus keeping Silas Wegg awake
for two weeks in punishment for his scheming. Mr Boffin imitates a
‘regular Brown Bear’ (773), and by so doing convinces Bella of the evils
of cupidity. Out of all of these successful imitations, value is created.
Only Bradley Headstone, who seeks to ‘copy’ Rogue Riderhood’s
appearance, fails to imitate successfully, and his penalty is death. He and
²⁹ David Trotter has dated the idea of ‘creative waste’—that is, of waste being
characterized ‘as a necessity rather than a problem’—as contemporaneous with ‘the
period of Anglo-American Modernism’. David Trotter, Cooking with Mud (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000), 23. I would suggest that at least glimmerings of this idea
can be discerned considerably earlier.
³⁰ Metz, ‘Artistic Reclamation’, 68.
60 Legitimizing Appropriation
these, the most significant is the plot line about Mr Boffin’s feigning of
miserdom, which Dickens appropriated from James Sheridan Knowles’s
The Hunchback (1832), a work so popular that Dickens described it in
an 1854 letter as ‘the play of modern times best known to an audience’.³⁵
The novel also contains numerous other borrowed tropes, images, and
plot lines. As Adrian Poole observes, ‘in the repetition of stories and
forms derived from old scripture and prayer-book, new science, fairy-
tale, nursery rhyme, popular ballad, theatre, newspaper, education …
The very idea of repetition, endlessly varied, [is] the novel’s keynote.’³⁶
What is unusual about Our Mutual Friend, and what makes it especially
pertinent to this discussion, is that Dickens does not try to disguise the
multiple sources of his novel. Rather, he draws attention to them. In a
novel which is so conspicuously full of paper—‘that mysterious paper
currency which circulates in London when the wind blows, gyrated here
and there and everywhere … It hangs on every bush, flutters in every
tree, is caught flying by the electric wires’ (144)—Dickens lays down
paper-trails for the reader to follow, leading to his numerous sources.³⁷
The desire to appear as the sole originator of a literary work is less
important to the Dickens of Our Mutual Friend than the desire to
analyse both the workings of his own imagination, and the construction
of his novel. Wordsworth proclaimed genius to be ‘the introduction of a
new element into the intellectual universe’, but according to Our Mutual
Friend the universe, intellectual as well as material, is a sealed system,
into which new elements cannot emerge.³⁸ Whatever will be made, will
be made of pre-existing components, and the skills of the artist, as of the
artisan, are those of selection—‘picking’, to use Mr Venus’ term—of
rejection, and of conversion. The self-anatomizing metaphors of Our
Mutual Friend have also become self-fulfilling prophecies. For just as
the novel is composed from disparate sources, put together in a feat of
bricolage, so it has been disintegrated and recycled in subsequent texts.
Like the dust-heaps which it describes, it has been raked over, combed
through, and selected from. Notably, the two most allusive, indebted,
³⁵ Charles Dickens, The Letters of Charles Dickens, ed. Madeline House et al. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1965–2002), vii. 446.
³⁶ Poole, introduction to Our Mutual Friend, p. xi. See also Cynthia De Marcus,
‘Wolves Within and Without: Dickens’ Transformation of ‘‘Little Red Riding Hood’’
in Our Mutual Friend ’, Dickens Quarterly, 12:1 (March 1995), 11–17.
³⁷ See also Richard D. Altick, ‘Education, Print and Paper in Our Mutual Friend ’,
in Clyde de L. Ryals (ed.), Nineteenth-Century Literary Perspectives: Essays in Honour of
Lionel Stevenson (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1984), 237–54.
³⁸ PWWW, iii. 82.
62 Legitimizing Appropriation
³⁹ See Grace Tiffany, ‘Our Mutual Friend in ‘‘Eumaeus’’: Joyce Appropriates Dickens’,
Journal of Modern Literature, 16 (1991), 643–6; and Allyson Booth, ‘ ‘‘He Do the Police
in Different Voices’’: Our Mutual Friend and The Waste Land ’, The Dickensian, 97:2
(Summer 2001), 116–21.
⁴⁰ Anthea Trodd, ‘Unequal Partners: Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Victorian
Authorship’ (review), Victorian Studies, 45:2 (Winter 2003), 350.
⁴¹ Nayder, Unequal Partners.
⁴² Quoted Ibid. 14, 202.
Legitimizing Appropriation 63
⁴³ Henry Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor (London: Frank Cass & Co.,
1967), ii. 161. For a full list of articles which appeared between 1859 and 1900 arguing
for a less censorious attitude to literary resemblance and reuse, see the Bibliography.
⁴⁴ Anon., ‘Our Dust-bins’, Leisure Hour, 17 (1868), 719.
⁴⁵ Hadden, ‘Plagiarism and Coincidence’, 341.
⁴⁶ Anon., ‘On Plagiarism’, 219.
⁴⁷ Charles Reade, Trade Malice: A Personal Narrative and the Wandering Heir: A
Matter of Fact Romance (London: Samuel French, 1875), 16–17.
64 Legitimizing Appropriation
⁵³ William Myrtle, The Plagiarist (London: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1896),
192.
⁵⁴ Hadden, ‘Plagiarism and Coincidence’, 341.
⁵⁵ Edmund Gosse, introduction to Edmund H. Garrett (ed.), Victorian Songs (Boston:
Little, Brown & Co., 1895), p. xxxix.
⁵⁶ John Churton Collins, Illustrations of Tennyson (London: Longmans, 1891), p. vii.
⁵⁷ See also Richard Jenkyns, The Victorians and Ancient Greece (Oxford: Blackwell,
1980).
⁵⁸ A. C. Swinburne, Poetical Works (London: Heinemann, 1924), i. 165.
66 Legitimizing Appropriation
since the Greeks. ‘Greek literature is the one entirely original literature
of Europe. With no models before their eyes to provoke imitation or
rivalry, the Greeks created almost every form of literary art.’⁵⁹ Following
a Hellenic burst of creation, literature had been condemned to a steady
dissipation brought about by imitation. George Meredith played off
the same idea in the opening paragraphs of The Ordeal of Richard
Feverel (1859):
Some years ago a book was published under the title of ‘The Pilgrim’s Scrip.’
It consisted of a selection of original aphorisms by an anonymous gentleman,
who in this bashful manner gave a bruised heart to the world.
He made no pretension to novelty. ‘Our new thoughts have thrilled dead
bosoms,’ he wrote; by which avowal it may be seen that youth had manifestly
gone from him, since he had ceased to be jealous of the ancients. There was
a half-sigh floating through his pages for those days of intellectual coxcombry,
when ideas come to us affecting the embraces of virgins, and swear to us they
are ours alone, and no one else have they ever visited: and we believe them.⁶⁰
By 1892, Meredith’s lubricious ‘half-sigh’ had strengthened into
W. Davenport-Adams’s blurt of envy for the classical era:
In the way of literary ideas, what an advantage had the Greek and Roman
writers over their unfortunate successors! Everything in that golden age was
comparatively fresh and new. Men were not compelled to work up with
hidebound brains a jaded thought or worn-out image. Fancy had liberal course;
and the poet was under no necessity of pulling himself up ever and anon to
consider curiously whether he was unconsciously poaching on the preserve of
some lucky predecessor. It is the sore tribulation of a literary man nowadays
that all his best ideas have been anticipated.⁶¹
By the end of the century, the conviction that there was nothing
new to say, only new ways to say old things, had developed into a
studied fin-de-siècle indifference in the face of originality; manifest, as
we shall see in the final chapter, in the ironic register of Oscar Wilde’s
wilful and abundant plagiarisms.⁶² This broadly shared concern that
literature’s natural resources were running out, perhaps had run out,
encouraged permissive attitudes to literary resemblance, and worked to
V I C TO R I A N S E LV E S A N D P L AG I A R I S M
⁶³ Sally Shuttleworth and Jenny Bourne Taylor (eds.), Embodied Selves: An Anthology
of Psychological Texts 1830–1890 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. xiv.
68 Legitimizing Appropriation
⁶⁴ Sally Shuttleworth and Jenny Bourne Taylor (eds.), Embodied Selves: An Anthology
of Psychological Texts 1830–1890, p. xiii.
⁶⁵ Ibid., p. xiv.
⁶⁶ Roden Noel, ‘Memory and Personal Identity’, Modern Review, 4 (April 1883), 382.
⁶⁷ Samuel Butler, Life and Habit (London: A. C. Fifield, 1910), 79.
Legitimizing Appropriation 69
character of the age, sway him this way or that through the medium of
language and current ideas. … remote laws of inheritance, the vibration
of long-past acts rea[ch] him in the midst of the new order of things in
which he lives.’⁷⁸
The impact of Darwinism further accentuated this sense of the
congregational throng of thought. Particularly in the two decades
after 1859, there was a great deepening and elongation of human
as opposed to non-human time. Isabella Duncan’s Pre-Adamite Man
(1860), Charles Lyell’s Antiquity of Man (1863), John Lubbock’s best-
selling Prehistoric Times (1865), and Darwin’s The Descent of Man
(1871) all helped to foster a sense of humanity as a far more prolonged
project than had previously been intuited. The proposition emerged
that contemporary human beings were indebted to their ancestors
not only for their anatomy and appearance, but also for the texture
of their mind. In Life and Habit (1877)—a book which fiercely
dissented from Darwinism, endorsing instead a Lamarckian theory of
the self-willed acquisition of traits—Butler argued that each individual
contained the amassed memories of their ancestors: a thesis which, as
Shuttleworth and Taylor note, became a widely held ‘late nineteenth-
century notion of inheritance’.⁷⁹ G. H. Lewes thought that the crucial
ratio in the creation of a personality was how far this accumulated stock
of thought—which he called ‘inherited tendencies’—combined with
the ‘Collective Experience’ in ‘the formation of individual Experience’.⁸⁰
Alfred Russell Wallace, writing on Hegel (and quoted approvingly by
Lewes), observed that ‘we who live now enter upon the inheritance
which past ages have laid up for us’.⁸¹
For all of these writers, therefore, to think was necessarily to be in co-
operation not only with what Arnold had popularized as the Zeitgeist, the
prevailing trends of thought at any given time, but also with the whole
history of humanity.⁸² Thought extended not only outwards spatially,
but also backwards temporally. One was in inevitable, if sometimes
inaudible, communion with the voices of the past as well as the present;
⁷⁸ WP, Appr., 67. ⁷⁹ Shuttleworth and Taylor (eds.), Embodied Selves, p. xiii.
⁸⁰ SOP, 171. ⁸¹ Quoted by Lewes ibid., 157.
⁸² The OED cites the first recorded usage of Zeitgeist as by Arnold in 1848, then
cites Arnold again 1873 translating it as ‘Time-Spirit’. For Arnold, it should be said, the
Zeitgeist was not a democratic emanation, a product of the people, it was specified and
formed by the clerisy: ideas developed and put into circulation by the ‘born thinkers’ and
the ‘speculative few’. See also William Hazlitt, The Spirit of the Age; or, Contemporary
Portraits (London: Henry Frowde, 1825).
72 Legitimizing Appropriation
By the end of the century, Benson was able to use the issue of ‘heredity’
as a platform from which to argue for a lessening of the strictures
on literary repetition and resemblance. ‘No one [since Adam invented
language] has conceivably been free from the workings of heredity within
him’, he wrote, ‘or from the imitative instinct, which has perhaps more
achievement to be laid to its account than heredity. No one can escape
from it.’⁸⁴ The same idea—of unconscious inherited imitation—would
form the basis of an intelligent short story which appeared in Harper’s
Monthly in 1909, entitled ‘The Plagiarist’.⁸⁵ The eponymous heroine
is given her nickname because of her ‘imitative faculty’ and because of
‘the way she was always caricaturing her father’s designs (though she
did not mean to caricature) and trying to pass them off as original ideas
of her own’. Her ‘plagiarisms’ extend even to her body: her ‘small hand
was a copy of [her father’s] in every line and embryonic muscle’.⁸⁶ The
sardonically implied point of the story is that we inevitably embody and
imitate both our mental and our physical antecedents. As an ‘instinct’,
the urge to imitation is beyond human control (like other forms of
reproduction), and therefore to castigate every repetition as plagiarism
is to be blind to certain fundamental aspects of being human.⁸⁷
This increased sense of the interrelatedness, sympathies, and coincid-
ences of minds also precipitated specific theories of mental influence or
control. Mesmerism, hypnotism, thought-transference, somnambulism,
or telepathy and other previously unimagined forms of psychical contact
became ubiquitous topics of discussion, and all were perceived, as Daniel
Pick has suggested, as ‘examples of a wider set of challenges to the notion
⁸³ Samuel Butler, The Way of All Flesh [1903], ed. Michael Mason (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993), 213.
⁸⁴ Benson, ‘Plagiarism’, 979.
⁸⁵ Georgia Wood Pangborn, ‘The Plagiarist’, Harper’s Monthly Magazine (January
1909), 294–9.
⁸⁶ Ibid. 296.
⁸⁷ For a contemporary assertion of the importance of imitation, see Richard Steel, Imit-
ation: The Mimetic Force in Human Nature and in Nature (London: Henry Young, 1899).
Legitimizing Appropriation 73
⁸⁸ Daniel Pick, Svengali’s Web: The Alien Enchanter in Modern Culture (London: Yale
University Press, 2000), 80.
⁸⁹ Wibley, ‘A Plea’, 596–7. The American author George Viereck also built his now
largely forgotten 1907 novel about plagiarism, The House of the Vampire, upon this
metaphor of plagiarism as somnambulism, followed by vampirism. See SA, 131–49.
⁹⁰ Wibley, ‘A plea’, 598. ⁹¹ Butler, Life and Habit, 304.
74 Legitimizing Appropriation
⁹⁶ Thackeray regarded the young Charlotte Brontë’s heroic conception of the author
as ‘high-falutin’ ’, and ‘used to annoy her by referring to his books with exaggerated
unconcern, much as a clerk in a bank would discuss the ledgers he had to keep for a
salary’. See Lucasta Miller, The Brontë Myth (London: Jonathan Cape, 2001), 22.
⁹⁷ A paraphrase of Thackeray’s attitude in a sympathetic article on Dumas by Francis
Hitchman, in ‘Alexandre Dumas and his Plagiarisms’, National Review, 4 (1884–5), 388.
⁹⁸ William Makepeace Thackeray, Roundabout Papers (London: J. M. Dent & Sons,
1914), 291.
⁹⁹ A. J. Brown, ‘Tannhauser and Plagiarism’, Dublin University Magazine, 59 (Feb-
ruary 1862), 106–14.
76 Legitimizing Appropriation
¹⁰⁰ The poem is independently of interest. It took its name from Wagner’s opera, first
performed in 1845, and would be the subject of Swinburne’s long poem ‘Laus Veneris’
(1866). This verse version of the Tannhäuser myth was published anonymously in 1861,
identified only as the work of a group of ‘young writers’. The Tannhäuser story itself far
pre-dates Wagner, of course, belonging in written form to the early sixteenth century.
¹⁰¹ Brown, ‘Tannhauser’, 107–8.
Legitimizing Appropriation 77
Much the same argument was proposed ten years later by Thomas
Gallwey in an article for the Irish Monthly, in which he talks of
‘plagiarists’ as those:
whose minds may be said to have a peculiar receptivity for the beautiful—men
whose memories are generally ‘wax to receive and marble to retain’ a lovely
image whether verbal or ideal. Men such as these are prone to reproduce in
writing the fruits of their finding, without being conscious of the source of
inspiration.¹⁰²
The line which Gallwey retains is from Byron’s ‘Beppo’: ‘His heart was
one of those which most enamour us, | Wax to receive and marble
to retain.’ Gallwey’s argument was of a piece with a wider Victorian
preoccupation with maximizing the capacity of the memory; another
manifestation of the self-help drive. In the 1870s there was a publishing
boom in the field of mnemonics, and dozens of books appeared on
the market offering techniques for increasing memory capacity. ‘Books
without end have been recently written’, wrote an evidently exhausted
reviewer in the Dublin Review in 1877, ‘with the titles of ‘‘Art of
Memory’’ ’.¹⁰³ ‘Our aim’, concluded another commentator on the same
subject in 1888, ‘should be to maintain in manhood and womanhood
that perfect impressionability of the brain which exists in healthy
childhood.’¹⁰⁴ In this new psychological climate, which emphasized the
multiple and social composition of the self, memory attained a crucial
importance as the glue which bound the individual together and allowed
one to preserve the superstition of the unified personality.
‘ T H EY WOT N OT O F I T ’ : U N C O N S C I O U S
P L AG I A R I S M
¹¹² E. S. Dallas, The Gay Science (London: Chapman and Hall, 1866), 27.
¹¹³ Ibid. 199. ¹¹⁴ Ibid. 216.
¹¹⁵ Ibid. In Life and Habit Samuel Butler would reverse this image, using the
kleptomaniac to illustrate the unconscious memory: ‘No thief, for example, is such an
utter thief—so good a thief—as the kleptomaniac … Yet the kleptomaniac is probably
unaware that he can steal at all, much less that he can steal so well.’ Butler, Life and
Habit, 21–2.
Legitimizing Appropriation 81
that ‘there is hardly a single public speaker, preacher, or writer who does
not plagiarize to a certain extent, either consciously or unconsciously’.¹²²
N O B L E C O N TAG I O N
¹²² Anon., ‘The Cry of Plagiarism’, Spectator, 28 February 1891, 305–6. Compare
H. M. Paull’s 1922 remark that ‘Originality has been defined as ‘‘unconscious or
undetected imitation’’.’ ‘Unconscious Plagiarism’, Cornhill Magazine, 3:53 (1922), 484.
¹²³ Oliver Wendell Holmes, ‘My Hunt after ‘‘The Captain’’ ’, Atlantic Monthly, 10:62
(December 1862), 750–1.
Legitimizing Appropriation 83
¹²⁴ Compare Walsh in his Handy-Book, 892: ‘Shall I eschew the benefits of the modern
railroad because I find the germ of the idea in the steam-engine of the pre-Christian
hero?’
¹²⁵ Leslie Stephen, The Playground of Europe (London: Longmans, 1871), 72.
¹²⁶ Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History as
Applied to Language and Religion (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans,
1854), i. 61.
84 Legitimizing Appropriation
¹²⁷ Trench is usually credited with having started the Oxford English Dictionary,
thanks to a resolution he suggested at the Philological Society in 1858.
¹²⁸ See Megan Perigoe Stitt, Metaphors of Change in the Language of Nineteenth-Century
Fiction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), and LD, passim.
¹²⁹ R. C. Trench, English: Past and Present (London: Parker, Son and Bourn, 1855),
44–5.
¹³⁰ J. K. Crellin, Pasteur and the Germ Theory (London: Jackdaw, 1967).
Legitimizing Appropriation 85
¹³¹ See Angelique Richardson, ‘How Did it All Begin?’, TLS, 3 August 2001, 7.
¹³² See for instance Flint, Visual Imagination, 40–63.
¹³³ Though see Robert Douglas-Fairhurst, Victorian Afterlives: The Shaping of Influence
in Nineteenth-Century Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 85–181.
¹³⁴ Tyndall’s definition of ‘the atmosphere’ as ‘a vehicle of universal intercommunic-
ation’ was typical. John Tyndall, Essays on the Floating-Matter of the Air, in Relation to
Putrefaction and Infection (London: Longmans, 1881), p. xii.
¹³⁵ George Eliot, Adam Bede, ed. Valentine Cunningham (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1996), 423. See also Darwin: ‘We can draw a full and deep inspiration much more
easily through the widely open mouth than through the nostrils.’ Charles Darwin, The
Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (London: John Murray, 1872), 284.
86 Legitimizing Appropriation
¹⁴⁰ There are several useful books on the debate, including John Farley, The Spon-
taneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1977); and James E. Strick, Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian
Debates over Spontaneous Generation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
2001).
¹⁴¹ Louis Pasteur, ‘Revue des cours scientifique’, 23 April 1864, in Les Œuvres de
Pasteur, ed. Pasteur Valery-Radot, trans. A. Levine (Paris: Masson et Cie, 1922), ii. 329.
¹⁴² Original emphasis. Tyndall, Essays on Putrefaction, pp. xii, 6–7, 42–3.
88 Legitimizing Appropriation
C O N C LU S I O N S
¹⁴⁸ See Raymond Williams on ‘the individual’ in The Long Revolution (London:
Chatto & Windus, 1961), 71–100, especially 73–8.
Legitimizing Appropriation 91
I N T RO D U C T I O N
¹ George Eliot, Impressions of Theophrastus Such, ed. Nancy Henry (London: William
Pickering, 1994), 18. Further references are to this edition and will be incorporated into
the text.
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 93
just as well question a well-nourished man about the oxen, sheep and hogs
that he ate and that gave him strength. We bring abilities with us, but we
owe our development to a thousand workings of a great world upon us, and
we appropriate from these what we can and what suits us. I owe much to the
Greeks and the French; I am infinitely indebted to Shakespeare, Sterne and
Goldsmith. But the sources of my culture are not thereby established; it would
be an unending and also an unnecessary task to do so.²
‘We appropriate … what we can and what suits us’: Goethe’s comment
has itself been appropriated and developed, a fate entirely befitting its
sentiment. Tennyson once cited it to indemnify his own voracious
reading appetite, and in Impressions George Eliot metabolizes Goethe
into her own textual corpus. Ideas of appropriation, as we have already
seen, have a habit of creating these reflexivities.
Eliot’s playful reflexivity can also be seen at work if we disregard the
caveats of both Theophrastus and Goethe, and attempt to determine
another provenance in Impressions: the source of a source which Theo-
phrastus deploys in the tenth essay of the book, ‘Debasing the Moral
Currency’, ostensibly an invective against ‘the arts of spoiling’, burlesque
and parody (82). Theophrastus begins his essay with an untranslated
quotation which he attributes to ‘La Bruyère’. He quotes La Bruyère,
he tells us, in order to bring greater authority to his own ideas. ‘I am
fond of quoting this passage … because the subject is one where I
like to show a Frenchman on my side, to save my sentiments from
being set down to my peculiar dullness [sic]’ (81). No matter that he
slightly spoils La Bruyère’s original by slightly misquoting it, for the
quotation was not originally La Bruyère’s at all. Theophrastus has taken
it from Caractères de Théophraste, traduit du grec, avec les caractères ou
les Mœurs de ce siècle (1688), La Bruyère’s influential translation-cum-
adaptation of Characters, a set of thirty character sketches written by the
original Theophrastus, a Greek intellectual who lived from circa 370 to
288 bc. We should perhaps have listened to the English Theophrastus,
for here we have entered ‘a fearful labyrinth’ of literary debt. Marian
Evans, writing as George Eliot, writing as Theophrastus Such, attempts
² Wilhelm Goethe, Gedenkausgabe der Werke, Briefe und Gesprache, ed. E. Beutler
(Zurich: Artemis-Verlag, 1962–82), xxiv. 300–1. Compare A. Mitchell’s comments on
‘Plagiarism’ in The Knickerbocker, 43 (April 1854), 333: ‘An original thinker may be
considered as one who has grown mentally fat upon the food great minds in all ages of
the world have afforded him.’
94 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
⁵ Letter to May Butler, 10 June 1880. The Correspondence of Samuel Butler with his
Sister May, ed. Daniel F. Howard (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1962), 86.
⁶ See Marc Redfield, ‘The Fictions of Telepathy’, www.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/
surfaces/vol2/redfield.html (November 2005).
⁷ George Eliot, Wise, Witty and Tender Sayings in Prose and Verse, Selected from the
Works of George Eliot by Alexander Main (Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons, 1880),
p. xii.
⁸ Ibid. 406.
96 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
⁹ Letter to John Blackwood, 5 April 1879. Letters of George Eliot, ed. George Haight
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954–78), vii. 126.
¹⁰ Marc Redfield notes that ‘criticism has systematically ignored [ITS], preferring to
close off Eliot’s career with the grander difficulties of Daniel Deronda’. Redfield, ‘Fictions
of Telepathy’. He then, regretfully, does the same himself.
¹¹ Terry Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology (London: NLB, 1976), 111.
¹² Robert Strang locates ITS within this tradition in his excellent essay ‘The Voices
of the Essayist’, Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 35 (December 1980), 353–76.
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 97
which the essays are overloaded with ill-sorted information and ideas:
Eliot seems to be sitting on the suitcase, trying to pack too much into
too small a space. Impressions is seen, in other words, as a late-career
falling-away: arch, orotund, prolix, pawkily ironic, affectedly wise, and
for all these reasons best left well alone.
These objections to Impressions are not entirely ill founded. However,
the cosmetic unattractiveness of the book has led to an overlooking of its
unusual thematic concerns: specifically its revaluations of the relation-
ship between tradition and the individual talent, and its weighing of the
keystones of originality and assignable authorship. Only Nancy Henry,
in her fine introduction to a 1994 edition of Impressions, has grappled
with what might be called the book’s modernist qualities—specifically,
its self-consciousness concerning origin. Henry considers Impressions to
be ‘an experimental departure from her previous works. It comes at the
end of her development as a late Victorian writer of organic form, and
at the beginning of what looks like early Modernist experimentation
through fragmentation of form’ (p. ix). D. J. Enright, by contrast, in the
prefatory essay to his mistitled edition of Impressions contents himself
with generalisms about Eliot’s wit, before proving arrestingly insensitive
to the unusual texture of the book: ‘There is no fashionable ambiguity
or irony’, he declares, ‘no ‘‘subverting’’ shifts of perspective or authorial
stance, no dodging about between different levels of discourse.’¹³ And
while Gillian Beer, in Darwin’s Plots, and Sally Shuttleworth in George
Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Science: The Make-Believe of a Beginning,
have written valuably on Eliot’s growing interest in origins, neither of
them pursues the topic into Impressions.
Although it is usually read as a series of disconnected and discontented
essays, Impressions is in fact united by the grand theme of intellectual
origination. Almost every essay is concerned in some way with author-
ship, creation, and the definition, circulation, and inheritance of literary
property. As befits a work with such interests, Impressions is shot through
with allusion and quotation, and in the manner of landmark modernist
texts such as The Waste Land, Finnegans Wake, or Ulysses, Impressions
is aware of, and in dialogue with, its own vexed status as literary
property. Similarly to these texts, Impressions regards itself sceptically.
It directs its own attention, and that of its readers, both inwards—at
its patterns, principles, and fashions of construction—and outwards,
at the ideological operations that define and assign qualities such as
authorship, originality, and unoriginality. A good indication of Eliot’s
desire to throw into question the nature of proprietary authorship and
originality is that for some time she considered publishing Impressions
with a title page that read ‘Impressions of Theophrastus Such. Edited
by George Eliot’.¹⁴ Editorship is a very different job from authorship.
One edits an anthology, or a collection of essays—a composite of other
people’s words. To claim to be the editor rather than the author of a
work is an odd choice, unless the point of your work is that all authors
are to some degree editors.
Despite all of the above, however, Impressions should not be under-
stood as a full-blown assault on the doctrines of originality and
authenticity. Although she espouses a conception of literary prop-
erty which shows itself antagonistic towards those who claim absolute
intellectual monopolies, Eliot does not ‘entirely erase the distinction
between Mine and Thine’ (88). Although she criticizes certain aspects
of the conception of originality as creatio, she does not entirely debunk
its possibility. Impressions contests the topography which locates origin-
ation as taking place in the hollow round of the single skull, and suggests
instead an Emersonian concept of the author as a highly skilled selector
and combiner: an anthologist of language. Finally, while Eliot can be
seen moving towards an understanding of authorship as a quality which
is ascribed rather than inscribed, it is clear that for her the genuine source
of value remains at the scene of production: writing. She does not go
nearly so far as to dissolve the author into a function of discourse. Behind
or through Theophrastus we can hear George Eliot, with her belief in
individual agency and moral autonomy, and the ethical concerns and
purposes of writing.
E L I OT A N D ‘ E N T I R E ’ O R I G I N A L I T Y
Mr Furness preached his own sermons, as any one of tolerable critical acumen
might have certified by comparing them with his poems: in both, there was
an exuberance of metaphor and simile entirely original, and not in the least
borrowed from any resemblance in the things compared.¹⁷
¹⁵ George Eliot, Romola, ed. Andrew Brown (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 79.
¹⁶ Eliot, Adam Bede, 277.
¹⁷ Original emphasis. George Eliot, Scenes of Clerical Life, ed. Thomas A. Noble
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 46.
100 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
to have a lover who was also a genius, and a man of ‘‘most original
mind’’.’¹⁸
Originality as exaggerated difference is most thoroughly mocked
by Eliot in ‘A Man Surprised at his Originality’, the fourth essay in
Impressions. Lentulus is a leisured man of letters who, while he has
never committed any of his ideas to paper, and rarely commits them
to speech, considers himself possessed of a superabundance of original
thoughts. His outward manner at first greatly impresses Theophrastus,
who concludes ‘that he held a number of entirely original poems, or at the
very least a revolutionary treatise on poetics’ (42). Over time, however,
Theophrastus realizes that Lentulus’ originality is only a function of
his ignorance: if one knows nothing, then one’s ideas inevitably seem
original, for they are by definition incomparable. Moreover, if one
never writes down or discusses one’s original ideas, their unoriginality
remains imperceptible to others. Because Lentulus is ‘so little gifted with
the power of displaying his miscellaneous deficiency of information’,
Theophrastus mercilessly concludes:
there was really nothing to hinder his astonishment at the spontaneous crop of
ideas which his mind secretly yielded … He regarded heterodoxy as a power in
itself and took his inacquaintance with doctrines for a creative dissidence. (47)
¹⁸ George Eliot, Selected Essays, Poems and Other Writings, ed. A. S. Byatt and Nicholas
Warren (London: Penguin, 1990), 143. Compare Gwendoline in Daniel Deronda, who
‘rejoiced to feel herself exceptional; but her horizon was that of the genteel romance
where the heroine’s soul poured out in her journal is full of vague power, originality,
and general rebellion’. Daniel Deronda, ed. Graham Handley (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1984), 47.
¹⁹ Butler, The Way of All Flesh, 213.
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 101
just humility of the old Puritan, I may say, ‘‘But for the grace of
discouragement, this coxcombry might have been mine’’ ’ (116). The
solemn quip is typical of Theophrastus: he copies the words of another
to prove that he no longer labours under any illusions about originality.
Yet of course, he does no such simple thing as ‘copy’: the ‘old Puritan’
is John Bradford, the Protestant martyr who, on seeing a group of
criminals being led to their execution, famously declared, ‘But for the
grace of God there goes John Bradford.’ Theophrastus, like George
Eliot herself, rarely quotes (or copies) impeccably, even when declaring
he is doing just that.
G. H. Lewes had written extensively on the subject of originality,
both in his Problems of Life and Mind and also in his more ostensibly
literary works. In Principles of Success in Literature, which Eliot read at
least twice, he argued for a reformulation of the orthodox definition
of originality as the endogenous creation of new matter. In its place
he proposed an authorial aesthetic of ‘selection and arrangement’.
Lewes acknowledged that he was writing against the ideological grain
of the time: ‘I am prepared to hear of many readers’, he declared,
‘especially young readers, protesting against the doctrine of this chapter
as prosaic. They have been so long accustomed to consider imagination
as peculiarly distinguished by its disdain of reality, and Invention as
only admirable when its products are not simply new by selection and
arrangement, but new in material, that they will reject the idea of
involuntary remembrance of something originally experienced as the
basis of all Art.’²⁰ Eliot, like Lewes, was concerned to redefine originality
as a relational quality. Original art springs from what is known. ‘Creative
dissidence’ is achievable only through an acquaintance with ‘doctrines’.
For Eliot, the fetishizing of originality as sovereign creation was an
intellectual posture that contradicted itself. ‘We mortals should chiefly
like to talk to each other out of goodwill and fellowship’, Theophrastus
observes, ‘not for the sake of hearing revelations or being stimulated by
witticisms; and I have usually found that it is the rather dull person
who appears to be disgusted with his contemporaries because they
are not always strikingly original, and to satisfy whom the party at a
country house should have included the prophet Isaiah, Plato, Francis
Bacon, and Voltaire’ (50). He who lusts after originality finds himself
different to the point of dullness: not part of the ‘party’. Repeatedly in
²¹ George Eliot, Essays of George Eliot, ed. Thomas Pinney (New York: Columbia
Press, 1963), 19. Lewes would remark in Principles of Success that ‘Importance does not
depend on rarity so much as on authenticity’ (13).
²² Emerson, ‘Quotation and Originality’, in Ralph Waldo Emerson, ed. Richard Poirier
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 434. The essay does not appear in RWE.
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 103
DEEP ORIGINALITY
²³ George Eliot, Middlemarch, ed. David Carroll (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998), 283.
²⁴ Shuttleworth and Taylor (eds.), Embodied Selves, 150.
²⁵ I allude to John McPhee’s suggestive phrase ‘deep time’, which he uses to refer to
geological time-scales running back far beyond human experience. John McPhee, Annals
of the Former World (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1998), 90.
104 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
³¹ Austin Dobson, Old World Idylls (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.,
1883), 56.
³² William Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of Windsor, ed. David Crane (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), i. iii. 20.
³³ Sheridan uses the metaphor in The Rivals and so too, journalistically, do Brander
Matthews, Adam Davenport-Hines, William Walsh, and Edward Wright. Each user
slightly alters the context of the image in order to make it particular to himself, thereby
enacting the image.
106 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
³⁵ Charles Lee Lewes, who edited Leaves from a Note-book and published them in
1884: ‘The exact date of their writing cannot be fixed with any certainty, but it must
have been some time between the appearance of Middlemarch and that of Theophrastus
Such.’ Essays, ed. Pinney, 437.
³⁶ Ibid. 447–8.
³⁷ Edward Said, Beginnings: Intentions and Method (Baltimore and London: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1975), p. xiii.
³⁸ McFarland, Originality, 1–31.
108 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
which she was reading extensively in the years immediately prior to the
writing of Impressions, impressed her doubly, both for the collaborative
nature of their creation, and for La Fontaine’s skill as amanuensis to
the general mind. Myth, she wrote in a late essay, was a function of
communal perceptions—it did not ‘proceed from one nest of speech
& practice’, but from ‘the like working of the human mind under like
conditions’.⁴⁴ These concerns filter through into her fiction. In Adam
Bede, for example, Eliot reflects, and asks her readers to reflect, on the
genealogy of a drinking song, struck up among the ‘bright drinking
cans’ of a tavern:
As to the origin of this song—whether it came in its actual state from the brain
of a single rhapsodist, or was gradually perfected by a school or succession of
rhapsodists, I am ignorant. There is a stamp of unity, of individual genius,
upon it, which inclines me to the former hypothesis, though I am not blind to
the consideration that this unity may rather have arisen from the consensus of
many minds which was a condition of primitive thought, foreign to our modern
consciousness. Some will perhaps think that they detect in the first quatrain an
indication of a lost line, which later rhapsodists, failing in imaginative vigour,
have supplied by the feeble device of iteration: others, however, may rather
maintain that this very iteration is an original felicity, to which none but the
most prosaic minds can be insensible.⁴⁵
Gradual perfection—an ameliorative mechanism not entirely dissimilar
to evolution—can produce ‘the stamp of unity, of individual genius’,
though this possibility, Eliot notes, is ‘foreign to our modern con-
sciousness’. There is, unmistakably, a hint of ironic distaste to Eliot’s
use of the word ‘modern’ here, and a mocking bite to that inclusive
pronoun ‘our’. The implication is subtly tonal but distinct, and is in
keeping with Eliot’s wider dislike of modernity as a concept: that the
modern consciousness, as it is evolving, is choosing to eschew ‘unity’ and
‘consensus’, in favour of an acquisitive individualism, which greedily
accrues credit to itself.
It is important, even as the evidence builds for Eliot’s communized
sense of authorship, to recall that she never fully abandoned all affection
for the heroic account of originality, however compellingly logical such
an abandonment might at times have appeared to her. This becomes
visible when one compares Eliot’s thinking on originality with that of
⁴⁶ See the opening chapter of Stanley Cavell, This New Yet Unapproachable America
(Albuquerque, N. Mex.: Living Batch Press, 1989), and the introduction to Conditions
Handsome and Unhandsome (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
⁴⁷ Newfield, The Emerson Effect, 161.
⁴⁸ Gordon S. Haight, George Eliot: A Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968),
395.
⁴⁹ George Eliot, ‘Address to Working Men’, appended to Felix Holt, ed. Peter Coveney
(Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1972).
112 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
T H E C O M M O N W E A LT H A N D T H E G E N E R A L
MIND
sections of her work abstracted for inclusion in school textbooks. Her publisher, William
Blackwood, was not so content, grumbling that ‘these compilations are regular robbery’.
Letters, vii. 236.
⁶⁰ Leah Price, ‘George Eliot and the Production of Consumers’, Novel, 50 (Winter
1997), 145.
⁶¹ Essays, ed. Pinney, 442.
116 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
⁶² George Henry Lewes, The Foundation of a Creed (London: Trubner & Co.,
1874–5), i. 124. I have found Sally Shuttleworth’s discussion of Lewes’s adaptation of
Comte useful here. See Sally Shuttleworth, George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Science:
The Make-Believe of a Beginning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984),
19–23.
⁶³ SOP, 161, 165, 160.
⁶⁴ Eliot, Middlemarch, 175. See Kirstie Blair, ‘A Change in the Units: Middlemarch,
G. H. Lewes, and Rudolf Virchow’, George Eliot–George Henry Lewes Studies, 39–40
(September 2001), 9–24.
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 117
⁶⁹ For various other uses of assimilation as a cognate for literary creativity, see Brown,
‘Tannhauser’, 110; Hadden, ‘Plagiarism and Coincidence’, 340–1; and W. H. Mallock’s
privately printed pamphlet Every Man his Own Poet: Or, the Inspired Singer’s Recipe
Book (London: 1872), reprinted in Joseph Bristow (ed.), The Victorian Poet: Poetics and
Persona (London: Croom Helm, 1987), 126–33.
⁷⁰ Leslie Stephen, George Eliot (London: Macmillan, 1902), 197.
⁷¹ Benson, ‘Plagiarism’, 890.
⁷² Wright, ‘Art of Plagiarism’, 516.
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 119
James Russell Lowell put it: ‘The question at last comes down to
this—whether an author have original force enough to assimilate all he
has acquired, or that be so overmastering as to assimilate him.’⁷³
It is clear that Eliot, especially in the years leading up to the writing
of Impressions, assimilated Lewes’s concept of the ‘Social Medium’ and
the ‘General Mind’, and its implications for notions of intellectual
property and originality. The ‘Social Factor in Psychology’, she declared
unequivocally in a letter to Frederic Harrison, ‘[is] the supremely inter-
esting element in the thinking of our time’.⁷⁴ After Lewes’s death, Eliot
was angered by one of his obituarists, the French scientist Delbœuf,
because she thought he had not seen ‘the distinctive point in the Psy-
chological Principles … the influence of the social medium, & supremely
through the instrument, Language’.⁷⁵ Her interest also comes into view
in Daniel Deronda, where she depicts the Jewish race as animated by
an inherited fund of feeling and memory. That Lewes’s work fed into
Eliot’s—that she assimilated his ideas—has long been acknowledged,
though his specific impression on Impressions has been passed over.
When, for example, Theophrastus argues in favour of greater tolerance
and valuation of the rest of the world, we can hear Lewes’s ideas speaking
through Theophrastus’ misanthropic fustian:
I see no rational footing for scorning the whole present population of the globe,
unless I scorn every previous generation from whom they have inherited their
diseases of mind and body, and by consequence scorn my own scorn, which
is equally an inheritance of mixed ideas and feelings concocted for me in the
boiling caldron of this universally contemptible life. (17)
One passage from The Study of Psychology stands out as especially
applicable to the palimpsestic texture of Eliot’s book. ‘Our impressions’,
wrote Lewes there, ‘are made up of shadowy associations, imperfect
memories, echoes of other men’s voices, mingling with the reactions
of our own sensibility.’⁷⁶ Lewes would himself mingle with Impressions
(phrases from his work find their way into it), a text which is an echo-
chamber of other voices, and which is also full of imperfect memories
(Theophrastus being a persistent misquoter). The Study of Psychology
was itself a many-voiced work, dense with quotation, and made the
T H E U S E S O F U N O R I G I N A L I T Y: E L I OT
A N D M I S QU OTAT I O N
⁷⁷ K. K. Collins, ‘George Henry Lewes Revised: George Eliot and the Moral Sense’,
Victorian Studies, 21 (Summer 1978), 463–92.
⁷⁸ Letter to John Blackwood, 18 April 1876. Letters, vi. 241.
⁷⁹ J. W. Cross, George Eliot’s Life as Related in her Letters and Journals (London:
William Blackwood & Sons, 1885), iii. 422.
⁸⁰ Letter to John Blackwood, 22 March 1879. Letters, vii. 119–20.
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 121
of language from genuine thought and feeling’, she wrote of his poem
Night Thoughts, ‘is what we are constantly detecting’.⁸¹ It is all the
more noteworthy and potentially suggestive, therefore, to discover that
Eliot herself often misquoted the language of others when she sought to
reproduce it, thereby turning other people’s books ‘into other words than
those in which [they] wrote them’. Eliot’s misquotations are everywhere
apparent, although they have never previously been remarked upon.
They are to be found incorporated into the bodies of her fictions,
studding her journalistic and critical writing, concealed in the epigraphs
which she used to head up each chapter in her final three novels,
and scattered throughout her notebooks and journals. Some of these
misquotations are significant only for the unexpected edge of carelessness
and hypocrisy they reveal in her scholarship: Eliot’s failure to practise
what she preached with regard to verbal scrupulosity. Not all of her
misquotations are merely errors, however. Christopher Ricks, in his essay
on ‘Walter Pater, Matthew Arnold and Misquotation’, and Matthew
Hodgart in his ‘Misquotation as Recreation’, have both illustrated
how the manipulation of the words of others can minutely index a
state of mind.⁸² The misquotation can in certain cases bring otherwise
unvoiced assumptions or preoccupations to light. Eliot committed many
misquotations of this sort—notably the cluster which is to be found in
the journal she kept in the months following G. H. Lewes’s death—and
they are fascinating for the unexpected embrasures they provide onto
her mind.
Lewes died of cancer on 30 November 1878, and Eliot was plunged
into what would be a protracted and enervating grief. It was not until
New Year’s Day that she felt able to resume her diary, an activity which
previously she had found sustaining for the reflective rhythm it lent
her days. At the same time as starting the diary, Eliot began also to
re-read the manuscript version of Lewes’s The Study of Psychology, the
third volume in his Problems of Life and Mind opus, with a view to
preparing it for publication. It is clear that this activity represented for
Eliot an invaluable form of communion with the dead. ‘I could not have
lived without this work to do’, she wrote to her friend of her work on
Lewes’s manuscript. Coping came for her in some way through copying:
the second entry in the diary, for ‘Wednesday 1’, read: ‘Copied stray
pencilled notes’.⁸³ But it also came through intervention in Lewes’s
original text for, as has already been observed, Eliot was not content
merely to transcribe Lewes’s manuscript. She also played an active role in
rewriting his work, patching in her own arguments, and quotations from
other writers, in particular Wordsworth, which she thought pertinent
(these were not the only revisions of Lewes in which Eliot was involved.
The entry from her journal for 28 May 1879—six months after his
death—reads, in startled italics, ‘His presence came again.’).⁸⁴ This seems
to have been a way to assimilate herself into his work, to achieve an
intellectual commingling with him after his death. Eliot had reflected
before in her own fiction on how apposite quotation could give a form
to loss: she ends the death scene of Mordecai in Daniel Deronda, for
example, with a consolatory quatrain taken from Samson Agonistes. Four
years after writing that scene, faced with the unique privacy of her own
grief and unable herself to create original verbal form for the expression
of her pain, Eliot sought comfort in the words of others. Her diary for
1879 is filled with passages on death excerpted from Tennyson, Heine,
Young, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Emily Brontë, and others. It comprises a
remarkable annal of mourning. The first entry for her diary, under the
heading of ‘January 1879’, consists of four quotations.⁸⁵ The next, for
Wednesday 1, has six lines of jotted prose notes, and then six quotations.
After this, Eliot copied one or two quotations into the diary every week
for six weeks. There is then a long break, until in October, nearly a year
after Lewes’s death, Eliot transcribed, untitled and for once unchanged,
Emily Brontë’s elegy ‘Remembrance’ (it begins ‘Cold in the earth—and
the deep snow piled above thee’).⁸⁶
More intriguing than Eliot’s choice of quotations are the ways in
which she altered, deliberately or otherwise, the words of some of
the writers in whom she found solace. Several of her emendations are
obvious, and obviously wilful. Transcribing the last line of Shelley’s
‘Alastor’, for instance, Eliot morbidly changed Shelley’s ‘Birth and the
Grave, that are not as they were’ to ‘Death and the Grave, that are
not as they were’.⁸⁷ To a brace of lines from one of William Browne’s
Britannia Pastorals (1613), she added in a slanted hand a concluding
line of her own:
⁸³ The Journals of George Eliot, ed. Margaret Harris and Judith Johnston (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998), 155.
⁸⁴ Ibid. 175. ⁸⁵ Ibid. 154–5. ⁸⁶ Ibid. 188. ⁸⁷ Ibid. 155
George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism 123
Some little happiness have thou and I
(Since we shall die ere we have wished to die.)
For thou hast died ere thou didst wish to die.⁸⁸
Here Eliot, under what she elsewhere called ‘the immediate pressure
of great sorrow’,⁸⁹ is forced to borrow Browne’s language. Unable to
voice her grief in prose (the diary entries themselves are almost devoid of
emotional content, save for a handful of terse and devastating comments:
e.g. ‘Saturday 11 January: Head miserable and heart bruised’, or ‘Friday
3 October: Tears, tears’),⁹⁰ she can only come at expression indirectly,
through or after the words of others. Misquotation here provides a form
of emotional ventriloquism which necessarily attenuates the expression
of grief—to state the fact of Lewes’s death explicitly and unmediatedly
seems to have been intolerable to Eliot—but which does not wholly
submerge Eliot’s own voice, or the particularity of her grief. Similarly,
to a passage accurately transcribed from Shakespeare’s King John, Eliot
adds her own poetic coda (marked here, though not in the diary, by
italic):
Kneeling before this ruin of sweet life,
And breathing to his breathless excellence
The incense of a vow, a holy vow,
Never to taste the pleasures of the world,
Never to be infected with delight,
Nor conversant with ease and idleness,
Till—⁹¹ Death
Shall give thy will divineness, make it strong
With the beseechings of a mighty soul
That left its work unfinished.⁹²
As with the Browne quotation, Eliot is able to enunciate her own grief
only by making it prosthetic, by fitting it onto the pre-existing words
of another writer. To meditate upon her grief, she finds it necessary
to mediate it. The ‘mighty soul | That left its work unfinished’ is,
in one sense, Lewes, and both this quotation and the addendum to
the couplet from Browne (‘thou hast died ere thou didst wish to die’)
suggest how powerfully Eliot felt that Lewes’s genius had been thwarted
by his premature death. Mixed in with her anguish is an almost
apotheosizing conviction—‘Death | Shall give thy will divineness’—of
Lewes’s brilliance. It was a conviction which would surface again, later in
1879, during Eliot’s dealings with Lewes’s obituarists, who she felt had
failed sufficiently to understand or communicate the nature of Lewes’s
genius in their tributes.⁹³
Like Queen Victoria after the death of Albert, Eliot found great
consolation in Tennyson’s elegy In Memoriam, and that poem is the
most frequently quoted source in her journal. Tennyson is quoted
and misquoted for the first time on Wednesday, 1 January, when
Eliot adapts six lines from In Memoriam I. Here is Tennyson’s ver-
sion:
Ah, sweeter to be drunk with loss,
To dance with death, to beat the ground,
Than that the victor Hours should scorn
The long result of love, and boast,
‘Behold the man that loved and lost,
But all he was is overworn’.⁹⁴
And here is Eliot’s:
Ah, better to be drunk with loss
To dance with death to beat the ground
Than that the victor Hours should scorn
The long result of love and boast
‘Behold the man that lov’d and lost
But all he was is overworn.’
Tennyson’s original has ‘sweeter’, rather than ‘better’, a word which
gives a more distinct flavour to the draught of grief. But this alteration
is less striking than Eliot’s omission of all Tennyson’s commas, which
transforms the measured beat of the original into an unpunctuated
outpouring of grief. Eliot also elides Tennyson’s stanza break. Stanza
breaks in In Memoriam, like almost every other convention in that
economical poem, are put to use by Tennyson as bearers of meaning.
Frequently, Tennyson’s stanza breaks enact a separation from the
beloved, or stage the vacancies that grief must confront and threatens
to collapse into, yet even as they do so they are eloquent of control and
self-conscious artistry. Eliot’s elision of the stanza break only heightens
the sense of uncontrolled misery which emanates from her version of
Tennyson’s original.
The last and most suggestive misquotation from Eliot’s journal
is a version of a couplet by Edward Young. Although Eliot found
much of Young’s Night Thoughts to be shot through with insincer-
ity—‘artificiality even in his grief, and feeling [which] often slides into
rhetoric’—she had too been ‘thrilled’ by the occasional ‘unmistak-
able cry of pain, which makes us tolerant of egoism and hyperbole’.⁹⁵
One of the couplets in Night Thoughts which had impressed her, and
which she quoted correctly in her 1857 article on Young, read ‘In
every varied posture, place and hour | How widow’d every thought
of every joy’. Twenty-three years later, Eliot quoted those two mel-
ancholic lines back to herself in her diary, but with one striking
change: she had altered ‘widow’d’ to ‘withered’. What is to be made
of this change? Is it that Eliot could not bear the finality of that
word: widowhood is, after all, a quantum state—one either is or one
is not ‘widow’d’—whereas ‘withered’ is an action that is measurable
in degrees and that is, conceivably, reversible? Or might it be an
accurate inaccuracy; a nod, unconscious or otherwise, that Eliot was
not, in the eyes of the law, Lewes’s widow? In the manuscript of The
Study of Psychology which Eliot was revising while keeping her diary,
Lewes included a paragraph which is inadvertently relevant to Eliot’s
misquotations:
Like its great instrument, Language, [Mind] is at once individual and social.
Each man speaks in virtue of the functions of vocal expression, but also in virtue
of the social need of communication. The words spoken are not his creation,
yet he, too, must appropriate them by what may be called a creative process
before he can understand them. What his tribe speaks he repeats; but he does
not simply echo their words, he rethinks them. In the same way he adopts their
experiences when he assimilates them to his own, [thus] getting his range of
fellowship enlarged.⁹⁶
C O N C LU S I O N S
Here, again, we can see the ideas of Lewes filtering through: ‘the
infinitesimal smallness of individual origination’ recalls Lewes’s assertion
that ‘individual experience [is] limited and individual spontaneity [is]
feeble’. The ‘massive inheritance of thought’ is a rephrasing of Lewes’s
‘General Mind’. And, most strikingly of all, the idea that the self is
just ‘the mere vehicle of an idea of combination … produced by the
sum total of the human race’ and belonging ‘to that multiple entity’ is
paralleled by Lewes’s Comtean vision of the diffusion of the individual
into the group. These ideas at first appear to be under attack from
Theophrastus. But it soon becomes apparent that the ideas themselves
are not at fault. Far from it: ‘such considerations carry a profound truth
to be even religiously contemplated’. What Theophrastus is protesting
against ‘is the use of these majestic conceptions to do the dirty work
128 George Eliot, Originality, and Plagiarism
FAC T UA L F I C T I O N S
In 1869, Richard Holt Hutton predicted that people would soon stop
reading novels. The ‘particular reason’ he gave for forecasting this change
was ‘the growing taste for realism’, an appetite which, Hutton argued,
would ultimately lead to the novel being usurped by the newspaper.
The public’s enthusiasm for stories of the ‘hourly history of the world,
its doings and its people’, which the realist novel at present catered for,
would soon be diverted towards ‘the journal, and especially the journal of
news’, in which such stories were to be found in greater abundance and
in a more palatable—that is, a shorter—form. Significantly, Hutton
also noted that novelists had recently begun to make increasing use
of newspapers and other ‘non-literary’ publications for source material.
In its drive to present unmediated reality, the novel was so heavily
mortgaging itself to the newspaper that it faced bankruptcy.¹
Hutton’s prophecy would not prove entirely correct, but he had put
his finger on an important consequence of the rise of so-called ‘doc-
umentary realism’—and especially of realism’s less reputable progeny
of the 1860s and 1870s, sensation fiction and naturalism—namely
the increasingly open interpolation of other textual sources into the
novel. In their ambition to authenticate their narratives as ‘real’, writers
began to draw more and more overtly on information provided by
newspapers and other such sources. To some commentators, this reuse
constituted an infringement of the rules of originality: a laziness on
the part of novelists, who were substituting appropriation for creativ-
ity. The most common response of the novelists was to distinguish
between ‘literary’ and ‘non-literary’ sources. To prey upon the former,
it was argued, would of course be unacceptable: the latter, however, was
fair game. In France, for instance, Émile Zola’s naturalist novel about
¹ Richard Holt Hutton, ‘The Empire of Novels’, Spectator, 9 January 1869, 43–4.
Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist 131
In its drive for realism, however, the Victorian novel re-joined what
the eighteenth century had put asunder. Writing in the Westminster
Review in 1852, G. H. Lewes complimented the French novelist
George Sand for producing what he called ‘original … transcripts
of experience’.¹⁰ Distilled into Lewes’s discreet paradox—how can a
‘transcript’ be ‘original’?—was a fundamental presumption of Victorian
literary realism: that new and meaningful literature might be created
by the careful replication of reality. This ambition to imitate life,
in some sense to be life, led many realist novelists to make use in
their writing of the most allegedly lifelike of all narratives, newspapers.
It was from newspapers that novelists gleaned what Richard Altick
has usefully christened ‘topicalities’: ‘minute and characteristic indicia
of the times’.¹¹ As Alfred Austin pointed out in a perceptive article
on the so-called ‘Sensational School’ of novelists in the 1860s, the
‘daily newspaper’ was the ‘invaluable modern ally’ of writers who
were seeking to authenticate their plots to a potentially incredulous
readership.¹²
It is the argument of this chapter that rearrangements in the Victorian
hierarchy of genre had profound effects upon the terms by which origin-
ality was imagined and perceived. Clearly detectable, if not prominent,
amid the debates over the utility or futility of documentary realism as a
literary mode, were issues of ‘originality’, regarding how much authentic
invention was required to devise a novel, and how far writers should
be permitted to draw on other textual sources in order to derive facts,
incidents, anecdotes, and details. The requirements and aspirations of
documentary realism, in particular, obliged Victorian writers and readers
to ask awkward questions about how far reality was textually mediated,
and how far it was possible to create a literary work which was not a
rehash of previously existing texts. Because they candidly acknowledged
their textual origins, so-called documentary novels in particular refused
to square with inherited ideas of literary creativity as spontaneous,
organic, and unified, and suggested instead that novels were consciously
confected—the result of careful observation, bookish research, and the
organization of disparate parts.
¹³ Quoted in Edward Elton Smith, Charles Reade (London: George Prior and Twayne,
1976), 129.
¹⁴ Charles Reade, Readiana: Comments on Current Events (London: Chatto & Windus,
1883), 303.
¹⁵ Ibid. 326.
136 Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist
²⁵ On the Victorian vogue for the ‘cento’ poem, see SA, passim; also John Beer on the
theory of ‘literary annexation’ proposed by Frederick Myers: Beer, Providence and Love,
120–30. Myers, a student at Trinity College, Cambridge, won the Newdigate Prize with
his poem ‘India Pacificata’. He was denounced in the Union and in the Athenaeum for
having ‘borrowed’ many of the lines and phrases in his poem. Myers’s argument was that
he had devised a ‘theory of literary annexation’; his defence rested on the grounds that
the lines which were borrowed were offered in a way quite ingeniously different from
their original purpose.
²⁶ LL15, 66.
²⁷ See, for instance, W. Lynd, ‘An Author at Home’, Gentleman’s Magazine, 252
(1882), 361–3; or Edward Marston, After Work (London: Heinemann, 1904), 93–8.
²⁸ The novel describes the activities of a character called Rolfe (a thinly disguised
version of Reade himself), in particular his method of collecting and indexing his material,
a task at which he spent ‘up to five hours a day’. Charles Reade, A Terrible Temptation
(London: Chapman and Hall, 1871), passim.
Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist 139
from which Reade lifted ‘specific facts, and ideas for scenes’. Although
the nature of his project meant that Turner could not praise Reade’s
originality, he did write admiringly of Reade’s alternative skills: those
of ‘condensation’, of ‘increasing the bulk of an incident’, of ‘mingling
the elements taken’, of ‘sharpening’, of ‘combining’, and of ‘changing
the wording’.³⁸ The presumption underlying Turner’s book is that in
dissecting Reade’s sources he had not murdered Reade’s genius, but
rather had illustrated its workings. Turner ended the book with a special
plea:
I hope no one has come to have a less high opinion of Charles Reade’s abilities
by perusing this book. Of the two types of borrowing which I have just discussed
the first is essential to a historical novelist. The manner of life in a distant epoch
is different from that today. The novelist cannot invent; he must have recourse
to books.³⁹
Turner’s summary was a recycling of Reade’s own gospel of authorship:
that literary creativity is a transformative rather than a generative power,
and that all knowledge is textually based—‘the novelist cannot invent;
he must have recourse to books’. Accused of plagiarizing material for
The Wandering Heir, Reade declared that ‘My only crime was this:
I have written too well … labour, research, and, above all, a close
condensation, to be found in few other living English novelists, all these
qualities combined have produced a strong, yet finite, story.’⁴⁰ ‘Labour’,
‘research’, and a ‘close condensation’: these were the mechanisms of
Reade’s ‘Great System’ at work—these were what made him a ‘Master
of Fiction’.
T H E ‘ G R E AT S Y S T E M ’
³⁸ Albert Morton Turner, The Making of The Cloister and the Hearth (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1938), 218–19.
³⁹ Ibid. 217.
⁴⁰ Reade, Trade Malice, 18.
142 Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist
⁴³ Original emphasis. Jane Austen, Emma [1815], ed. James Kinsley (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991), 70.
⁴⁴ Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London:
Methuen, 1982), 133.
⁴⁵ SA, 17–58. ⁴⁶ Ibid. 47.
144 Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist
⁴⁷ Alasdair Gray for instance explicitly links his self-consciousness concerning origin,
source, and mise-en-page to Carlyle. See particularly Lanark, 486–7.
Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist 145
⁵⁷ LL15, 3b.
⁵⁸ Isaac D’Israeli, Curiosities of Literature, 3rd edn. (London: John Murray, 1793),
41.
⁵⁹ PP, 111.
148 Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist
⁶⁰ LL15, 66.
⁶¹ LL25, entry under ‘P’ (there are no page numbers in this scrapbook).
⁶² See especially John Ferriar, ‘Advertisement’ to Illustrations of Sterne (New York:
Garland, 1974).
Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist 149
⁶³ LL40, 60–1. ⁶⁴ Ibid. 59. ⁶⁵ See, for instance, LL29, 1, 21a, 22, 23.
⁶⁶ LL25, entry under ‘P’.
⁶⁷ Charles Reade, introduction to A Simpleton (London: Chatto & Windus, 1873), 2.
150 Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist
analogy, new styles of writing and new genres such as ‘the gothic novel
(which punctuated prose narrative with verse epigraphs)’.⁸⁷
To Price’s list of newly enabled genres could be added that of
documentary realism. Reade was one of the many nineteenth-century
authors who extended Knox’s methodology of reading (‘to pick out
… the best parts of books’) such that it became a methodology of
writing. His scrapbooks reveal him to have skimmed texts with the
same appetitious enthusiasm for parts rather than wholes that an
anthologizer might display. His ‘Great System’ can therefore be seen as
a strategy which was responding to a literary landscape which was, as
Price puts it, ‘increasingly defined by extract’, and in which traditional
assumptions about the relation between literary effect and long haul were
being reconsidered. Reade prised out ‘the best parts’ from numerous
‘heterogeneous’ works, and then recombined them. As such, he endorsed
a gestalt aesthetic of literary creativity: a belief that the arrangement of
the parts exceeded the sum of their individual values. He supplied a
motto for his modular method in the epigraph to his Autobiography of
a Thief : ‘A thief is a man; and a man’s life is like those geographical
fragments children learn ‘‘the contiguous countries’’ by. The pieces are
a puzzle; but put them together carefully, and lo! they are a map.’⁸⁸
C O N C LU S I O N S
The ‘Great System’ which Reade used to create his fiction, and the virtues
of which he extolled so publicly, was founded upon two intellectual
premisses: first, that true authorship lay not in the ability to originate,
but in the ability to organize; and second, that the novelist’s job was
judiciously to select and to ingest as much textual material as possible.
Reade thrived, one might say, on a diet of good copy. His ‘Great
System’ presumed a recyclical economy of letters in which one writer’s
product was another writer’s raw material. Put differently, it presumed
that the novel was a rehash of journalism and other types of non-fiction
writing, which were themselves rehashes of life. It was not only ‘recorded
facts’ which Reade wove into the forms of ‘Art’, however, but also the
work of other ‘creative’ writers. Over the course of his career, Reade
extended the mandate he had granted himself to appropriate from
⁸⁷ Price, Anthology, 4.
⁸⁸ Charles Reade, introduction to The Autobiography of a Thief and Other Histories,
and The Wandering Heir (London: Chatto & Windus, 1913), 2.
Charles Reade: The Realist as Plagiarist 155
appendix, indeed, was that it was designed to ‘spik[e] the guns of critics
of my earlier poems who had accused me of plagiarism’.⁹⁰ The confused
frontier-land between the public and the private domains was a region
which Reade exploited for literary-aesthetic effect: it would be exploited
more openly by literary modernism, and more openly still by certain
branches of postmodernism.
Between Reade and the wilful appropriations of modernism, however,
was to come the fin-de-siècle, a period during which certain prominent
writers, as the final chapter describes, made borrowing and appropriation
a primary and explicit feature of their artistic productions. The literary
texture of the fin-de-siècle was determined to an important degree by its
reaction against the realist mode which had so dominated the preceding
decades, and it was a period which saw the emphatic demise of the
documentary novel. Writing in 1894, in the first issue of the Yellow
Book, the flagship publication of the Decadent movement, Arthur
Waugh castigated what he saw as a ‘brutal’ realism still at large in
Victorian literature, whose practitioners:
with absolutely no art at all … merely reproduce, with the fidelity of the kodak,
scenes & situations the existence of which we all acknowledge. [They] blunder
on resolutely with an indomitable and damning sincerity, till all is said that can
be said, and art is lost in photography.⁹¹
Mere reproduction—in this case the act of copying from an ‘acknow-
ledged’ reality—was for Waugh ‘no art at all’, and his exemplum for this
slavish devotion to an external world was ‘the fidelity of the kodak’. Art,
his metaphor implied, is born of unfaithfulness, of not being steadfastly
wedded to the visible. Wilde felt much the same as Waugh, only more
strongly. For Wilde, copying reality—or ‘plagiaris[ing] from real life’, as
Martin Amis, with a Wildean flourish, would later put it—was close to
a felony.⁹² Five years before Waugh’s polemic, in ‘The Decay of Lying’,
Wilde had attacked the prevailing mode and mechanism of realism:
The modern novelist presents us with dull facts under the guise of fiction.
The blue-book is rapidly becoming his ideal both for method and manner. He
has his tedious ‘document humain,’ his miserable little ‘coin de la création,’ into
which he peers with his microscope. He is to be found at the Librairie Nationale,
or at the British Museum, shamelessly reading up his subject. He has not even
⁹³ CWOW, 1073.
⁹⁴ Whistler included a portion of this acrimonious correspondence in his The Gentle
Art of Making Enemies (London: Heinemann, 1890), 236–8.
5
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle:
Originality and Plagiarism in Pater,
Wilde, and Johnson
I N T RO D U C T I O N
¹ WP, Pl.Pl., 8.
² Bénédict A. Morel, Traité des dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles et morales de
l’espèce humaine et des causes qui produisent ces variétés maladives (Paris: Baillière, 1857),
5. Quoted by Max Nordau, Degeneration (London: Heinemann, 1895), 6.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 159
¹⁴ T. A. Guthrie, The Giant’s Robe (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1884), 109.
¹⁵ W. B. Yeats, Autobiographies (London: Macmillan, 1961), 303–4.
¹⁶ Stedman, Victorian Poets, 27. ¹⁷ CWOW, 1151.
¹⁸ WP, Appr., 80. ¹⁹ Collins, Illustrations, p. vii.
162 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
As Stedman noted, ‘the natural forms were long since discovered, but
[our] lyrists have learned that combinations are endless, so that new
styles, if not new orders, are constantly brought out’.²⁹ Inevitably, this
complicated orthodox assumptions concerning literary reuse and literary
property, and unsettled definitions of plagiarism.
T H E C U LT I VAT I O N O F S T Y L E
A N D T H E B R E A K D OW N O F U N I T Y
[T]hat the doom was nigh was allegedly evident in the state of
language, which had become bureaucratised and clichéd, and so
the Decadents had to provide luxuriant decoration for doom-
struck language. The cultivation of ‘style’ constituted much of
that decoration.³⁰
Nearly forty years after Newman’s essay, Pater turned his attention to
the same topic. In his 1889 essay ‘Style’, however, Pater showed himself
to be considerably more cautious than Newman in his claims for the
originary capacity of the author, and more respectful of the irresolvable
paradox of style: how it is possible for a writer’s style to be genuinely
idiosyncratic when it is crafted from the communally created medium of
language. Two major differences stand out between the two essays. The
first is that, unlike Newman, Pater was unable to dissolve or ignore the
problem of language’s public nature. He confronted this question early
in his essay. ‘[T]he material in which he [the literary artist] works’, Pater
admitted, ‘is no more a creation of his own than the sculptor’s marble.
Product of a myriad various minds and contending tongues, compact
of obscure and minute association, language has its own abundant and
often recondite laws.’³⁴ Pater acknowledged that ‘style’ is an amalgamate
of individual words or blocks of meaning, and that ‘these blocks, or
words’, as Robert Louis Stevenson would put it in his essay on style,
‘are the acknowledged daily currency of our daily affairs’.³⁵ Thus, where
Newman conceived of style as possessing a flexible organic unity—that
is, of existing as a tone or mode—Pater implied style to be mosaic
in its composition. ‘Style’ was, so to speak, the collective noun for a
number of judiciously chosen and combined units of language. The
second difference concerns the topography of creativity outlined by the
two men. Where Newman had characterized style as the ‘expression’ of
a writer’s ‘inward world’, Pater chose to define it as the consequence
of a writer’s ‘avoidances … preferences … rejections [and] omissions’.³⁶
For Pater, style was the function of a series of rational choices made by
the author: the literary artist worked upon language from the outside as
best he could, rather than forging it in his ‘inner soul’, as Newman had
suggested to be the case.
Various factors can account for the discrepancies between the
two essays. Pater’s sense of language’s autonomy—of it as a sys-
tem which possesses what he calls its ‘own … laws’, aloof from those
which writers sought to impose upon it—can be attributed directly
to contemporary developments in philology. Dowling has shown
how this awareness of language’s independence had developed in
the years which separated Newman’s and Pater’s essays: how ‘the
new linguistic science, the investigations of [Franz] Bopp and [Jacob]
Grimm and the Neogrammarians … raised a spectre of autonomous lan-
guage—language as a system blindly obeying impersonal phonological
rules in isolation from any world of human values and experience’.³⁷
Similarly, Pater’s tacit scepticism over the ability of the individual to
originate can in part be explained by the differences in religious belief
between the two men. While for Newman, the ability of the human
author to originate was guaranteed by God (the human partaking of
the divine Logos), Pater had no such reassurance. His shiftiness about
characterizing style as the supple, subtle index of an individual’s thought
is also in keeping with the anti-individualist strain of his thought at the
time he wrote the essay.
Pater today is strongly associated with the heroic theory of cre-
ativity—the cloistered intellect, lonely in the tower of thought; the
influential advocate, in the conclusion to The Renaissance, of the need
for the individual to burn with a hard and gemlike flame. In Pater,
undeniably—as in all the major writers discussed here—a provocative
tension existed between the heroic and the communal accounts of
creativity. But Pater’s thought, as it develops, separates very clearly into
contrasting eras. By the 1880s, the decade of Marius and the essay
on ‘Style’, as both Christopher Newfield and John Pick have detailed,
Pater’s thinking had trended away from the solipsism with which he is
popularly associated, and towards a more communal understanding of
thought as a compound.³⁸
A final, and very specific, reason exists to explain the divergences of
opinion between Pater’s essay and Newman’s. While writing his essay,
Pater would have been aware that the style of ‘Style’ was not entirely
his own: aware, in particular, that he had discreetly tessellated his own
essay with fragments of Newman’s.³⁹ Given the use he had made of the
style of another, Pater was not in a position to proclaim a bespoke fit
between a man’s style and his mind. Appropriately enough, Pater’s essay
would itself be pillaged for images and bons mots by Pater’s disciples:
fragments from it appeared in more or less modified forms in the
³⁷ LD, p. xii.
³⁸ See John Pick, ‘Divergent Disciples of Walter Pater’, Thought, 23:88 (March
1948), 114–28; Newfield, The Emerson Effect, 160.
³⁹ See, for a good account of Pater’s indebtedness to Newman, chapter 24 of David J.
Delaura’s Hebrew and Hellene in Victorian England: Newman, Arnold and Pater (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1969).
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 167
It was under the pressure of this emphasis upon detail that, in the
fin-de-siècle, the idea of the literary work came, as Matei Calinescu
disparagingly puts it, to ‘disintegrate into a multitude of overwrought
fragments’.⁴¹ Ideas of duration and unification were forsaken for those
of brevity and intensity. Writers who were concerned with representing
singular ‘pulsations’ of experience found that their interests were not
best served by the long haul of a novel, but could instead best be
represented formally in fits and starts. For this reason the aphorism,
the paradox, the renovated cliché, the short lyric, and the rare word
all became characteristic of much fin-de-siècle prose, poetry, and even
drama.
It has already been discussed how hybridity was another distinctive
and associated trait of writing from this period. A literary culture which
encourages hybridity, brevity, and which privileges the ‘word’ over the
‘whole’, will always be more tolerant of strategies of reuse in the name
of effect, and less concerned with questions of source and property.
That these ideas were connected in late nineteenth-century thought is
widely evidenced in contemporary writing. An example can be found in
Théophile Gautier’s description of the Decadent style as:
J EW E L - S E T T I N G
a language different from that of actual use, a language full of resonant music
and sweet rhythm, made stately by solemn cadence, or made delicate by fanciful
rhyme, jewelled with wonderful words, and enriched with lofty diction.⁴⁴
⁴⁹ Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (London: Athlone
Press, 1994), 12. Wilde, Dorian, 126.
⁵⁰ Lawrence Danson, Wilde’s Intentions: The Artist in his Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1997), 26.
⁵¹ Ian Fletcher, introduction to LJP, p. lx.
⁵² Isobel Murray, introduction to Dorian, p. xxv. See also Isobel Murray, ‘Some
Elements in the Composition of The Picture of Dorian Gray’, Durham University Journal,
64 (1972), 220–3; and Isobel Murray, ‘Oscar Wilde in his Literary Element: Yet
Another Source for Dorian Gray?’, in C. George Sandelescu (ed.), Rediscovering Oscar
Wilde (Gerrard’s Cross: Colin Smythe, 1994), 283–96. Wilde’s novel has in turn
encouraged or at least licensed others to follow this model of creativity. See, for a recent
example, Will Self, Dorian: An Imitation (London: Penguin, 2002).
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 171
the true stone’) and organization (the ability to reset these ‘true stone[s]’
in his or her own work). Wilde’s grandson Merlin Holland, writing
on the subject of Wilde’s plagiarisms, activated precisely the same
arguments as Benson in defence of his grandfather’s writerly strategies:
He was a literary magpie with a love of glittering language … mundane
considerations of ‘respect’ for the origins of a phrase or a plot yielded before
the potential which they offered. … His reading was prodigious and he used it
to supplement his own creative imagination. … Style, as he loved to maintain,
was the thing, and the content merely a vehicle for it.⁵⁶
Surface is preferred to depth, style to content, and effect to origin-
ality. Susan Sontag, in her 1964 essay ‘Notes on ‘‘Camp’’ ’, which is
both inspired by and self-consciously—campily—derivative of Wilde,
observes that ‘Camp art is often decorative art, emphasizing texture,
sensuous surface, and style at the expense of content.’⁵⁷ Wilde’s art, like
that of much of the fin-de-siècle, was camp—and the presumptions of
camp necessarily entail a disregard for concerns of literary property. For
Wilde and his peers, where ‘glittering language’, ‘wonderful words’, and
‘true stones’ came from was unimportant. What mattered was that they
were found, and reset. And that, as Pater and others made clear, was
only to be achieved through wide reading and careful research.
NOVITAS : T H E T U R N TO T H E D I C T I O N A RY
In Marius the Epicurean, Pater advanced the paradox that only by moving
back through language could a writer approach a condition of linguistic
and intellectual freshness. ‘Novitas’ was the name which Pater gave to
this freshness in Marius, and novitas is a useful term for the conception
of ‘originality’—originality as retreat and renewal—which, it is being
argued, developed in the closing decades of the century. In Marius,
Flavian realizes that novitas is to be attained by the assiduous study
and discreet simulation of the writing of earlier authors.⁵⁹ Knowing
the company which words have kept in the past, Flavian believes, will
reveal ‘the significant tones of ancient idiom’. It will give him access
to the ‘latent figurative expression’ that sleeps in words which appear,
on the surface, to have become dead through overuse.⁶⁰ Pater recurred
to this idea throughout his career. Writing on Coleridge, for instance,
he suggested that stylistic greatness was to be achieved by ‘not[ing] the
recondite associations of words, old or new … recover[ing] the interest
of older writers who had had a phraseology of their own’.⁶¹ In ‘Style’,
he admired archaisms for their ‘etymological weight’—the semantic
gravitas which they possess by virtue of their age—and he proposed
that the full range and possibility of individual words could only be
realized by the literary artist ‘through his scholarly living in the full
sense of them’.⁶² By grafting backwards through what Geoffrey Hill has
called ‘the variably-resistant soil’ of the linguistic past, Pater believed,
one could release pent-up energies of meaning.⁶³ The emphasis which
Pater placed upon etymology was at the heart of his conception of
originality. It was ‘in systematic reading of a dictionary’, he wrote, that
an author could ‘bege[t] a vocabulary … in the strictest sense original’.⁶⁴
Originality was not to be attained by an uncontrolled lusting after
the utterly new. Rather, the ‘original’ writer of the fin-de-siècle sought
to restore what Pater called ‘the finer edge’ to blunted, rubbed-down
words.⁶⁵ This was the influential aesthetic that Pater bequeathed to
the generation of writers which succeeded him: a preoccupation not
with the ‘absolutely new’, but with what Dowling terms the ‘rebirth
of linguistic elements that have already lived and died many times
before’.⁶⁶ Pater showed how ostensibly dead or dying items of language
could be revivified by recontextualization, and by careful attention to
their etymology, a technique which the Paterite Symonds would later
refer to, in an essay on ‘Style’, as ‘the resuscitation of old words’.⁶⁷
Pater’s implication is that we are all just tenants of language rather than
its landlords or, indeed, its builders. Even Plato’s thoughts have had
their ‘earlier proprietors’: earlier, not earliest, note—Pater’s comparative
suggests a continuum of proprietorship extending indefinitely backwards
in time. In trying to do justice to both Plato’s originality and his
derivativeness, Pater ran up against a lacuna in language: the lack of
REFINEMENT
[T]he qualities that mark the end of great periods, [are] the qualities
that we find in the Greek, the Latin, decadence: an intense self-
consciousness, a restless curiosity in research, an over-subtilizing
refinement upon refinement.
(Arthur Symons, 1893)⁸²
⁸⁶ WP, Marius I, 97. See also ‘Style’, where Pater proposes that a writer’s attention
to the nuances of language—his ‘punctilious observance of the properties of his
medium’—will ‘diffuse through all he writes a general air … of refined usage’. WP,
Appr., 13.
⁸⁷ Gustave Flaubert, Letters, ed. and trans. Francis Steegmuller (Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press, 1980–2), i. 191. I have drawn here on David Trotter’s discussion of
Flaubert in Cooking with Mud, 106–7.
⁸⁸ See also William E. Shuter, Rereading Walter Pater (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997), 109–24, and ‘Pater’s Reshuffled Text’, Nineteenth-Century
Literature, 43 (1989), 500–25.
⁸⁹ Ricks, ‘Misquotation’, 395.
180 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
Pater, unmistakably, creation was never a primary act but only a response
to or renovation of pre-existing matter. It is notable that almost all of
the synonyms which Pater uses for creativity are ‘re-’ compounds—‘to
regenerate’, ‘to restore’, ‘to renew’, to ‘refine’. ‘Like some strange second
flowering after date,’ he wrote typically in 1868, ‘[this new poetry]
renews on a more delicate type the poetry of a past age, but must not
be confounded with it.’⁹⁰ Here, as so often in Pater’s work, the action
of his prose expounds its sentiment. Notice for example the unexpected
preposition—‘it renews on a more delicate type’—which itself acts as
a delicate renewal of the verb it directs, or the curious collocation of
‘after date’, which refreshes the word ‘date’ by relieving it of any article.
Pater, it should be made clear, was not an advocate of what Deleuze calls
‘naked’ repetition: he did not want modern writing to be ‘confounded’
with past literature.⁹¹ Nor, however, did he advocate the conception of
the modern as the ‘absolutely new’. This, as he clarified in his essay on
Plato, was a false rupture. The eradication of the historical sense was for
Pater neither desirable nor viable. Originality was a modification of the
heritage: the refashioning of a literary past rather than the creation of a
literary future.
Pater’s desire to redefine the nature of creativity also expressed itself
in his persistent explicit efforts to reconcile the idea of ‘the literary
artist’ and that of ‘the scholar’.⁹² Throughout the essay on ‘Style’,
for instance, Pater fudges the distinction he claims to be preserving
between the ‘scholar’ and the ‘literary artist’. Grammatically, he seems
always to be trying to nullify any difference between the two terms:
to turn the former into the latter by force of syntax. He begins the
essay speaking in different respects about the ‘scholar’ and ‘literary
artist’. By its end, he has spatchcocked the two ideas to form the
‘erudite artist’.⁹³ The same impulse can be seen at work in his essay on
Coleridge, where Pater expresses his dissatisfaction with the organicist
model of creativity as occurring ‘spontaneously’ from the root of
genius, unindebted to external influence. He castigates Coleridge for
⁹⁰ Walter Pater, Essays on Literature and Art, ed. Jenny Uglow (London: J. M. Dent
& Sons, 1990), 108. The essay, which first appeared as a review of three volumes of
William Morris’s poetry in the Westminster Review of October 1868, is not included in
the 1910 Library Edition of Pater’s works.
⁹¹ Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, 12.
⁹² ‘The literary artist is of necessity a scholar’, he wrote unequivocally in ‘Style’. WP,
Appr., 12.
⁹³ See ibid. 12–13, 16–17.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 181
having given too much credit for ‘the act of creation’ to instinct. For
Pater, Coleridge’s account of creativity ‘hardly figures the process by
which such work was produced’. It is ‘one-sided’, and damaging to
the reputation of ‘the artist’, in that it reduces the artist to ‘almost a
mechanical agent: instead of the most luminous and self-possessed phase
of consciousness, the associative act in art or poetry is made to look
like some blindly organic process of assimilation’. Art, for Pater, is the
product of acute self-consciousness. It is only, he ringingly concludes,
‘by exquisite analysis [that] the artist attains clearness of idea; then,
through many stages of refining, clearness of expression’. These stages
of refining required what Pater called ‘supreme intellectual dexterity’,
and this ‘dexterity’ was in turn the function of enormous erudition—an
erudition which allowed the writer to gauge precisely the penumbra of
meaning cast by a single word, and to assess how this would interact
or interfere with that cast by those words around it. Pater’s artist,
in other words, required the erudition of the scholar.⁹⁴ For Pater,
the ‘individuality’ of an author’s style and thought was primarily to
be achieved not by a natural endowment of idiosyncrasy, but instead
by graft in libraries, which resulted in a close acquaintance with the
tradition. Poeta fit non nasquitur: this was the moral of Pater’s criticism.
Pater was, in effect, calling for ‘a new kind of writer’:⁹⁵ the ‘erudite
artist’, who would not possess the abilities which the Victorians had
come to associate with Romantic writers—inspiration, spontaneity, the
ability to create out of nothing, an inimitable personality and style—but
instead a portfolio of far more mundane-sounding qualities: good taste,
selectivity, assiduity, judicious combination. Qualities, indeed, which
sounded remarkably like those possessed by a critic.
In 1846, Ernest Renan, one of the intellectual founders of European
Decadence, remarked that periods of decadence were inferior to classical
periods insofar as the sheer power of imaginative creation is concerned,
but that they were clearly superior in critical ability. ‘In a sense’, Renan
concluded, ‘criticism is superior to composition. Till now criticism has
adopted a humble role as a servant et pedis sequa; perhaps the time has
come for criticism to take stock of itself and to elevate itself above those
whom it judges.’⁹⁶ It was Pater who sought most insistently to ‘elevate’
criticism in the hierarchy of letters, but his method of doing so differed
from Renan on one key count: Pater did not want to invert the hierarchy
between critic and creator, but to abolish it—to melt criticism into com-
position. What Pater regarded as the two essential abilities of the literary
artist—selection and combination—approximated to the discernment
and good taste required of the critic. Emerson had made a similar
proposition: ‘What is that abridgement and selection we observe in all
spiritual activity,’ he wrote in ‘Art’, ‘but itself the creative impulse?’⁹⁷
Of the many literary documents from the fin-de-siècle which testify
to this growing sense of the identity of critic and artist, none does so
more openly than Wilde’s dialogue ‘The Critic as Artist’. ‘The antithesis
between [the critic and the artist]’, Wilde’s Gilbert declaims, ‘is entirely
arbitrary’:
Without the critical faculty, there is no artistic creation at all worthy of the
name. You spoke a little while ago of that fine spirit of choice and delicate
instinct of selection by which the artist realises life for us, and gives to it a
momentary perfection. Well, that spirit of choice, that subtle tact of omission,
is really the critical faculty in one of its most characteristic moods, and no one
who does not possess this critical faculty can create anything at all in art.⁹⁸
It is the talent and the duty of the artist, Cyril argues, to recognize what
is brilliant, both in literature and in life: to abstract it and to make
use of it. That ability to select judiciously, he suggests, is the activity
which is fundamental both to criticism and to art. As was suggested in
Chapter 2, the interpenetration, or rather the indivisibility, of the critical
and creative instincts also provided a standard argumentative tactic for
nineteenth-century plagiarism apologists. Benson, for instance, asserted
that ‘critical perception … is the same thing as Originality … In a word,
and without paradox, the truth seems to be that unintelligent theft is
plagiarism, critical theft is not inconsistent with the truest originality.’⁹⁹
The poet and journalist Edward Wright, in a densely argued and
well-documented essay published in 1894, proposed that plagiarism:
is an art in which the finest critical power is exhibited by means of creation.
To understand fully another man’s work is to create it anew under the form
of an idea, and to embody this idea in another artistic mould is to criticise the
original work in the best and most profound manner.¹⁰⁰
TA L E N T A N D T R A D I T I O N : T H E R E T U R N
TO T H E L I B R A RY
It has been argued that much fin-de-siècle writing was more open about
its borrowings, appropriations, and renewals than any preceding literary
period of the century because it formalized appropriation, and renewal
through appropriation, into a doctrine of creativity. It was not only the
single word which these writers concentrated on as a unit of meaning
which could be salvaged and resuscitated. They also bestowed this act of
erudite recuperation upon the images, phrases, or forms of earlier writers.
Entering into dialogue with literary antecedents came to be perceived as
a valuable route to originality. ‘To adopt old material’, wrote Cuthbert
Hadden in 1894, ‘and use your own workmanship on it may produce a
far more original work than if you have not laid your predecessors under
contribution.’¹⁰² ‘Nothing but the life-giving principle of cohesion is
new’, wrote Pater in Plato and Platonism, ‘the new perspective, the
resultant complexion, the expressiveness which familiar thoughts attain
by novel juxtaposition. In other words, the form is new. But then,
in the creation of philosophical literature, as in all other products of
art, form, in the full signification of that word, is everything, and the
mere matter is nothing.’¹⁰³ In his 1892 essay ‘Apologie pour le plagiat’,
Anatole France summed up the position when he commented on the
idiocy of plagiarism accusations: ‘He [the great author] knows, finally,
that an idea is only as good as its form, and that to give new form
to an old idea is the whole of art, and the only creation possible to
¹⁰¹ Oscar Wilde, The First Collected Edition of the Works of Oscar Wilde, ed. Robert
Ross (London: Dawsons, 1969), xiii. 259.
¹⁰² Hadden, ‘Plagiarism and Coincidence’, 341. ¹⁰³ WP, Pl.Pl., 8.
184 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
¹⁰⁴ Original emphasis. ‘Il sait enfin qu’une idée ne vaut que par la forme et que
donner une forme nouvelle à une vieille idée, c’est tout l’art, et la seule création possible
à l’humanité.’ Anatole France, ‘Apologie pour le plagiat’, in Œuvres complètes (Paris:
Calmann-Lévy, 1925), vii. 539.
¹⁰⁵ Quoted in H. M. Paull, Literary Ethics (London: Thornton Butterworth,
1928), 126.
¹⁰⁶ Michel Foucault, ‘La Bibliothèque fantastique’, trans. David Macey, in Tzvetan
Todorov et al. (eds.), Travails de Flaubert (Paris: Seuil, 1983), 107.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 185
¹⁰⁷ John Reed, Victorian Conventions (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1975), 422.
¹⁰⁸ Harold Bloom is flatly wrong to suggest that Pater bequeathed ‘to the poetic
generation of Johnson, Dowson, Symons and Yeats … a stance against belief and against
recollective spiritual nostalgia’. Harold Bloom, Yeats (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1970), 35.
¹⁰⁹ WP, Appr., 18.
186 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
… Dear, human books,
With kindly voices, winning looks!¹¹⁰
The authors begin in the poem as ‘dead friends’. Then they become
‘great ghosts’, and finally ‘Dear, human books, | With kindly voices,
winning looks!’ A three-stage process of resurrection occurs over the
poem’s course, with the authors moving from death through ghostliness
and finally back to full humanity.¹¹¹ As Johnson’s poem also suggests,
fin-de-siècle accounts of the library also ran against the grain of positivist
accounts of death: the library was a site where it was possible for active
communion with the literary dead to occur. In Gissing’s New Grub
Street (1891), the Reading Room of the British Library becomes a
phantasmagoric place where living and dead researchers and writers
mingle. The Reading Room also features in Max Beerbohm’s ‘Enoch
Soames’: in that story, it is a portal in time which allows Enoch to
disappear from the nineteenth century and rematerialize on 3 June
1997. Or take the description in Henry James’s 1900 story ‘The Great
Good Place’ of the protagonist, George Dane, entering the ‘charmed’
space of his private library:
The library was a benediction—high and clear and plain like everything else,
but with something, in all its arched amplitude, unconfused and brave and
gay. He should never forget, he knew, the throb of immediate perception with
which he first stood there, a single glance round sufficing so to show him that
it would give him what for years he had desired. He had not had detachment,
but there was detachment here—the sense of a great silver bowl from which
he could ladle up the melted hours. He strolled about from wall to wall, too
pleasantly in tune on that occasion to sit down punctually or to choose; only
recognising from shelf to shelf every dear old book that he had had to put off or
never returned to; every deep distinct voice of another time that in the hubbub
of the world, he had had to take for lost and unheard. He came back of course
soon, came back every day; enjoyed there, of all the rare strange moments,
those that were at once most quickened and most caught—moments in which
every apprehension counted double and every act of the mind was a lover’s
embrace.¹¹²
¹¹⁰ LJP, 68. Future references to Johnson’s poems will be incorporated into the text.
¹¹¹ Throughout this section I have drawn on Robert Douglas-Fairhurst’s discussion
of ‘literary allusion as a model of immortality’. Douglas-Fairhurst, Victorian Afterlives,
83.
¹¹² Henry James, ‘The Great Good Place’, in Selected Works of Henry James: New
York Edition (New York: Scribner’s, 1907–17), xvi. 252–3. I am grateful to Michèle
Mendelssohn for drawing my attention to this example.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 187
All of the ideas mentioned above are at play in this passage: the
‘detachment’ of the library from the remainder of the world; the ‘hubbub’
of the exterior versus the ‘unconfused’ atmosphere of the interior; the
‘rare strange’ experience which is to be gleaned within the library;
and, most distinctively of all, the relationship of intimacy which exists
between the reader and the volumes with which he comes into contact.
In Johnson’s poem the books are figured both as ‘friends’ and as ‘lovers’;
likewise in James’s prose they are treated first as friends (‘dear old book’)
and then as more than friends, enticing Dane’s mind into an intimacy
with them (the ‘lover’s embrace’). It is also worth drawing attention to
James’s description of the ‘deep distinct voice[s] of another time’ which
sound within Dane’s library (Johnson also referred to the ‘kindly voices’
of the books). This imagining of books as voices speaks volumes about
the widespread fin-de-siècle tendency to assert the primacy of the spoken
over the written word, a tendency which had important implications
for contemporary understandings of literary property.¹¹³
In Orality and Literacy, Walter J. Ong considers the way in which
print culture encourages a sense of the limits and boundaries of a
text, and promotes the sense of a text as a completed artefact. Print
reifies literature, turns it into an item (the book) which has a stable
identity (the printed text), visible limits (its covers), and appears to
issue from a single individual (the name on the spine and the title
page). Print encourages, writes Ong, ‘a sense of closure, a sense that
what is found in a text has been finalized, has reached a state of
completion’.¹¹⁴ Oral culture, by contrast, invites what Ong usefully
calls ‘give and take’, a sense of verbal creativity as a corporate endeavour.
The oral culture ‘deliberately created texts out of other texts, borrowing,
adapting, sharing the common, originally oral, formulas and themes,
even though it worked them up into fresh literary forms impossible
without writing’.¹¹⁵ These strategies of oral composition are, of course,
precisely those which, it has been suggested, were distinctive traits
of literature of the fin-de-siècle. That literature might be described as
resembling an oral culture refined by an excess of self-consciousness.
Ong continues:
Print culture gave birth to the romantic notions of ‘originality’ and ‘creativity’,
which set apart an individual work from other works even more, seeing its
origins and meaning as independent of outside influence, at least ideally. When
¹¹³ See LD, 175–243. ¹¹⁴ Ong, Orality and Literacy, 132. ¹¹⁵ Ibid. 133.
188 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
in the past few decades doctrines of intertextuality arose to counteract the
isolationist aesthetics of a romantic print culture, they came as a kind of
shock. They were all the more disquieting because modern writers, agonizingly
aware of literary history and of the de facto intertextuality of their own works,
are concerned that they may be producing nothing really new or fresh at
all … Manuscript cultures had few if any anxieties about influence to plague
them, and oral cultures had virtually none.¹¹⁶
Writing in 1982, Ong dates the arrival of ‘doctrines of intertextuality’
to ‘the past few decades’. Certainly, that was when these theories were
given a local habitation and a name. However, an aim of this book
has been to demonstrate that intertextuality existed both as an abstract
discourse and as a creative practice long before it was christened and
variously codified over ‘the past few decades’.¹¹⁷
Ong’s insights concerning the interplay of orality and originality
usefully illuminate the work of Wilde. When Wilde’s first book of
poems came out in 1881, the criticism levelled at it by most reviewers
was of its unacceptable indebtedness to earlier writers. ‘Imitation of
previous writers goes far enough seriously to damage [the poems’]
originality’, wrote the Athenaeum’s critic,¹¹⁸ while the Punch reviewer
remarked disapprovingly that ‘Mr Wilde may be aesthetic, but he is
not original. This is a volume of echoes—it is Swinburne and water,
while here and there we note that the author has been reminiscent of
Mr Rossetti and Mrs Browning.’¹¹⁹ The ambivalence of that phrase
‘volume of echoes’ might have pleased Wilde, suggesting as it did not
only a volume full of the half-heard voices of other writers, but also that
those echoes were themselves possessed of volume. For what none of
the reviewers considered was that Wilde might have deliberately turned
up the volume of his echoes, or at the very least might not have tried
to silence them. That is to say, the reviewers did not appear to accept
that Wilde might have been making use of echo, reminiscence and
‘imitation’ as creative strategies. The implication of the reviews was that
Wilde lacked imaginative fecundity. An alternative interpretation was
that these echoes were unconventional expressions of precisely such a
fecundity—they were originally unoriginal. Seven years after his Poems
appeared, in an article entitled ‘English Poetesses’, Wilde engaged openly
with what he saw as the hypo-valuation of echo in English poetry:
In England we have always been prone to underrate the value of tradition in
literature. In our eagerness to find a new voice and a fresh mode of music we
have forgotten how beautiful Echo may be. We look first for individuality and
personality, and these are, indeed, the chief characteristics of the masterpieces
of our literature, either in prose or verse; but deliberate culture and a study of
the best models, if united to an artistic temperament and a nature susceptible
of exquisite impressions, may produce much that is admirable, much that is
worthy of praise.¹²⁰
This is not, to be sure, a full-throated defence of the ‘tradition’. There is a
conciliatoriness in Wilde’s admission of ‘individuality’ and ‘personality’
as vital characteristics of ‘masterpieces’, and in the cautious tone of
his observation that imitation ‘may produce much that is admirable’.
Nevertheless, this is a passage which goes straight to the heart of Wilde’s
attitude to originality, first in its explicit antagonism towards those who
would ‘underrate the value of tradition in literature’, and secondly in its
suggestion that an excessive preoccupation with the ‘new’ had blinded
artists to the creative possibilities of apparently unoriginal techniques of
composition such as ‘Echo’ and ‘a study of the best models’.
Josephine Guy has argued that one cannot explain Wilde’s heterodox
attitudes to originality—his readiness to reuse without much modi-
fication his own work and the work of others—either simply as a
function of his laziness, and the hackish conditions under which much
of his writing was done, or according ‘to a myth of ‘‘sprezzatura’’—by
the genius of a writer whose intellectual games were played in wilful
contempt of ‘‘public opinion’’ ’, and her caution at the tendency to
critical myth-making in Wildean studies is salutary.¹²¹ One reason to
¹²⁷ See SA, 91–7, for more details of how the young Wilde was ‘bathed in a broth of
a talk’.
¹²⁸ Mikhail Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, ed. and trans. Michael Holquist
(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 343.
¹²⁹ Deirdre Toomey, ‘The Story-Teller at Fault’, in Sandelescu (ed.), Rediscovering
Oscar Wilde, 411.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 193
‘A N C E S T R A L VO I C E S ’ : T H E G H O S TS O F L I O N E L
JOHNSON
¹³⁰ Charles Ricketts and J. Raymond, Oscar Wilde: Recollections (London: Nonessuch,
1932), 13–14.
¹³¹ T. S. Eliot, ‘Reflections on Contemporary Poetry (IV)’, The Egoist, 6:3 (July
1919), 39.
194 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
¹³⁷ Letter in MS, William Morris Museum, Walthamstow. Quoted by Ian Fletcher,
introduction, LJP, p. liii.
¹³⁸ LJP, p. liv. ¹³⁹ Symons, Book of Aspects, 50. ¹⁴⁰ LJP, p. lviii.
196 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
¹⁴¹ Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Selected Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, ed.
Margaret Forster (London: Chatto & Windus, 1988), 218.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 197
¹⁴⁵ Derek Stanford, ‘Johnson, Lionel Pigot’, in New Catholic Encyclopaedia (New
York: The Catholic University of America, 1967–89), vii. 1089–90.
¹⁴⁶ LJP, p. xvi.
¹⁴⁷ Barbara Charlesworth, Dark Passages: The Decadent Consciousness in Victorian
Literature (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965), 92.
¹⁴⁸ PL, 209. ¹⁴⁹ Ibid. ¹⁵⁰ Ibid. 214–15.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 199
¹⁵⁶ Yeats, Autobiographies, 305–6. Compare Walter Savage Landor, Imaginary Con-
versations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2nd edn. (London: Henry Colburn, 1826).
¹⁵⁷ E. K. Chambers, Academy, 20 October 1892, 297.
¹⁵⁸ Campbell Dodgson, ‘Lionel Pigot Johnson’, DNB, 374–6.
¹⁵⁹ Charles Wager, ‘A Disciple of Pater’, Dial, 1 December 1912, 442–4.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 201
voices which at rare intervals come from the heart of a man.’¹⁷¹ One
reason why Johnson might have been attracted to imagining dead writers
as voices is that voices are bodiless. It has already been noted that an
obsession with the evaporation of the bodily or corporeal—what Peter
Nicholls calls ‘the idea of a ‘‘pure’’ intelligence freed from the bondage of
bodily desire’¹⁷²—recurs in Johnson’s writing, and in Decadent writing
in general. It is, for example, the concept which obsesses Giorgio, the
hero of Gabriele D’Annunzio’s The Triumph of Death (1894). Giorgio
longs to ‘detach the individual will which confined him within the
narrow prison of his personality, and kept him in perpetual subjection
to the base elements of his fleshly substance’.¹⁷³ Johnson’s preoccupation
with freedom from ‘the bondage of bodily desire’ is everywhere apparent
in his poetry. By far the most common rhyme-pairings in his poetry
are ‘birth’ and ‘earth’, and ‘breath’ and ‘death’. Life is repeatedly bound
with solidity, the chthonic, and the palpable, while death is seen as
a dissolution of the horizons of the self into ‘breath’—into voice.
The phenomenology of Johnson’s imagery also indicates his fascination
with the bodiless and the gaseous. His poems rarely touch on solid
objects: instead, they show a rococo fascination for the evanescent, the
fugitive, the immaterial, and the phantasmagoric: for ‘mists’, ‘weeping
clouds’, and ‘airy shrouds’ (25). This is in part a generic poetic adoption,
common to much poetry of the fin-de-siècle, of the Burkian Sublime,
with its interest in the nebulous and the indistinct, but it is also an
instance of the profound attraction to the idea of sublimation—the
swift issue of solid into gas, or of body into voice—which accents so
many of Johnson’s poems. ‘O rich and sounding voices of the air!’,
wrote Johnson in 1889, ‘Interpreters and prophets of despair: |Priests
of a fearful sacrament! I come, | To make with you mine home’ (25).
‘Take me with you in spirit, Ancients of Art,’ he implored at the end
of an impassioned essay on the virtue of admitting the literary tradition
into one’s writing, ‘the crowned, the sceptred, whose voices this night
chaunt a Gloria in excelsis, flooding the soul with a passion of joy and
awe.’¹⁷⁴ In his poem ‘A Cornish Night’, Johnson describes himself
walking along the coast at night, ‘alone’ but also in dialogue with the
voices which he can hear in the air: ‘Whether you be great spirits of
the record of, as Prins put it, ‘writing and reading and rewriting’, of
‘taking possession of each other’s words yet also losing track of who
owns what’.¹⁷⁶
A central difference between Field and Johnson’s attitudes to original-
ity, of course, is that where for Field textual collaboration is thematized
and theorized as a means of exploring and enacting the domestic,
emotional and sexual interlacings which occurred between Katherine
Bradley and Edith Cooper, for Johnson textual collaboration provided
a mode of wish-fulfilment—an extension of his desire to converse with
the dead, and to join ‘the rich and sounding voices of the air’. What
was for Field a form of eroticized textual exchange—a celebration of
contemporary coexistence—was for Johnson the expression of a refined
longing not to belong to his time. By disparaging the literary present,
and cherishing the literary past, Johnson turned himself into an exile
within his own time and place. Petrarch’s fascination with antiquity,
and his dislike of contemporaneity’s subtle alienations, had likewise
made him feel a living anachronism. ‘I write for myself ’, he observed in
a 1342 letter to a friend on the subject of quotation:
and while I am writing I eagerly converse with our predecessors in the only way
I can; and I gladly dismiss from mind the men with whom I am forced by an
unkind fate to live. I exert all my mental powers to flee contemporaries and seek
out the men of the past … I am happier with the dead than with the living.¹⁷⁷
Johnson felt the same; his solution was to commune with the literary
dead through his reading and his writing. Johnson the loner believed in
what the German historian and historiographer Wilhelm Dilthey called
‘the intimate kinship of all human psychic life’, a kinship which made
it possible to communicate across the centuries.¹⁷⁸ In 1891, Johnson
quoted Tennyson’s impassioned proclamation from his late poem,
‘Vastness’, that ‘The dead are not dead, but alive.’¹⁷⁹ Intertextuality
offered Johnson a way of proving Tennyson’s claim. It gave him not
only a way to memorialize the dead, but also a way to make them talk
again.
¹⁷⁶ Ibid.
¹⁷⁷ Letters from Petrarch, ed. and trans. Morris Bishop (Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press, 1966), 68.
¹⁷⁸ Wilhelm Dilthey, Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding, trans.
Richard M. Zaner and Kenneth L. Heiges (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977), 80.
¹⁷⁹ PL, 211. ‘What is true of loved humanity’, Johnson added, ‘is true also of loved
humanities.’
206 Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle
¹⁸⁰ Fredric Jameson, ‘Marxism and Historicism’, NLH 11 (Autumn 1979), 50–1.
¹⁸¹ James Longenbach, Modernist Poetics of History (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1987), 14.
¹⁸² Ibid. 16.
¹⁸³ Jameson, ‘Marxism and Historicism’, 51–2. Longenbach also connects it with the
‘rising interest in spiritualism’. Longenbach, Modernist Poetics, 25.
¹⁸⁴ Adrian Poole and Jeremy Maule, Oxford Book of Classical Verse in Translation
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. xxxv–xxxvi.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 207
¹⁸⁹ Ezra Pound, ‘How I Began’, T.’s Weekly, 6 June 1913, 707.
¹⁹⁰ The Collected Early Poems of Ezra Pound, ed. Michael King (New York: New
Directions, 1976), 71.
¹⁹¹ Eliot, ‘Reflections IV’, 39–40. ¹⁹² Kenner, Pound Era, 96.
¹⁹³ Dale, Victorian Critic, 187.
Aesthetics of Salvage in the Fin-de-Siècle 209
C O N C LU S I O N S
In his 1894 diatribe against plagiarism hunters, Edward Wright set out
his transfigured vision of plagiarism as a trans-national, trans-epochal
communion between writers:
Plagiarism is best seen in the relations between poets each with exceeding
gifts, between Virgil and Homer, Shakespeare and Marlowe, Wordsworth and
Milton, and many others. Of all acts of love towards the dead that man can
perform, this is the sweetest and most noble, and none but the true poet can so
honour the friend of his soul. It is a sign of communion, a sign of the spiritual
bond uniting the singers in different tongues, of distant times, into the highest
of earthly fellowships.¹⁹⁴
The account which Wright gives here is of ‘plagiarism’ as an act of
‘love’, not of slavish subservience. Far from being something which
should be stigmatized for its contravention of an ideal of originality,
plagiarism resides on the highest artistic plane. Wright’s is an account of
literature which privileges not the isolated inventor and the uninfluenced
utterance, but instead the concepts of fellowship and collaboration: of
Eliot’s ‘dead voices speak[ing] through the living voice’. ‘The usefulness
of such a passion is various’, Eliot would write in 1919 of the ‘peculiar
personal intimacy’ that it was possible for one poet to feel for a dead
poet:
We may not be great lovers; but if we had a genuine affair with a real poet of
any degree we have acquired a monitor to avert us when we are not in love. …
We do not imitate, we are changed; and our work is the work of the changed
man; we have not borrowed, we have been quickened, and we become bearers
of a tradition.¹⁹⁵
Johnson, Wilde, and Pater, like Eliot after them, shared this convic-
tion that literature at its best would find profit in the circumstance,
underscored by Wright, that the words we receive from our linguistic
community are ‘filled’ or ‘inhabited’ by the voices of others.¹⁹⁶ Nick
¹⁹⁸ Raleigh, Style, 116–19. ¹⁹⁹ Héraud, ‘On Poetical Genius’, 59, 63.
²⁰⁰ Said, The World, the Text, and the Critic, 135. Compare Milan Kundera’s rewrite
of this sentiment in The Art of the Novel, where he notes of the twentieth-century that
‘rewriting is the spirit of the times’. Milan Kundera, The Art of the Novel, trans. Linda
Asher (London: Faber, 1988), 150.
Bibliography
Abrams, M. H., The Mirror and the Lamp (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1953).
Allen, L. H., ‘Plagiarism, Sources, and Influences in Shelley’s ‘‘Alastor’’ ’,
Modern Language Review, 18 (April 1923), 133–51.
Altick, Richard D., ‘Education, Print and Paper in Our Mutual Friend ’, in
Clyde de L. Ryals (ed.), Nineteenth-Century Literary Perspectives: Essays in
Honour of Lionel Stevenson (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1984),
237–54.
The Presence of the Present: Topics of the Day in the Victorian Novel
(Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1991).
Amato, Joe, ‘No Wasted Words’, Nineteenth-Century Studies, 12 (1998),
37–63.
Amis, Martin, London Fields (London: Penguin, 1990).
Anon., ‘American Critics’, Academy, 15 January 1898, 75.
‘Artificial Memory’, Dublin Review, 29:81 (July 1877), 172–90.
‘The Beneficent Plagiarist’, Dial, 7 September 1916, 132–3.
‘A Charge of Plagiarism’, Academy, 1 July 1899, 4.
‘The Cry of Plagiarism’, Spectator, 28 February 1891, 305–6.
‘Editorial’, Builder, 23 (1865), 201–2.
‘The Ethics of Plagiarism’, Atlantic Monthly, 54 (July 1884), 136–8.
‘Even in the Writing of Books’, Cambridge Review, 18 May 1905, 208.
‘Female Authorship’, Fraser’s Magazine, 33 (April 1846), 460–6.
‘A Fine Mare’s Nest in the Way of Plagiarism’, Academy, 9 November
1901, 421.
‘Imagism and Plagiarism’, Dial, 25 November 1915, 476–7.
‘Involuntary Autoplagiarism’, Dial, 1 August 1911, 68.
‘Literary Plagiarism’, Academy, 31 August 1901, 164.
‘Memory’, Westminster Review, 130 (August 1888), 173–85.
‘On Plagiarism’. Cambridge Review, 21 (February 1889), 219.
‘Ouida’s Experience of Plagiarism’, Academy, 25 August 1900, 143.
‘Our Dust-bins’, Leisure Hour, 17 (1868), 718–20.
‘Plagiarism’, Academy, 16 December 1899, 712–13.
‘The Plagiarist’, Athenaeum, 25 September 1897, 85.
Bibliography 213
‘Poetical Plagiaries: Thomas Moore. No. I’, Fraser’s Magazine, 4 (August
1831), 45–52.
‘Poetical Plagiaries: Thomas Moore. No. II’, Fraser’s Magazine, 5 (Decem-
ber 1831), 66–77.
‘Poetry and Plagiarism’, Poetry Review, 24 (1933), 403–7.
‘Recent Poetical Plagiarisms and Imitations’, London Magazine, 8
(December 1823), 597–604.
‘Recent Poetical Plagiarisms and Imitations; Continued’, London
Magazine, 9 (March 1824), 277–85.
‘The Rights of Plagiarism’, New Statesman, 17 April 1920, 38–9.
‘Self-Plagiarism’, Atlantic Monthly, 72 (September 1893), 429–31.
‘Unconscious Plagiarism’, The Times, 1 June 1872.
‘Unconscious Plagiarism’, The Times, 10 December 1879.
Aoki, Keith, ‘Authors, Inventors and Trademark Owners: Private Intellectual
Property and the Public Domain’, Columbia VLA Journal of the Law and
Arts, 18 (1994), 197–267.
Arac, Jonathan, Commissioned Spirits: The Shaping of Social Motion in Dickens,
Carlyle, Melville and Hawthorne (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, 1979).
Armstrong, Isobel (ed.), Victorian Scrutinies: Reviews of Poetry 1830–1870
(London: The Athlone Press, 1972).
Language as Living Form in Nineteenth-Century Poetry (Hassocks: The
Harvester Press, 1982).
Victorian Poetry: Poetry, Poetics and Politics (London: Routledge, 1988).
Armstrong, Nancy, and Tennenhouse, Leonard, The Imaginary Puritan:
Literature, Intellectual Labor, and the Origins of Personal Life (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992).
Arnold, Matthew, Complete Prose Works, ed. R. H. Super, 11 vols. (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960–77).
Ascher, Isidore G., ‘The Plagiarist’, Academy, 23 December 1911, 809–10.
Auden, W. H., The Dyer’s Hand (London: Faber and Faber, 1975).
The English Auden, ed. Edward Mendelson (London: Faber and
Faber, 1986).
Austen, Jane, Emma [1815], ed. James Kinsley (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991).
Austin, Alfred, ‘Our Novels: The Sensational School’, Temple Bar, 29
(1870), 1417.
Austin, Sarah, ‘Specimens of German Genius I–V’, New Monthly Magazine,
28 (April 1830), 311–17; 28 (May 1830), 444–50; 28 (June 1830),
519–26; 28 (July 1830), 34–42; 28 (August 1830), 180–9.
Bakhtin, Mikhail, The Dialogic Imagination, ed. and trans. Michael Holquist
(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981).
214 Bibliography
B.D., ‘ ‘‘Second Storey Work’’ or Inspiration?’, Spectator, 24 September 1927,
456–7.
Barnes, W., ‘Plagiarism and Coincidence; or, Thought-Thievery and Thought-
Likeness’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 15 (December 1866), 73–80.
Barthes, Roland, Image—Music—Text, ed. and trans. Stephen Heath (Lon-
don: Fontana, 1977).
Bartram, Michael, The Pre-Raphaelite Camera: Aspects of Victorian Photo-
graphy (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985).
Bate, Jonathan, Shakespeare and the English Romantic Imagination (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1986).
The Song of the Earth (London: Picador, 2000).
Bate, W. Jackson, The Burden of the Past and the English Poet (London: Chatto
& Windus, 1971).
Becker, Howard S., ‘Art as Collective Action’, American Sociological Review,
39 (1974), 767–76.
Becker-Leckrone, Megan, ‘Pater’s Critical Spirit’, in Laurel Brake, Lesley
Higgins, and Carolyn Williams (eds.), Walter Pater: Transparencies of Desire
(Greensboro, NC: ELT Press, 2002), 167–81.
Beer, Gillian, Darwin’s Plots (London: Ark, 1985).
Beer, John, Romantic Influences: Contemporary, Victorian, Modern (Basings-
toke: Macmillan, 1993).
Providence and Love: Studies in Wordsworth, Channing, Myers, George
Eliot, and Ruskin (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
Benjamin, Walter, Illuminations [1968], ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry
Zohn (London: Fontana, 1992).
Benson, E. F., ‘Plagiarism’, Nineteenth Century, 46 (December 1899), 974–81.
Birrell, Augustine, Seven Lectures on the Law and History of Copyright in
Books (London: Cassell and Co., 1899).
Blair, Kirstie, ‘A Change in the Units: Middlemarch, G. H. Lewes, and Rudolf
Virchow’, George Elliot–George Henry Lewes Studies, 39–40 (September
2001), 9–24.
Bloom, Harold, Yeats (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).
The Anxiety of Influence [1973], 2nd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997).
Blount, Trevor, ‘Dickens and Mr Krook’s Spontaneous Combustion’, Dick-
ens Studies Annual, 1 (1970), 183–211.
Bolgar, R. R., The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1954).
Booth, Allyson, ‘ ‘‘He Do the Police in Different Voices’’: Our Mutual Friend
and The Waste Land ’, The Dickensian, 97:2 (Summer 2001), 116–21.
Borges, Jorge Luis, Labyrinths, ed. and trans. Donald A. Yates et al. (London:
Penguin, 1970).
Bibliography 215
Bornstein, George (ed.), Representing Modernist Texts: Editing as Interpretation
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).
Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic
World Reversed’, Poetics, 12 (1983), 311–56.
The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans. Susan
Emanuel (London: Polity Press, 1996).
Bourget, Paul, Essais de psychologie contemporaine (Paris: Lemerre, 1883).
Brantlinger, Patrick, The Reading Lesson: The Threat of Mass Literacy
in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1998).
Breen, Henry H., Modern English Literature: Its Blemishes & Defects (London:
Longmans, 1857).
Brinton, Daniel, The Basis of Social Relations (London: John Murray, 1902).
Brisman, Leslie, Romantic Origins (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1978).
Bristow, Joseph (ed.), The Victorian Poet: Poetics and Persona (London: Croom
Helm, 1987).
Brooke, G. A., and Rolleston, T. W. (eds.), A Treasury of Irish Poetry in the
English Tongue (London: Smith Elder, 1900).
Brown, A. J., ‘Tannhauser and Plagiarism’, Dublin University Magazine, 59
(February 1862), 106–14.
Browning, Elizabeth Barrett, Selected Poems of Elizabeth Barrett Browning,
ed. Margaret Forster (London: Chatto & Windus, 1988).
Brydges, Egerton, ‘An Essay on Originality of Mind’, Fraser’s Magazine, 15
(May 1837), 581–90.
Bunsen, Christian Charles Josias, Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal
History as Applied to Language and Religion, 2 vols. (London: Longman,
Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1854).
Burwick, Frederick, ‘The Romantic Concept of Mimesis: Idem et Alter’,
in John Beer (ed.), Questioning Romanticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1995), 179–208.
Bush, Ronald, ‘In Pursuit of Wilde Possum: Reflections on Eliot, Modernism,
and the Nineties’, Modernism/Modernity, 11:3 (September 2004), 469–85.
Butcher, S. H., Harvard Lectures on the Originality of Greece (London:
Macmillan, 1911).
Butler, Samuel, Life and Habit [1877] (London: A. C. Fifield, 1910).
Unconscious Memory [1880] (London: A. C. Fifield, 1910).
The Way of All Flesh [1903], ed. Michael Mason (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993).
C.H.B., ‘The Cry of Plagiarism in Pictures’, Outlook, 12 October 1907, 463–4.
C.V., ‘The Plagiarist’, Academy, 2 December 1911, 92–3.
Calinescu, Matei, Five Faces of Modernity (Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 1987).
216 Bibliography
Cantor, Paul A., Creature and Creator: Myth-Making and English Romanticism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Capper, John, ‘Waste’, Household Words, 220 (10 June 1854), 390–3.
‘Important Rubbish’, Household Words, 337 (19 May 1855), 376–9.
Carlin, John, ‘Culture Vultures: Artistic Appropriation and Intellectual Prop-
erty Law’, Columbia VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 13:103 (1988),
103–43.
Carlyle, Thomas, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History (London:
J. Fraser, 1841).
The Works of Thomas Carlyle, ed. H. D. Traill, 30 vols. (London: Chapman
and Hall, 1896–9).
Caruth, Cathy, Unreclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996).
Cavell, Stanley, This New Yet Unapproachable America (Albuquerque, N.
Mex.: Living Batch Press, 1989).
Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1990).
Charlesworth, Barbara, Dark Passages: The Decadent Consciousness in
Victorian Literature (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965).
Choi, Tina Young, ‘Completing the Circle: The Victorian San-
itary Movement, Our Mutual Friend, and Narrative Closure’,
http://humwww.ucsc.edu/dickens/OMF/artarchive.html (November 2005).
Christ, Carol, The Finer Optic (London: Yale University Press, 1975).
Clayton, Jay, and Rothstein, Eric, ‘Figures in the Corpus: Theories of
Influence and Intertextuality’, in Jay Clayton and Eric Rothstein (eds.),
Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1991), 3–36.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Biographia Literaria, ed. J. Shawcross, 2 vols.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907).
Collini, Stefan, ‘The End of Seriousness’, TLS, 19 January 2001, 1.
Collins, John Churton, Illustrations of Tennyson (London: Longmans,
1891).
Studies in Poetry and Criticism (London: George Bell and Sons, 1905).
Collins, K. K., ‘George Henry Lewes Revised: George Eliot and the Moral
Sense’, Victorian Studies, 21 (Summer 1978), 463–92.
‘Questions of Method: Some Unpublished Late Essays’, Nineteenth-
Century Fiction, 35:3 (December 1980), 385–405.
‘Reading George Eliot Reading Lewes’s Obituaries’, Modern Philology, 85
(November 1987), 153–69.
Comte, Auguste, System of Positive Polity, trans. J. H. Bridges et al., 4 vols.
(London: Longmans, 1875–7).
Connor, Steven, Samuel Beckett: Repetition, Theory and Text (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1988).
Bibliography 217
Cook, Roger F., The Demise of the Author: Autonomy & the German Writer
1770–1848 (New York: Peter Lang, 1993).
Coote, H. C., ‘Captain Marryat a Plagiarist’, Academy, 27 February 1875,
218–19.
Crellin, J. K., Pasteur and the Germ Theory (London: Jackdaw, 1967).
Crockett, S. R., ‘A Charge of Plagiarism’, Academy, 10 November 1894, 376.
Cross, J. W., George Eliot’s Life as Related in her Letters and Journals, 3 vols.
(London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1885).
Currie, James, The Works of Robert Burns; with an Account of his Life and a
Criticism on his Writings, 4 vols. (London: W. Davies and W. Creech, 1800).
Dale, Peter Allan, The Victorian Critic and the Idea of History: Carlyle, Arnold,
Pater (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977).
Dallas, E. S., The Gay Science, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1866).
D’Annunzio, Gabriele, The Triumph of Death, trans. Georgina Harding
(Sawtry: Dedalus, 1990).
Danson, Lawrence, Wilde’s Intentions: The Artist in his Criticism (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1997).
Darwin, Charles, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (London:
John Murray, 1872).
Davenport-Adams, W., ‘Imitators and Plagiarists: Part I’, Gentleman’s
Magazine, 48 (May 1892), 502–16.
Davidson, John, Plays (London: Elkin Matthews and John Lane, 1894).
Davis, Lennard J., Factual Fictions: The Origins of the English Novel (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1983).
Delaura, David J., Hebrew and Hellene in Victorian England: Newman, Arnold
and Pater (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969).
Deleuze, Gilles, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (London:
Athlone Press, 1994).
de Man, Paul, Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary
Criticism 2nd edn. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983).
De Marcus, Cynthia, ‘Wolves Within and Without: Dickens’ transformation
of ‘‘Little Red Riding Hood’’ in Our Mutual Friend ’, Dickens Quarterly,
12:1 (March 1995), 11–17.
De Quincey, Thomas, New Essays by De Quincey; His Contributions to the
Edinburgh Saturday Post and Edinburgh Evening Post, 1827–28, ed. Stuart
M. Tave (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).
The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey, ed. David Masson, 14 vols.
(New York: AMS, 1968).
Derrida, Jacques, A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds, ed. Peggy Kamuf
(Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991).
Dickens, Charles, Bleak House [1852–3], ed. Stephen Gill (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997).
218 Bibliography
Dickens, Charles, Little Dorrit [1855–6], ed. Harvey Peter Sucksmith
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
A Tale of Two Cities [1859], ed. Andrew Sanders (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997).
Great Expectations [1860–1], ed. Margaret Caldwell (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993).
Our Mutual Friend [1864–5], ed. Michael Cotsell (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1989).
Our Mutual Friend [1864–5], ed. Adrian Poole (London: Penguin, 1997).
The Letters of Charles Dickens, ed. Madeline House et al., 11 vols. (Oxford:
Pilgrim, 1965–2002).
Dilthey, Wilhelm, Descriptive Psychology and Historical Understanding,
trans. Richard M. Zaner and Kenneth L. Heiges (The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1977).
D’Israeli, Isaac, ‘The Genius of Molière’, New Monthly Magazine, 37 (April
1833), 429–40.
Curiosities of Literature [1791], 3rd edn. (London: John Murray, 1793).
The Literary Character [1795], 3rd edn. (London: John Murray, 1822).
Dixon, Edmund Saul, ‘The Circulation’, Household Words, 377 (13 June
1857), 561–5.
‘Dirty Cleanliness’, Household Words, 435 (24 July 1858), 121–3.
Dobson, Austin, Old World Idylls (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
Co., 1883).
Dodd, George ‘Penny Wisdom’, Household Words, 134 (16 October 1852),
97–101.
‘Done to a Jelly’, Household Words, 222 (24 June 1854), 438–40.
Douglas-Fairhurst, Robert, Victorian Afterlives: The Shaping of Influence in
Nineteenth-Century Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Dowling, Linda, Language and Decadence in the Victorian Fin de Siècle
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
Draat, Fijn van, ‘A Beautiful Plagiarism’, Englische Studien, 33 (1904), 333.
Duff, William, An Essay on Original Genius (London: Edward and Charles
Dilly, 1767).
E.H.L.W., ‘On Plagiarism’, Cambridge Review, 21 February 1889, 218–19.
Eagleton, Terry, Criticism and Ideology (London: NLB, 1976).
The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990).
Edwards, W. A., Plagiarism: An Essay on Good and Bad Borrowing (Cambridge:
Minority Press, 1933).
Eisenstein, Elizabeth, The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Elfenbein, Andrew, Byron and the Victorians (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1995).
Bibliography 219
Eliot, George, Scenes of Clerical Life [1857], ed. Thomas A. Noble (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1988).
Adam Bede [1859], ed. Valentine Cunningham (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1996).
Romola [1862–3], ed. Andrew Brown (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
Felix Holt [1866], ed. Peter Coveney (Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1972).
Middlemarch [1871–2], ed. D. Carroll (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998).
Daniel Deronda [1876], ed. Graham Handley (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1984).
Impressions of Theophrastus Such [1879], ed. Nancy Henry (London:
William Pickering, 1994).
The Impressions of Theophrastus Such [1879], ed. D. J. Enright (London:
Everyman, 1995).
Wise, Witty and Tender Sayings in Prose and Verse, Selected from the
Works of George Eliot by Alexander Main (Edinburgh: William Blackwood &
Sons, 1880).
Letters of George Eliot, ed. George Haight, 9 vols. (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1954–78).
Essays of George Eliot, ed. Thomas Pinney (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1963).
Some George Eliot Notebooks: An Edition of the Carl H. Pforzheimer
Library’s George Eliot Holograph Notebooks, MSS 707, 708, 709, 710, 711,
ed. William Baker, 4 vols. (Salzburg: Salzburg University Press, 1976).
George Eliot’s Middlemarch Notebooks: A Transcription, ed. John Clark
Pratt and Victor A. Neufeldt (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1979).
George Eliot: Selected Essays, Poems and Other Writings, ed. A. S. Byatt and
Nicholas Warren (London: Penguin, 1990).
George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda Notebooks, ed. Jane Irwin (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996).
The Journals of George Eliot, ed. Margaret Harris and Judith Johnston
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Eliot, T. S., ‘The Hawthorne Aspect of Henry James’, Little Review, 5 (August
1918), 53.
‘Reflections on Contemporary Poetry (IV)’, The Egoist, 6:3 (July 1919),
39–40.
On Poetry and Poets (London: Faber and Faber, 1957).
Selected Essays [1932], 3rd edn. rev. (London: Faber and Faber, 1991).
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, Emerson, Essays, Lectures and Orations (London:
William S. Orr & Co., 1851).
Ralph Waldo Emerson, ed. Richard Poirier (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1990).
220 Bibliography
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, The Collected Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, ed.
Alfred R. Ferguson et al., 5 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1971–94).
Empson, William, Some Versions of Pastoral (London: Chatto & Win-
dus, 1935.)
Farley, John, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
Feather, John, Publishing, Piracy and Politics: An Historical Study of Copyright
in Britain (London: Mansell, 1994).
Feltes, Norman N., Literary Capital and the Late-Victorian Novel (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1993).
Ferriar, John, Illustrations of Sterne [1798] (New York: Garland, 1974).
Ficke, Arthur Davison, ‘Imagism and Plagiarism’, Dial, 9 December
1915, 560.
Fielding, K. J., and Brice, A. W., ‘Bleak House and the Graveyard’, in Robert
B. Partlow (ed.), Dickens the Craftsman (Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1970), 115–39.
Finer, S. E., The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London: Methuen &
Co. Ltd., 1952).
Fisher, H. A. L., An Unfinished Autobiography (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1940).
Flaubert, Gustave, Letters, ed. and trans. Francis Steegmuller, 2 vols. (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1980–2).
Flaxman, Rhoda L., Victorian Word-Painting and Narrative (Michigan: UMI
Research Press, 1982).
Flint, Kate, The Victorians and the Visual Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001).
Ford, Mark, ‘Poetic Licence’, London Review of Books, 21 August 1997, 27–8.
Forster, John, ‘Evidences for a New Genius for Dramatic Poetry I’, New
Monthly Magazine, 46 (March 1836), 289–308.
Foucault, Michel, ‘La Bibliothèque fantastique’, trans. David Macey, in
Tzvetan Todorov et al. (eds.), Travails de Flaubert (Paris: Seuil, 1983),
103–22.
‘What is an Author?’, in Josué V. Harari (ed.), Textual Strategies:
Perspectives in Post-structuralist Criticism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1979), 141–60.
France, Anatole, ‘Apologie pour le plagiat’, in Œuvres complètes, 25 vols.
(Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1925).
Fruman, Norman, Coleridge: The Damaged Archangel (London: Allen and
Unwin, 1972).
Gaines, Jane M., Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice and the Law (London:
British Film Institute, 1992).
Gallagher, Catherine, ‘The Bioeconomics of Our Mutual Friend ’, in David
Bibliography 221
Simpson (ed.), Subject to History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1991), 47–64.
Gallwey, Thomas, ‘Plagiarism or Coincidence—Which?’, Irish Monthly, 7
(July 1879), 312–19.
Gautier, Théophile, Portraits et souvenirs littéraires (Paris: Charpentier, 1881).
Genette, Gérard, Palimpsestes, trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubin-
sky (London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997).
Gerard, Alexander, An Essay on Genius (London: W. Strahan and
T. Cadell, 1774).
Gill, Stephen, Wordsworth and the Victorians (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1998).
Gissing, George, New Grub Street (London: The Bodley Head Press, 1967).
Goddard, Nicholas, ‘Nineteenth-century Recycling: The Victorians and the
Agricultural Utilisation of Sewage’, History Today, 31:6 (June 1981), 32–6.
‘ ‘‘A Mine of Wealth?’’: The Victorians and the Agricultural Value of
Sewage’, Journal of Historical Geography, 22:3 (July 1996), 274–90.
Goethe, Wilhelm, Gedenkausgabe der Werke, Briefe und Gesprache, ed.
E. Beutler, 24 vols. (Zurich: Artemis-Verlag, 1962–82).
Gosse, Edmund, introduction to Edmund H. Garrett (ed.), Victorian Songs
(Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1895).
Gould, Henry, ‘Plagiarism: A Fine Art’, Juridical Review (1908–9), 302–14.
Gray, Alasdair, Lanark: A Life in Four Books (Edinburgh: Canongate, 1981).
Green, Thomas M., The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance
Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).
Gregory, Elizabeth, Quotation and Modern American Poetry (Houston: Rice
University Press, 1996).
Groom, Nick, The Forger’s Shadow (London: Picador, 2002).
Guthrie, T. A., The Giant’s Robe (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1884).
Guy, Josephine, The British Avant-Garde: The Theory and Politics of Tradition
(Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991).
‘Self-Plagiarism, Creativity and Craftsmanship in Oscar Wilde’, English
Literature in Transition (1880–1920), 41:1 (1998), 6–23.
Hadden, J. Cuthbert, ‘Plagiarism and Coincidence’, Scottish Review, 27 (April
1896), 336–50.
Haight, Gordon S., George Eliot: A Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1968).
Hamlin, Christopher, ‘Providence and Putrefaction: Victorian Sanitarians
and the Natural Theology of Health and Disease’, Victorian Studies, 28
(1985), 381–411.
Hart, Ernest Abraham, ‘Nature’s Changes of Dress’, Household Words, 216
(13 May 1854), 304–6.
‘Lives of Plants’, Household Words, 200 (21 January 1854), 483–6.
222 Bibliography
Hayward, F. H., Professionalism and Originality (London: George Allen &
Unwin, 1917).
Hazlitt, William, The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, ed. P. P. Howe,
21 vols. (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1930–4).
The Spirit of the Age; or, Contemporary Portraits (London: Henry
Frowde, 1825).
Helps, Arthur, ‘In Memoriam Charles Dickens’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 22
(July 1870), 236–40.
Héraud, J. A., ‘On Poetical Genius Considered as a Creative Power’, Fraser’s
Magazine, 1 (1830), 56–63.
Higdon, David Leon, ‘George Eliot and the Art of the Epigraph’, Nineteenth-
Century Fiction, 25:2 (September 1970), 127–51.
Hill, Brian, and Keynes, Geoffrey (eds.), Letters between Samuel Butler and
Miss E. M. A. Savage (1871–1885) (London: Jonathan Cape, 1935).
Hill, Geoffrey, Collected Poems (London: Penguin, 1985).
Hitchens, Christopher, Unacknowledged Legislators (London: Verso, 2000).
Hitchman, Francis, ‘Alexandre Dumas and his Plagiarisms’, National Review,
4 (November 1884), 387–402.
Hodgart, Matthew, ‘Misquotation as Recreation’, Essays in Criticism, 3
(1953), 28–38.
Holland, Merlin, ‘Plagiarist, or Pioneer?’, in C. George Sandelescu (ed.),
Rediscovering Oscar Wilde (Gerrard’s Cross: Colin Smythe 1994).
Hollis, D., ‘In Defence of Plagiarism’, Spectator, 20 August 1927, 227–8.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, ‘My Hunt after ‘‘The Captain’’ ’, Atlantic Monthly,
10:62 (December 1862), 738–64.
Home, Stewart, Neoism, Plagiarism & Praxis (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1995).
Horne, R. H., ‘Men of Genius and the Public’, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, 3
(September 1833), 739–44.
‘Genius, Talent, Science and Learning, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, 4
(January 1834), 483–4.
‘Dust; or Ugliness Redeemed’, Household Words, 16 (13 July 1850),
379–84.
Hotten, J. C., Charles Dickens: The Story of his Life (London: J. C. Hot-
ten, 1870).
Hough, Graham, ‘Coleridge and the Victorians’, in George Watson and Hugh
Sykes Davies (eds.), The English Mind, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1964), 175–92.
House, R. T., ‘Epistolary Plagiarism’, Dial, 1 October 1909, 227.
Howard, Daniel F. (ed.), The Correspondence of Samuel Butler with his Sister
May (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962).
Hunt, Leigh, ‘Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries’, Blackwood’s
Edinburgh Magazine, 23 (March 1828), 362–408.
Bibliography 223
Hutton, Richard Holt, ‘The Empire of Novels’, Spectator, 9 January 1869,
43–4.
Ireland, Baron, ‘Plagiarism’, Harper’s Monthly Magazine, February 1924,
410–11.
James, Henry, Selected Works of Henry James: New York Edition, 24 vols. (New
York: Scribner’s, 1907–17).
Notes and Reviews, ed. Pierre de Chaignon la Rose (Cambridge, Mass.:
Dunster House, 1921).
James, William, The Principles of Psychology [1890], 2 vols. (New York: Henry
Holt and Company, 1950).
Jameson, Fredric, ‘Marxism and Historicism’, NLH 11 (Autumn 1979),
41–73.
Janowitz, Anne, Lyric and Labour in the Romantic Tradition (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Jauss, Hans Robert, Towards an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. Timothy Bahti
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982).
Jeaffreson, Cordy, The Real Lord Byron: New Views of the Poet’s Life (Boston:
James R. Osgood, 1883).
Jenkyns, Richard, The Victorians and Ancient Greece (Oxford: Black-
well, 1980).
Johnson, Fanny K., ‘The Unconscious Plagiarist’, Atlantic Monthly, 90 (1902),
812–20.
Johnson, Lionel, A Letter to Edgar Jepson, ed. Ian Fletcher (London: Eric and
Joan Stevens, 1979).
Post Liminium: Essays and Critical Papers, ed. Thomas Whittemore
(London: Elkin Matthews, 1911).
The Collected Poems of Lionel Johnson, ed. Ian Fletcher, 2nd edn. (New
York: Garland, 1982).
Johnson, Samuel, The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson, ed. W. J.
Bate, Albrecht B. Strauss, et al., 9 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1958–71).
A Dictionary of the English Language: In Which the Words are Deduced
from their Originals (London: J. and P. Knapton et al., 1755).
Jonson, Ben, Timber, or Discoveries [1640] (London: J. M. Dent, 1898).
Kamuf, Peggy, Signature Pieces: On Institution of Authorship (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1988).
Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Judgement [1790], trans. J. H. Bernard (New
York: Hafner Press, 1951).
Kaplan, Benjamin, An Unhurried View of Copyright (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1967).
Keats, John, Letters of John Keats, ed. Hyder Edward Rollins, 2 vols. (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958).
224 Bibliography
Keble, John, Keble’s Lectures on Poetry 1832–1841, ed. and trans. E. K.
Francis, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912).
Kenner, Hugh, The Pound Era (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1971).
A Homemade World: The American Modernist Writers (London: Marion
Boyars, 1977).
Kermode, Frank, Romantic Image (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957).
Kingsmill, Hugh, ‘1932 and the Victorians’, English Review, 9 (June 1932),
681–4.
Knoepflmacher, U. C., Religious Humanism and the Victorian Novel: George
Eliot, Walter Pater, and Samuel Butler (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1970).
Knowlson, T. Sharper, Originality: A Popular Study of the Creative Mind
(London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd., 1917).
Koestler, Arthur, The Act of Creation (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1964).
Krauss, Rosalind E., The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist
Myths (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985).
Kristeva, Julia, ‘Word, Dialogue, and Novel’, in Desire in Language, ed. Leon
S. Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora et al. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), 64–89.
Kundera, Milan, The Art of the Novel, trans. Linda Asher (London: Faber and
Faber, 1988).
Landor, Walter Savage, Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and States-
men, 2nd edn. (London: Henry Colburn, 1826).
Lang, Andrew, ‘Literary Plagiarism’, Contemporary Review, 51 (June 1887),
831–40.
Latané, David E., Browning’s Sordello and the Aesthetics of Difficulty (Victoria,
BC: University of Victoria Press, 1987).
Lautréamont, Poésies and Complete Miscellanea, ed. Alexis Lykiard (London:
Allison and Busby, 1978).
Leader, Zachary, Writer’s Block (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1991).
Revision and Romantic Authorship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).
Leavis, F. R., and Leavis, Q. D., Dickens the Novelist (London: Penguin, 1972).
LeFevre, Karen Burke, Invention as a Social Act (Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1987).
Levenson, Michael, A Genealogy of Modernism (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984).
Lewes, G. H., ‘The Lady Novelists’, Westminster Review, 58 (July 1852),
129–41.
The Principles of Success in Literature [1865], ed. Geoffrey Tillotson, repr.
(Westmead: Gregg International Publisher Ltd., 1969).
The Study of Psychology (London: Trübner & Co., 1879).
The Foundation of a Creed (London: Trubner & Co., 1874–5).
Bibliography 225
Liebig, Justus von, Chemistry in its Relations to Physiology, Dietetics, Agriculture,
Commerce, and Political Economy, 3rd edn. (London: Taylor, Walton and
Maberley, 1851).
Lindey, Alexander, Plagiarism and Originality (New York: Harper & Broth-
ers, 1952).
Littledale, Richard F., in Academy, 19 April 1884.
Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Alexander
Campbell Fraser, 2 vols. (New York: Dover, 1959).
Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988).
Lohrli, Anne, Household Words (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973).
Longenbach, James, Modernist Poetics of History (Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1987).
Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, The Poetical Works (London: Henry
Frowde, 1893).
Lovejoy, Arthur O., The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1936).
Lowes, John Livingstone, The Road to Xanadu (Boston: Houghton Miff-
lin, 1927).
Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, ed. and trans. R. E. Latham (London:
Penguin, 1951).
Lyly, John, Euphues, ed. Morris William Croll and Harry Clemans (New York:
Russell & Russell, 1964).
Lynd, W., ‘An Author at Home’, Gentleman’s Magazine, 252 (1882), 361–3.
McCormack, W. J., ‘James Joyce, Cliché and the Irish Language’, in Bernard
Benstock (ed.), James Joyce: The Augmented Ninth (New York: Syracuse
University Press, 1988), 323–38.
MacCulloch, J. A., ‘Primitive Plagiarism’, Academy, 21 April 1906, 380–1.
McDonald, Peter, British Literary Culture and Publishing Practice 1880–1914
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
McFarland, Thomas, Coleridge and the Pantheist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969).
‘Coleridge’s Plagiarisms Once More: A Review Essay’, Yale University
Review, 62 (1974), 252–86.
Originality and Imagination (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1985).
McGann, Jerome J., A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1983).
The Romantic Ideology: A Critical Investigation (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1983).
The Beauty of Inflections: Literary Investigations in Historical Method and
Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).
226 Bibliography
McGowan, John, Representation and Revelation: Victorian Realism from Carlyle
to Yeats (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1986).
McPhee, John, Annals of the Former World (New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 1998).
MacPherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: From
Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).
Madden, R. R., ‘Plagiarism and Accidental Imitation’, Dublin University
Magazine, 433 (January 1869), 107–20.
Mallon, Thomas, Stolen Words: Forays into the Origins and Ravages of Plagiar-
ism (London: Harcourt, 1989).
Mansel, Henry, ‘Sensation Novels’, Quarterly Review, 113 (April 1863),
482–514.
Marsden, Jean I. (ed.), The Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance
Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1991).
Marsh, G., Lectures on the English Language (London: Sampson, Low and
Son, 1865).
Marston, Edward, After Work (London: Heinemann, 1904).
Martineau, Harriet, ‘Characteristics of the Genius of Scott’, Tait’s Edinburgh
Magazine, 2 (December 1832), 301–14.
‘The Achievements of the Genius of Scott’, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine 2
(January 1833), 445–60.
Matthews, Brander, Inquiries and Opinions (New York: Scribner’s, 1907).
‘The Ethics of Plagiarism’, Longman’s Magazine, 8 (October 1886),
621–34.
Mayhew, Henry, London Labour and the London Poor [1861], 4 vols. (London:
Frank Cass & Co., 1967).
Meltzer, Françoise, Hot Property: The Stakes and Claims of Literary Originality
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
Menand, Louis, Discovering Modernism: T. S. Eliot and his Context (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987).
Meredith, George, The Ordeal of Richard Feverel: A History of a Father and
Son (Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd., 1902).
Merton, Robert, On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandyean Postscript (Chicago:
Chicago University Press, 1993).
Metz, Nancy Aycock, ‘Science in Household Words: ‘‘The Poetic … Passed
into our Common Life’’ ’, Victorian Periodicals Newsletter, 11 (1978),
121–33.
‘The Artistic Reclamation of Waste in Our Mutual Friend ’, Nineteenth-
Century Fiction, 34:1 (June 1979), 59–72.
Mew, James, ‘Artificial Memory’, Cornhill Magazine, 29 (April 1874),
581–602.
Bibliography 227
Mill, John Stuart, Essays on Poetry, ed. F. Parvin Sharpless (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1976).
Miller, J. Hillis, The Disappearance of God: Five Nineteenth-Century Writers
(Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1975).
Miller, Karl, Authors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).
Miller, Lucasta, The Brontë Myth (London: Jonathan Cape, 2001).
Mitchell, A., ‘Plagiarism’, The Knickerbocker, 43 (April 1854), 333.
Mitchell, W. J. T., ‘Influence, Autobiography, and Literary History:
Rousseau’s Confessions and Wordsworth’s The Prelude’, ELH 57 (1990),
643–64.
Moore, George, A Mere Accident (London: Vizetelly, 1887).
Morel, Bénédict A., Traité des dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles et morales
de l’espèce humaine et des causes qui produisent ces variétés maladives (Paris:
Baillière, 1857).
Morris, William, Pall Mall Gazette, 2 February 1886, 2.
Mortier, Roland, L’Originalité (Geneva: Librarie Droz, 1982).
Murray, Isobel, ‘Some Elements in the Composition of The Picture of Dorian
Gray’, Durham University Journal, 64 (1972), 220–3.
‘Oscar Wilde in his Literary Element: Yet Another Source for Dorian
Gray?’, in C. George Sandelescu (ed.), Rediscovering Oscar Wilde (Gerrard’s
Cross: Colin Smythe, 1994), 283–96.
Myrtle, William, The Plagiarist (London: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferri-
er, 1896).
Nayder, Lillian, Unequal Partners: Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Vic-
torian Authorship (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002).
Nemoianu, Virgil, The Taming of Romanticism (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1984).
Newfield, Christopher, The Emerson Effect: Individualism and Submission in
America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).
Newman, J. H., The Idea of a University [1854], ed. Charles F. Harrold (New
York: Longmans, 1947).
‘Literature: A Lecture’, in Select Discourses from The Idea of a University,
ed. Mary Yardley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931).
Nicholls, Peter, ‘A Dying Fall? Nineteenth-Century Decadence and its
Legacies’, in Tracey Hill (ed.), Decadence and Danger: Writing, History and
the Fin de Siècle (Bath: Sulis Press, 1997), 13–26.
Noel, Roden, ‘Memory and Personal Identity’, Modern Review, 4 (April
1883), 380–7.
Nordau, Max, Degeneration, trans. from 2nd edn. of German (London:
Heinemann, 1895).
Novalis, Pollen and Fragments, ed. and trans. Arthur Versluis (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Phanes Press, 1989).
228 Bibliography
O’Donnell, F. Hugh, ‘Mr Lloyd George’s Plagiarisms of Irish Failure’,
Outlook, 18 October 1913, 523–4.
O’Donnell, Patrick, ‘ ‘‘A Speech of Chaff’’ ’: Ventriloquy and Expression in
Our Mutual Friend ’, Dickens Studies Annual, 19 (1990), 247–79.
Ong, Walter J., Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London:
Methuen, 1982).
Orgel, Stephen, ‘The Renaissance Artist as Plagiarist’, ELH 48 (1981),
476–95.
Orrock, James, Repeats and Plagiarisms in Art (London: C. W. H.
Wyman, 1888).
Orwell, George, Collected Essays, Journals and Letters of George Orwell, ed.
Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus, 4 vols. (London: Secker and Warburg, 1968).
Pangborn, Georgia Wood, ‘The Plagiarist’, Harper’s Monthly Magazine
(January 1909), 294–9.
Pasteur, Louis, ‘Revue des cours scientifiques’, in Les Œuvres de Pasteur, ed.
Pasteur Valery-Radot, trans, A. Levine (Paris: Masson et Cie, 1922).
Pater, Walter, The Works of Walter Pater, 10 vols. (London: Macmil-
lan, 1910).
Essays on Literature and Art, ed. Jenny Uglow (London: J. M. Dent &
Sons, 1990).
Paull, H. M., ‘Unconscious Plagiarism’, Cornhill Magazine, 3:53 (1922),
484–92.
Literary Ethics: A Study in the Growth of the Literary Conscience (London:
Thornton Butterworth, 1928).
Petrarch, Letters from Petrarch, ed. and trans. Morris Bishop (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1966).
Pettitt, Clare, Patent Inventions: Intellectual Property and the Victorian Novel
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Phillips, Patricia, The Adventurous Muse: Theories of Originality in English
Poetics, 1670–1750 (Stockholm: Uppsala, 1984).
Pick, Daniel, Faces of Disintegration: A European Disorder 1848–1918 (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Svengali’s Web: The Alien Enchanter in Modern Culture (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2000).
Pick, John, ‘Divergent Disciples of Walter Pater’, Thought, 23:88 (March
1948), 114–28.
Poole, Adrian, and Maule, Jeremy, Oxford Book of Classical Verse in Trans-
lation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Pope, Alexander, ‘The Preface of the Edition to The Works of Shakspear’,
in The Prose Works of Alexander Pope, ed. Rosemary Cowler and Norman
Ault, 2 vols. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1936–86).
Pound, Ezra, ‘How I Began’, T.’s Weekly (6 June 1913), 707.
Bibliography 229
The Collected Early Poems of Ezra Pound, ed. Michael King (New York:
New Directions, 1976).
Price, Leah, ‘George Eliot and the Production of Consumers’, Novel, 50
(Winter 1997), 145–70.
The Anthology and the Rise of the Novel (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000).
Prins, Yopie, Victorian Sappho (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).
Putnam, George H., Books and their Makers during the Middle Ages, 2 vols.
(New York: Hillary House Ltd., 1962).
Puttenham, George, ‘The Arte of English Poesie’, in G. Gregory Smith (ed.),
Elizabethan Critical Essays, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1904).
Pynsent, Robert, ‘Decadence, Decay and Innovation’, in R. B. Pynsent (ed.),
Decadence and Innovation: Austro-Hungarian Life and Art at the Turn of the
Century (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989), 111–248.
Quentin, David, ‘Upon Nothing’, in Nicholas Fisher (ed.), That Second
Bottle: Essays on John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 2000), 89–100.
Quint, David, Origins and Originality in Renaissance Literature: Versions of the
Source (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).
Rabb, Jane M., Literature and Photography: Interactions 1840–1990
(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995).
Raine, Craig, ‘Trope Rotation’, Areté, 2 (Spring–Summer 2000), 135–44.
Raleigh, Walter, Style, 5th edn. (London: Edward Arnold, 1904).
Randall, Marilyn, Pragmatic Plagiarism (Toronto: Toronto University
Press, 2000).
Reade, Charles, A Terrible Temptation, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and
Hall, 1871).
A Simpleton (London: Chatto & Windus, 1873).
Trade Malice: A Personal Narrative and the Wandering Heir: A Matter of
Fact Romance (London: Samuel French, 1875).
Readiana: Comments on Current Events (London: Chatto & Win-
dus, 1883).
LL (London Library numbered holdings of Charles Reade’s scrapbooks),
13, 15, 25, 29, 40, 46.
The Autobiography of a Thief and Other Histories, and The Wandering
Heir (London: Chatto & Windus, 1913).
Redfield, Marc, ‘The Fictions of Telepathy’, http://www.pum.
umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol2/redfield.html (November 2005).
Reed, John, Victorian Conventions (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1975).
Renan, Ernest, Cahiers de jeunesse (1845–1846) (Paris: Calman-Lévy, 1906).
Reynolds, Joshua, Discourses on Art, ed. R. R. Wark (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1981).
Richardson, Angelique, ‘How Did it All Begin’, TLS, 3 August 2001, 7.
230 Bibliography
Ricketson, Sam, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
Works: 1886–1986 (London: Centre for Commercial Law Studies, 1987).
Ricketts, Charles, and Raymond, J., Oscar Wilde: Recollections (London:
Nonessuch, 1932).
Ricks, Christopher, ‘Tennyson Inheriting the Earth’, in Hallam Tennyson
(ed.), Studies in Tennyson (London: Macmillan, 1981), 66–104.
The Force of Poetry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).
‘Plagiarism’, Proceedings of the British Academy: 1997 Lectures and Memoirs,
97 (1997), 149–68.
Allusion to the Poets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Rickword, Edgell, ‘The Waste Land and Other Poems’, TLS, 20 September
1923, 616.
Riddel, Joseph N., Purloined Letters: Originality and Repetition in American
Literature (London: Louisiana University Press, 1981).
Robbe-Grillet, Alain, Snapshots and Towards a New Novel, trans. Barbara
Wright (London: Calder & Boyars, 1965).
Rose, Mark, ‘The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v. Beckett and the Genealogy
of Modern Authorship’, Representations, 23 (Summer 1988), 51–85.
Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1993).
Rosenthal, Laura J., Playwrights and Plagiarists in Early Modern England
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991).
Røstvig, Maren-Sofie, ‘Ars Aeterna: Renaissance Poetics and Theories of
Divine Creation’, Mosaic, 3:2 (Winter 1970), 40–61.
Rowe, Nicholas, ‘Some Account of the Life &c. of Mr William Shakespear’, in
The Works of Mr. William Shakspear, 6 vols. (London: Jacob Tonson, 1709).
Roylance-Kent, C. B., ‘The Decay of Originality’, National Review, 18
(1891), 520–8.
Runciman, James, ‘King Plagiarism and his Court’, Fortnightly Review, 53:47
(March 1890), 421–39.
Ruskin, John, The Complete Works of John Ruskin, ed. E. T. Cook and
Alexander Wedderburn, 39 vols. (London: George Allen, 1903–12).
Said, Edward, Beginnings: Intentions and Method (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1975).
The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1983).
Saint-Amour, Paul K., ‘Immense Debtorship: Originality, Literary Property
and Deficit Poetics in British Letters 1840–1940’ (doctoral thesis, University
of Stanford, 1997).
‘Oscar Wilde: Orality, Literary Property, and Crimes of Writing’,
Nineteenth-Century Literature, 55 (2000), 59–91.
The Copywrights: Intellectual Property and the Literary Imagination (Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 2003).
Bibliography 231
Saunders, David, Authorship and Copyright (London: Routledge, 1992).
Scala, George A., ‘Powder Dick and his Train’, Household Words, 163 (7 May
1853), 235–40.
Self, Will, Dorian: An Imitation (London: Penguin, 2002).
Shakespeare, William, The Merry Wives of Windsor, ed. David Crane (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Shannon, Edgar Finley, Jr., Tennyson and the Reviewers (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1952).
Shaw, Peter, ‘Plagiary’, American Scholar, 51 (1982), 325–37.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe, Shelley’s Prose, ed. David Lee Clark (London: Fourth
Estate, 1988).
The Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley, ed. F. L. Jones, 2 vols. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1964).
Shuter, William E., ‘Pater’s Reshuffled Text’, Nineteenth-Century Literature,
43 (1989), 500–25.
Rereading Walter Pater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Shuttleworth, Sally, George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Science: The Make-
Believe of a Beginning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
and Bourne Taylor, Jenny (eds.), Embodied Selves: An Anthology of
Psychological Texts 1830–1890 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
Sillard, Robert M., ‘Some Curiosities of Literature’, Westminster Review, 151
(June 1899), 647–62.
Skelton, John, ‘The Ethics of Plagiarism’, Athenaeum, 18 February 1893, 221.
Smallpiece, A. J., ‘Creative Plagiarism’, Cambridge Review, 17 May 1906,
292–3.
Smith, Edward Elton, Charles Reade (London: George Prior and
Twayne, 1976).
Smith, Lindsay, Victorian Photography, Painting and Poetry (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995).
Smith, Stan, The Origins of Modernism (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheat-
sheaf, 1994).
Sontag, Susan, Against Interpretation (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1967).
Spencer, Herbert, Principles of Psychology (London: Longmans, 1855).
Stallybrass, Peter, and White, Allon, The Politics and Poetics of Transgression
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).
Stanford, Derek, ‘Johnson, Lionel Pigot’, in New Catholic Encyclopaedia,
18 vols. (New York: The Catholic University of America, 1967–89),
vii. 1089–90.
Stedman, E. C., Victorian Poets (London: Chatto & Windus, 1876).
Steel, Richard, Imitation: The Mimetic Force in Human Nature and in Nature
(London: Henry Young, 1899).
Steiner, George, Language and Silence (London: Faber and Faber, 1967).
Grammars of Creation (London: Faber and Faber, 2000).
232 Bibliography
Stephen, Leslie, The Playground of Europe (London: Longmans, 1871).
George Eliot (London: Macmillan, 1902).
Sterne, Laurence, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, ed.
Ian Campbell Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983).
Stevenson, Lionel, Darwin among the Poets (New York: Russell & Rus-
sell, 1963).
Stevenson, Robert Louis, ‘Plagiarism’, Athenaeum, 21 October 1882, 531.
Essays in the Art of Writing (London: Chatto & Windus, 1905).
Stewart, Garret, Dickens and the Trials of Imagination (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1974).
Stewart, Susan, Crimes of Writing: Problems in the Containment of Representa-
tion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Stillinger, Jack, Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Stitt, Megan Perigoe, Metaphors of Change in the Language of Nineteenth-
Century Fiction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).
Strang, G. Robert, ‘The Voices of the Essayist’, Nineteenth-Century Fiction,
35 (December 1980), 353–76.
Strick, James E., Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates over
Spontaneous Generation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001).
Strychacz, Thomas, Modernism, Mass Culture, Professionalism (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Sully, James, ‘Illusions of Memory’, Cornhill Magazine, 41 (April 1880),
416–33.
Sutcliffe, Emerson Grant, ‘Charles Reade’s Notebooks’, Studies in Philology,
27 (1930), 64–109.
Swinburne, A. C., ‘Appreciation’, prefaced to Charles Reade, The Cloister and
the Hearth (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1906).
Poetical Works, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann, 1924).
Symonds, J. A., ‘A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry’, Fort-
nightly Review, 51 (January 1889), 58.
Essays Speculative and Suggestive, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and
Hall, 1890).
Symons, Arthur, The Symbolist Movement in Literature (London: Heine-
mann, 1899).
London: A Book of Aspects (London: privately printed, 1909).
‘The Decadent Movement in Literature’, partially reprinted in Eric
Warner and Graham Hough (eds.), Strangeness and Beauty: An Anthology of
Aesthetic Criticism 1840–1910, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983), 236–9.
Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Bibliography 233
Taylor, Jenny Bourne, ‘Obscure Recesses: Locating the Victorian Uncon-
scious’, in J. B. Bullen (ed.), Writing and Victorianism (London: Longmans,
1997), 137–79.
Tennyson, Alfred Lord, The Letters of Alfred Lord Tennyson, ed. Cecil Y. Lang
and Edgar F. Shannon, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982–90).
The Poems of Tennyson, ed. Christopher Ricks, 3 vols. (London: Long-
mans, 1987).
Tennyson, Charles, Alfred Tennyson (London: Macmillan, 1950).
Tennyson, Hallam, Alfred Lord Tennyson: a Memoir by his Son, 2 vols.
(London: Macmillan, 1897).
Thackeray, William Makepeace, Roundabout Papers (London: J. M. Dent
& Sons, 1914).
Tiffany, Grace, ‘Our Mutual Friend in ‘‘Eumaeus’’: Joyce Appropriates
Dickens’, Journal of Modern Literature, 16 (1991), 643–6.
Tigerstedt, E. N., ‘The Poet as Creator: Origins of a Metaphor’, Comparative
Literary Studies, 5:4 (1968), 455–88.
Trench, R. C., English: Past and Present (London: Parker, Son and
Bourn, 1855).
Trodd, Anthea, ‘Collaborating in Open Boats: Dickens, Collins, Franklin
and Bligh’, Victorian Studies, 42:2 (Winter 1999/Spring 2000), 221–6.
‘Unequal Partners: Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins and Victorian Author-
ship’ (review), in Victorian Studies, 45:2 (Winter 2003), 350.
Trotter, David, Circulation (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988).
Cooking with Mud: The Idea of Mess in Nineteenth-Century Art and Fiction
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Turner, Albert Morton, The Making of The Cloister and the Hearth (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1938).
Tyndall, John, Essays on the Floating-Matter of the Air, in Relation to Putrefac-
tion and Infection (London: Longmans, 1881).
Underhill, George F., Literary Epochs: Chapters on Noted Periods of Intellectual
Activity (London: Elliot Stock, 1887).
Valéry, Paul, Leonardo, Poe, Mallarmé, trans. Malcolm Cowley and James R.
Lawler (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972).
Van Roosbroeck, G. L., The Legend of the Decadents (New York: Institut des
Études Françaises, Columbia University, 1927).
W.F.E., ‘The Plaint of the Plagiarist’, Cambridge Review, 8 June 1910, 472.
Wager, Charles, ‘A Disciple of Pater’, Dial, 1 December 1912, 442–4.
Walsh, William S., Handy-Book of Literary Curiosities (London: William W.
Gibbins, 1893).
Walters, J. Cuming, ‘Some Notes on Plagiarism: Charles Reade and Charles
Dickens’, The Dickensian, 7:7 ( July 1911), 173–7.
Warren, Alba. H., English Poetic Theory 1825–1865 (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1950).
234 Bibliography
Watt, Ian, The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1957).
Waugh, Arthur, ‘Reticence in Literature’, Yellow Book, 1 (April 1894),
204–19.
Weinsheimer, Joel, ‘Conjectures on Unoriginal Composition’, Eighteenth
Century: Theory and Interpretation, 22 (1981), 58–73.
Whalley, George, ‘England: Romantic–Romanticism’, in Hans Eichner
(ed.), ‘Romantic’ and its Cognates: The European History of a Word
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972), 157–262.
Whistler, James, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies (London: Heine-
mann, 1890).
White, Harold Ogden, Plagiarism and Imitation during the English Renais-
sance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935).
Whitman, Walt, Leaves of Grass, ed. Harold W. Blodgett and Sculley Bradley
(New York: New York University Press, 1965).
Wibley, Charles, ‘A Plea For Legitimate Plagiarism’, Blackwood’s Edinburgh
Magazine, 168 (October 1900), 595–9.
Wilde, Oscar, Complete Works of Oscar Wilde (London: HarperCollins, 1994).
Intentions (London: Methuen & Co., 1913).
The Letters of Oscar Wilde, ed. Rupert Hart-Davis (New York: Har-
court, 1962).
The First Collected Edition of the Works of Oscar Wilde, ed. Robert Ross,
15 vols. (London: Dawsons, 1969).
The Artist as Critic: Critical Writings of Oscar Wilde, ed. Richard Ellmann
(London: Allen, 1970).
The Picture of Dorian Gray, ed. Isobel Murray (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1974).
Williams, Carolyn, ‘On Pater’s Late Style’, Nineteenth-Century Prose, 24
(1997), 126–47.
Williams, Raymond, The Long Revolution (London: Chatto & Windus, 1961).
Wills, W. H., ‘Review of a Popular Publication in the Searching Style’,
Household Words, 18 (27 July 1850), 426–31.
Wilson, J. A. S., ‘Plagiarism’, Academy, 6 January 1912, 30.
Wilson, John, ‘Moore’s Byron (Part I)’, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, 27
(February 1830), 389–420.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, On Certainty, ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von
Wright, trans. Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Black-
well, 1974).
Woodmansee, Martha, ‘The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal
Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘‘Author’’ ’, Eighteenth-Century Studies,
17 (1984), 425–48.
and Jaszi, Peter (eds.), The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appro-
priation in Law and Literature (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994).
Bibliography 235
Wordsworth, William, The Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth,
ed. Ernest de Selincourt, 2nd edn. rev., 8 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1967–93).
The Prose Works of William Wordsworth, ed. W. J. B. Owen and Jane
Worthington Smyser, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974).
The Prelude, ed. J. C. Maxwell (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981).
Wright, Edward, ‘The Art of Plagiarism’, Contemporary Review, 85 (April
1904), 514–18.
Yeats, W. B., Autobiographies (London: Macmillan, 1961).
Essays and Introductions (New York: Macmillan, 1961).
Young, Edward, Conjectures on Original Composition [1759], ed. E. J. Morley
(London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1918).
Zola, Émile, Correspondance, ed. B. H. Bakker, 2 vols. (Montreal: Montreal
University Press, 1980).
This page intentionally left blank
Index