Text: C. F. Briggs (?), Literary, Broadway Journal (New York), February 15, 1845, vol. 1, no. 7, p. ??

[page 109, column 1:]

THEFTS OF AMERICAN AUTHORS,

“SOMEBODY is a thief,” said the critic of the Mirror a few days since, when commenting on Longfellow's “‘Waif.” The occasion of the remark was a comparison of the following lines by Hood —

Another morn than ours.

We can discover no resemblance between these verses, sufficient to warrant the charge of plagiarism, excepting the measure and the subject, which are certainly not peculiar to Hood; the thoughts are by no means identical. We are very sure that the Mirror would not be guilty of accusing any one of a literary theft without good reason, but we do not perceive the warrant for the accusation in this case. Mr. Aldrich is the last man in the world to be guilty of so disreputable an artifice, and certainly would never have committed a theft of this kind, which would have been certain to meet with instant detection. The truth is, that his lines appeared in the New World in 18-10: and two years afterward, when Hood's lines first appeared, he copied them himself into the same paper, of which he had become an assistant editor. There is certainly a curious coincidence of feeling between the verses of Mr. Aldrich, and those of Hood; but such things are very common in all the poets, from Homer downwards. There is no such thing as originality of sentiment; expression is all that any poet can claim as his own. There is hardly a name in Mr. Griswold's catalogue of American poets, less obnoxious to the charge of plagiarism than that of James Aldrich.

Charges of plagiarism are very frequently made, and often with good reason, against our popular authors, but we doubt whether any man, with a reputation worth having, would knowingly commit himself in this manner. The greatest writers have always been the greatest plagiarists, or at least they have been most frequently accused of this sin. But we believe that no author who can claim anything as his own ever suffered in his reputation from having used the thoughts of other writers. The “Rover” of last week contains a very grave charge against Longfellow of passing off in Graham's Magazine a ballad of Motherwell's as a translation from the German, which, if true, would lead us to distrust everything that came from his pen. But the best way in such cases, is to hunt up the proof, before so serious a charge is made against an author whose reputation belongs not to himself alone, but to his country.

The charge of plagiarism against Mrs. Ellet — which we think should have been called “an unblushing charge of Plagiarism” rather than “a charge of unblushing plagiarism” [column 2:] — is thus noticed in the Southern Chronicle, published at Columbia, S. C., where Mrs. Ellet resides. The numerous friends of Mrs. Ellet needed no explanation, and it seems marvellous, that any person connected with the press should honestly have mistaken the matter.

Still another, and a more injurious wrong, is sometimes done, of which authors have to suffer the inconvenience. A newspaper copies a tale, which is part, or wholly a translation from some foreign language and leaves out the acknowledgment, publishing it as original. For example: a story that appeared a few months since in the Democratic Review, entitled BLIND Jaques’ — a translation from the French — we saw republished in one of the city papers, without the acknowledgment that it bad been in the Review, and with the translator's name paraded in staring capitals as the author of the tale! Thus, for the sake of saving the printer a couple of minute's work, a positive wrong is done, and an innocent person subjected to the charge of plagiarism, which is, perhaps, re-echoed by the very paper whose culpable neglect occasioned it! We sincerely hope, for the sake of honor, and truth, and justice, if not of courtesy, that such doings may not be repeated. A word to the wise, we trust, will be sufficient.”