Among the most singular characters in literature may be ranked those who
do not blush to profess publicly its most dishonourable practices. The
first vender of printed sermons imitating manuscript, was, I think, Dr.
Trusler. He to whom the following anecdotes relate had superior
ingenuity. Like the famous orator, Henley, he formed a school of his
own. The present lecturer openly taught not to _imitate_ the best
authors, but to _steal_ from them!
Richesource, a miserable declaimer, called himself "Moderator of the
Academy of Philosophical Orators." He taught how a person destitute of
literary talents might become eminent for literature; and published the
principles of his art under the title of "The Mask of Orators; or the
manner of disguising all kinds of composition; briefs, sermons,
panegyrics, funeral orations, dedications, speeches, letters, passages,"
&c. I will give a notion of the work:--
The author very truly observes, that all who apply themselves to polite
literature do not always find from their own funds a sufficient supply
to insure success. For such he labours; and teaches to gather, in the
gardens of others, those fruits of which their own sterile grounds are
destitute; but so artfully to gather, that the public shall not perceive
their depredations. He dignifies this fine art by the title of
PLAGIANISM, and thus explains it:--
"The Plagianism of orators is the art, or an ingenious and easy mode,
which some adroitly employ, to change, or disguise, all sorts of
speeches of their own composition, or that of other authors, for their
pleasure or their utility; in such a manner that it becomes impossible,
even for the author himself to recognise his own work, his own genius,
and his own style, so skilfully shall the whole be disguised."
Our professor proceeds to reveal the manner of managing the whole
economy of the piece which is to be copied or disguised; and which
consists in giving a new order to the parts, changing the phrases, the
words, &c. An orator, for instance, having said that a plenipotentiary
should possess three qualities,--_probity_, _capacity_, and _courage_;
the plagiarist, on the contrary, may employ, _courage_, _capacity_, and
_probity_. This is only for a general rule, for it is too simple to
practise frequently. To render the part perfect we must make it more
complex, by changing the whole of the expressions. The plagiarist in
place of _courage_, will put _force_, _constancy_, or _vigour_. For
_probity_ he may say _religion_, _virtue_, or _sincerity_. Instead of
_capacity_, he may substitute _erudition_, _ability_, or _science_. Or
he may disguise the whole by saying, that the _plenipotentiary should be
firm, virtuous_, and _able_.
The rest of this uncommon work is composed of passages extracted from
celebrated writers, which are turned into the new manner of the
plagiarist; their beauties, however, are never improved by their dress.
Several celebrated writers when young, particularly the famous Flechier,
who addressed verses to him, frequented the lectures of this professor!
Richesource became so zealous in this course of literature, that he
published a volume, entitled, "The Art of Writing and Speaking; or, a
Method of composing all sorts of Letters, and holding a polite
Conversation." He concludes his preface by advertising his readers, that
authors who may be in want of essays, sermons, letters of all kinds,
written pleadings and verses, may be accommodated on application to him.
Our professor was extremely fond of copious title-pages, which I suppose
to be very attractive to certain readers; for it is a custom which the
Richesources of the day fail not to employ. Are there persons who value
_books_ by the length of their titles, as formerly the ability of a
physician was judged by the dimensions of his wig?
To this article may be added an account of another singular school,
where the professor taught _obscurity_ in literary composition!
I do not believe that those who are unintelligible are very
intelligent. Quintilian has justly observed, that the obscurity of a
writer is generally in proportion to his incapacity. However, as there
is hardly a defect which does not find partisans, the same author
informs us of a rhetorician, who was so great an admirer of obscurity,
that he always exhorted his scholars to preserve it; and made them
correct, as blemishes, those passages of their works which appeared to
him too intelligible. Quintilian adds, that the greatest panegyric they
could give to a composition in that school was to declare, "I understand
nothing of this piece." Lycophron possessed this taste, and he protested
that he would hang himself if he found a person who should understand
his poem, called the "Prophecy of Cassandra." He succeeded so well, that
this piece has been the stumbling-block of all the grammarians,
scholiasts, and commentators; and remains inexplicable to the present
day. Such works Charpentier admirably compares to those subterraneous
places, where the air is so thick and suffocating, that it extinguishes
all torches. A most sophistical dilemma, on the subject of _obscurity_,
was made by Thomas Anglus, or White, an English Catholic priest, the
friend of Sir Kenelm Digby. This learned man frequently wandered in the
mazes of metaphysical subtilties; and became perfectly unintelligible to
his readers. When accused of this obscurity, he replied, "Either the
learned understand me, or they do not. If they understand me, and find
me in an error, it is easy for them to refute me; if they do not
understand me, it is very unreasonable for them to exclaim against my
doctrines."
This is saying all that the wit of man can suggest in favour of
_obscurity_! Many, however, will agree with an observation made by
Gravina on the over-refinement of modern composition, that "we do not
think we have attained genius, till others must possess as much
themselves to understand us." Fontenelle, in France, followed by
Marivaux, Thomas, and others, first introduced that subtilised manner of
writing, which tastes more natural and simple reject; one source of such
bitter complaints of obscurity.