| Literary
Plagiarists, Pasticheurs, Collaborators, and Sympathizers
Among
the literati, those men and women who have contributed
to our cherished canons of belles-lettres, pasticheurs
and plagiarists exist alongside of innovators and originators.
Authors have always borrowed themes, plots and other elements
of literature from their predecessors. But when such borrowing
overshadows an author's own contribution to a work and an
author engages in mere parroting of a predecessor or fellow
author, plagiary results. The author has "kidnapped"
the servants (words) of another author's imagination, employing
these servants as if they were his own.
Accomplices in these plagiaristic kidnappings are
also accomplices in the (attempted) murder of the Author,
who returns to spectrally "haunt" (S. Burke) the
plagiarist and his accomplices, threatening to return at any
time to expose the plagiarist as a fraud. The death
of the plagiarist results from such exposure,
with the plagiarist ceasing to exist
as the acknowledged author of a usurped text. The Return
of the Author is underway . . . from the very moment
that a plagiarist decides to plagiarize an author and banish
that author's name from existence as the rightfully acknowledged
creator of a work.
Plagiarism is an offense against authorship and originality,
and we are criminal accomplices in such offenses if we attempt
to justify a plagiarist or ameliorate the consequences resulting
from such odious behavior. The Nazis had their collaborators
and sympathizers during WWII even as they plundered the possessions
of the Jews, and so too do plagiarists have their collaborators
and sympathizers today in the intellectual hierarchies and
regimes of academia as the murder
of the Author is basically condoned and legitimized
by critics who parrot the "absurd" notion (T. Mallon)
that the Author has somewhere along the line ceased to exist.
"Inter-Textuality"
and Mimesis
Some
critics have attempted to justify literary plunder, explaining
that because borrowing, intertextuality, and mimesis
have always been part of the rhetorical tradition, a plagiarist
must be excused and allowed the same degree of latitude as
other borrowers, intertextualists, and mimics. In some respects,
this may be true. Yet such words might also seem to be euphemisms,
particularly when one looks at the history of borrowing.
Shaw argued that the concept of plagiarism has always "existed
alongside of imitation so that there have always been acceptable
and unacceptable modes of using the work of one's predecessors.
What has not changed through time is the ethic of borrowing.
Throughout history the act of using the work of another with
an intent to deceive has been branded as plagiarism"
(1982: "Plagiary" American Scholar, 51).
Despite this article's having been written in 1982, "Plagiary"
is one of the most insightful and well-written articles on
the subject with important lessons to be learned even in an
era marked by widespread plagiarism facilitated by the digital,
autonomous discourse available on the Internet.
The
Postmodern Influence and the "Death of the Author"
Literary
studies and critical theory in academia have been heavily-influened
in recent decades by what has been called "Death of the
Author ideology" (See Sean Burke's excellent response
to such ideology in his book The Death and Return of the
Author). The *Death* of the Author dates back
to 1968, arising out of the literary theory of the 1960s,
"theory . . . [being] the impenetrable postmodernist
stuff that has given many a canon-loving student the heebie-jeebies
since the French critic Roland Barthes declared authorship
dead amid the intellectual and political tumult of 1968. And
since that moment, wave upon critical wave has swept through
literature departments: structuralism, poststructuralism,
deconstruction, Marxism, psychoanalysis, New Historicism,
feminism, postcolonialism, cultural studies" (Howard,
J. "The Fragmentation of Literary Theory").
Aspects of
postmodern culture and general literary theory have contributed
a great deal to a general denial that language and meaning
are a stable source on which to place belief and judgment.
A denial that such a construct as an Author even
exists, has led to a (pre-mature) celebration of the Author's
death, and the creation of a (supposedly) author-less discourse
system which hence denies true authors a just compensation
for original and creative effort, and furthermore, denies
such authors justice when their works and creations are stolen
and used without acknowledgment.
And the
postmodern climate seems to have been one marked by fear--a
fear of being branded as too critical, too judgmental, too
un-sophisticated in accusing a writer of plagiarism (take
as an example the Martin Luther King, Jr. case, or as Shaw
points out, the case of Samual Taylor Coleridge). Academics,
the literati included, have tended to circumlocute
around the issue, offering verbose excuses, and criticizing
the discoverers of plagiarism. Shaw's insightful conclusion
seems rather apropos for today: "literary critics and
scholars must bear the responsibility to affirm that there
is indeed such a thing as plagiarism and that they are capable
of identifying it if necessary". Whether such plagiarism
is discovered in the literature produced by a civil rights
icon such as Martin
Luther King, Jr. or a "damaged archangel" (Norman
Fruman) such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, or a poet such as
T.S. Eliot, we must be frank in our critical
assessment.
Re-Shuffling the Linguistic Symbols Comprising Human
Communication
Countless authors have existed--and continue to exist--and
exert their influence through the texts which they penned
in their lifetimes and which continue to convey meaning--the
very meaning intended by these authors so long as
a reader is able to relate to a theme, to the historical context,
and to the reality behind the message which an author chose
to encode within some literary form. Perhaps a sonnet, or
perhaps a play. Maybe a short story or a pamphlet. Or possibly
a novel, a free-verse poem, or a work of science fiction.
The fact that a (post) modern scholar is able to "de-construct"
a work of literature and read into that text some alternative
"meaning" does not negate the original meaning which
the original author might have intended to convey. As language
users, we are gifted with the ability to re-arrange the symbolic
units of language with which we are able to communicate. Yet
such a "re-shuffling" of those symbols toward some
"new" critical, literary interpretation does not
mean that some other reader cannot take those same symbols
and re-shuffle them back into the very arrangement which an
author intended.
In other words, "deconstruction" of a text is possible
only because we have the wonderful capacity within us for
re-arranging the linguistic symbols comprising human communication.
Moreover, as modern linguistic research has demonstrated,
this communication is quite unbounded in scope, unlimited,
with an infinite possibility for different utterances and
potentially new, specific meanings which an author might choose
to convey through language. In deconstructing a literary text,
a person is essentially "re-writing" that text through
such creative and imaginative re-arrangements of meaningful
symbols. And this verifies, in effect, through such "re-writing",
that authorship remains a valid construct, part of "our
human destiny and its narratives" (Sean Burke). Mere
readers don't re-write texts-- Authors do
. . . from William Shakespeare the master reviser and re-shuffler
of symbolic, universal themes . . . to short story writers
of today essaying to capture some aspect of their human existence
and (re)convey it to someone else in a meaningful form.
...
...
Profiles
in Plagiarism: Literature
________________________________________________________________________________
|
| Samuel
Taylor Coleridge
|
|
| Profile: |
|
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
|
| Allegations: |
|
| Results: |
|
| Known
for: |
Scienc
|
| Overview: |
[sorry,
still working on this one--check back later]
References
End
Profile
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| T.S.
Eliot
|
|
| Profile: |
LIT-1913-TSE |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
British-American
Poet, Playwright, Critic
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarism
of content/language/ideas for "The Waste Land"
from a less privileged American poet by the name of
Madison Cawein
|
| Results: |
Derivation
from Cawein hardly noticed by critics in the many
extensive studies which have been done on the life
and works of T.S. Eliot; "The Waste Land"
was received as a great cultural and literary event
between WWI and WWII
|
| Known
for: |
Domination
of the poetic scene between the world wars as an influential
literary critic; Recipient of a Nobel Prize for Literature,
the British Order of Merit, and the American Medal of
Freedom
|
| Overview: |
T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland", received by
the literati as a cultural and literary event,
epitomises the artistic state of things between WWI
and WWII. This bizarre work is a compilation of fragments,
some of them acknowledged, the most significant of them
not. In fact, the very source of Eliot's "Wasteland"
seems to have been deliberately misrepresented and concealed
by Eliot.
That Eliot borrowed from others was really no suprise
at all. In an article in The Economist entitled
"What's wrong with copying?" T.S. Eliot and
Ezra Pound are described as having "freighted their
verse with learned liftings from across the planet .
. . [calling] it 'collage'." It is also noted that
Eliot sometimes gave "sources but was laughed at
for pretentiousness" while "Pound seldom bothered
to mention whose fusty trunk he was happily ransacking."
But what is surprising is that such an important literary
critic seemed to purposefully obscure some of the most
important sources of inspiration, as if to elevate himself
at the expense of less privileged author-poets such
as Madison Cawein.
Having graduated from Harvard University, Eliot went
on to continue his studies at the Sorbonne, the University
of Marburg, and Merton College, Oxford. This privileged
education had laid the groundwork for Eliot's subsequent
rise to prominence as a poet, critic, and playwright
between the world wars.
Robert Ian Scott (1995) is one of the few voices to
have spoken up in defense of an author from quite a
different set of circumstances than the background of
Eliot. Madison Cawein "had no university education,
much less at Harvard, the Sorbonne, Oxford, no inherited
income, no Pound as advocate and editor. Instead, Cawein
saved his pay as an assistant cashier in a Cincinnati
pool hall for six years so he could go home to Louisville
and write poems, 1,500 of them, filling thirty-six books."
Scott claims in "The Waste Land Eliot
Didn't Write" that Eliot's version of "The
Wasteland" was plagiarized from the unknown poet
Madison Cawein, suggesting that Eliot read Cawein's
"Waste Land" in the January 1913 issue of
Poetry, the Chicago publication to which Ezra
Pound had submited Eliot's "The Love Song of J.
Alfred Prufrock". Scott maintains that Cawein's
now little known work "seems to have provided the
emotional geography on which Eliot's poem, its effect
and much of his fame are based."
Commenting on the dearth of references to this first
"Waste Land" by Cawein (only 2 references
to Cawein as of 1995 out of thousands of texts on Eliot),
Scott observes that Cawein seems a ghost
almost no one wants to notice." [emphasis added].
This ghost appears "under
the brown fog of a winter dawn", and also in other
metaphors first employed not by T.S. Eliot, but by Madison
Cawein as he responded to sensory perceptions, perhaps
his impressions of "a vacant lot on one of his
walks around Lousville, Kentucky, almost the only recreation
he could afford."
The ghost no one wants to notice is another
Author, about to emerge from the brown
fog of textual murkiness to claim what belongs
to him. The Plagiarist, a soul sick with
sin, curst with an old despair; skeleton
gaunt, like a dead weed, gray and wan . . . part of
the grim death there . . .
References
End
Profile LIT-1913-TSE
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Melanie
Grobler
|
|
| Profile: |
LIT-2005-MG |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
|
| Allegations: |
Inter-lingual
plagiarism of Canadian poet Anne Michaels' poem "There
is No City That Does Not Dream"
|
| Results: |
Relinquished
the Eugýne Marais literature prize which she
had won based on the plagiarized poem entitled "Stad"
|
| Known
for: |
Creative
works of poetry
|
| Overview: |
Surprise, surprize--give
back that prize! The prizewinner thought no one would
notice the inter-lingual, inter-continental intertextuality
in her prize-winning masterpiece.
Thanks to a
diligent student, this intertextual sleight-of-pen was
stricken from the 100 year canon of Eugýne Marais
prize-winning works.
The Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns was
caught off guard when Stellenbosch University student
Loftus Marais brought to the attention of the literati
the fact that the Eugýne Marais literature prize-winner
had indulged in a bit of creative inter-lingual language
lifting.
Intertextuality, that's all it was. Certainly nothing
"transgressive" about it (Pennycook et al).
As Karen Breytenback reported, Loftus Marais publicized
his findings at www.litnet.co.za
, revealing
that the South African poet Melanie Grobler had tranlated
Canadian poet Anne Michaels' "There is No City
That Does Not Dream", submitting this translation
as her own work under the title of "Stad"
("Prize-winning
poet accused of plagiarism").
As a result of this revelation, Grobler was forced to
relinquish the Eugýne Marais literature prize,
but she continued to maintain that she was innocent
of plagiary.
What is an Author? What Author? I don't see any
Author. The coast is clear. I'll just translate this
poem from one language to another . . . [look to the
left, look to the right, then plagiarize, plagiarize,
plagiarize for the Eugýne Marais prize.
Surprise--someone's knocking at your door. The Author
has returned to re-claim what rightfully belongs to
her!].
References
End
Profile LIT-2005-MG
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Jack
London
|
|
| Profile: |
LIT-1916-JL |
| Name:
|
|
War
on
Plagiarism
Threat Level: |
|
| Occupation: |
|
| Allegations: |
Considerable
amounts of plagiarism and derivation in works such
as "Love of Life", "The Call of the
Wild", "Before Adam", "The Iron
Heel"
|
| Results: |
Became one
of the best-paid writers of his time
|
| Known
for: |
Stories depicting
primeval instinct, depicting Man against Nature--"The
Call of the Wild"; "White Fang"
|
| Overview: |
The
"boy without a boyhood", as Jack London sometimes
liked to call himself, struggled his entire life with
questions about his own identity. He had taken the surname
London from his stepfather, and later in life,
impersonators of London employed his name to obtain
credit from banks, borrow books from libraries, and
to even make love to women who didn't realize they weren't
in the embrace of the great writer but merely one of
his doubles.
He ought to have known after having his identity appropriated
what it meant to have part of his essence siphoned away.
And yet he seemed to get a kick out of being able to
be present in two places at once. Perhaps he reveled
in having a double because it added to the aura he held
as somewhat of a social anti-conventionalist. He had
been in his short lifetime an "oyster pirate",
a North Pacific sealer, a vagrant bum, a divorcee (in
an era when divorce wasn't really an option), and then
a writer with socialist inclinations making big bucks
in a for-profit capitalist system.
London was frequently accused of plagiarism, some of
the most notable instances being derivation of The
Call of the Wild from Egerton R. Young's My
dogs in the Northland. London admitted that Young's
word had been a source of derivation, and it is also
known that London used other sources as well in his
literary creations-compilations.
For example, he is known to have purchased story plots
from Sinclair Lewis, and he is also known to have formulated
stories after reading newspaper articles--a practice
which other authors have also used, and a practice which
resulted in some very similar stories being written
since they were based on the same articles. Newspaper
criticism of London's "plagiarism" placed
his story "Moon-Face" alongside of Frank Norris's
"The Passing of Cock-eye Blacklock", and London's
explanation was that they both had relied upon the same
newspaper source for inspiration/derivation.
Loren Glass argued that "London's problems with
both plagiarism and imposture [doubles who pretended
to be London] indicate a larger crisis of authorial
identity and literary value during this period, a crisis
that would later be contained by the rise of modernism."
Glass also analyzes the contexts of "'sensational'
journalism" within which London's plagiarism featured
so prominently--namely, a New York World article
on the "Singular Similarity of a Story Written
by Jack London and One Printed Four Years Before a New
Literary Puzzle." London's response, as Glass observes,
was to blunt the charges of plagiarism by suggesting
that newspapers were unreliable as an authoritative
source due to their "journalistic quest for sensation."
Thus, as Glass continues, when stories are made up in
the newspaper, "already altered or falsified in
some way", what can possibly be wrong with an author
making re-use of these textual concoctions of "public
fact[s]"in order to make his own living? The "deadly
parallel" as London referred to the placement of
his work alongside his source of derivation/inspiration,
is still quite a common aspect of plagiarism allegations
today. And it frequently seems to become a vicious circle
of writers subsisting on sources of derivation which
subsequently results in charges of plagiarism, which
then in turn results in further sensationalized journalistic
cannibalism and "frenzy feeding".
This pattern seems to be another of those distinctive
features which characterizes the cycle of plagiarism
allegations.
1. A writer/composer
of texts (oral/aural/written) finds a useful source
upon which to base a "new" text.
2. The plagiarism
or derivation is discovered.
3. The "new"
text is placed in "deadly parallel" with the
source text(s) in a newspaper column, in a "torpedo
attack" video, or other form.
4. Journalistic
sensationalism kicks in as other writers/composers/reporters
derive their stories from stories about the new plagiarism
story.
5. New stories
are generated about the plagiarism and derivation which
keeps the cycle of plagiarism allegations going a bit
longer until the next big textual sensation.
London's specific
style of plagiarism was to first dis-associate the "raw
material" of another author's work from "material
specificity in the social world". He then "stamp[ed]
it with his own signature style . . . the reduction
of the individual human to brute matter" (L. Glass).
One gets the sense that the philosophy behind London's
textual appropriations has much in common with the attitudes
toward nature, man, and survival which come out in works
such as The Call of the Wild. The strong survive--those
who are able to appropriate "raw materials"
from others successfully and "stamp" their
signature upon those materials, have a strong likelihood
of making it in the dog-eat-dog world that
sometimes seems to characterize the textual enterprise.
Figuratively, it is a scene of textual carnage, a rather
gory scene. The "big dogs" who are able to
grab and hold onto the biggest chunks of text are the
ones who survive. The weak are devoured. The pack closes
in, sensing weakness, eager for another kill. Cunning
textual predators waiting for the opportune moment to
engorge themselves on the livelihood and substance of
another victim . . . at the mercy of the textually strong
in Jack London's world.
References
End
Profile LIT-1916-JL
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| William
Shakespeare
|
|
| Profile: |
LIT-1592-WS |
| Name:
|
|
| War
on Plagiarism Threat Level: |
 
Blue: Guarded Risk
|
| Occupation: |
Author, Actor
and Playwright
|
| Allegations: |
Plagiarizing
the work of other playwrights as an "upstart
crow, beautified with our feathers", a "Poet-Ape",
and a "thief"
|
| Results: |
Ongoing debate,
controversy, and research within different schools
of Shakespearian thought--Stratfordian, Baconian,
Oxfordian, and Marlovian
|
| Known
for: |
Acknowledged
as the most famous poet and writer of all time, a master
of the English language whose works have had an incalculable
influence in the English-speaking world and beyond
|
| Overview: |
Was
the great London bard himself a plagiarist? There is
no doubt that William Shakespeare relied on other works
for inspiration as he developed a vast repertoire of
dramatic masterpieces replete with English language
expressions which continue to influence our language
use even today.
To be, or not to be a Stratfordian, a Baconian,
an Oxfordian, a Marlovian? That is the question Shakespearean
critics must ask of themselves in determining to what
extent the bard's sources of inspiration were re-written
and revised for performance before London audiences
in Shakespeare's time.
Several obscure
lines penned by a contemporary author have been the
source of much scholarly speculation as to whether these
lines were a reference to Shakespearean plagiary:
Yes
trust them not: for there is an Upstart Crow, beautified
with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt
in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to
bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you.
These words,
penned in 1592 by Robert Greene in A Groatsworth
of Wit, might also have been authored by one Thomas
Nashe, although the latter outright denied any authorial
connection to these lines. Whoever the author, the reference
has been presumed to be an accusation against Shakespeare,
a mere "crow" who plagiaristically sought
to build up his own reputation by stealing the "feathers"
[texts] of other authors and playwrights.
Ben Jonson,
another contemporary, has also been cited as making
reference to Shakespeare as a "Poet-Ape" and
a thief who "robb'd" and pilfered the language,
the plots, and other elements in his plays from different
sources, many of which remain obscure to this day. Like
Greene's reference, Jonson's is also in dispute since
neither man specifically indicated that Shakespeare
was the intended target of the "Poet-Ape"
or "Upstart Crow" gibe.
Greene's accusation stuck with the bard for more than
a century as Sidney Thomas noted in "The Meaning
of Greene's Attack on Shakespeare." As Thomas observed,
"The interpretation of Greene's words has become
one of the cornerstones of present-day Shakespearean
biography."
The issue of whether the borrowed plumage reference
alluded to borrowed language would seem to be settled
by other contemporary Elizabethan references to stolen
words as "feathers", a sort of linguistic
adornment susceptible to being plucked if an author
were not careful enough with his linguistic possessions.
Thomas concludes that these other contemporary references
and their use of "the metaphor of borrowed plumage
in connection with . . . literary plagiarism" warrants
caution in too readily dismissing the plagiaristic connotations
present in Greene's pamphleteered witticisms.
In "A Supposed Contemporary Allusion to Shakespeare
as a Plagiarist", Warren B. Austin re-visits Greene's
witticism as possibly "not a charge of plagiarism,
but rather one of presumption against Shakespeare the
actor for having dared to turn dramatist himself and
match his blank verse with that of Greene and his fellow
scholar-playwrights."
Austin also contextualizes Greene's plumage reference
in an attempt to demonstrate that Shakespeare was not
at all the person in Greene's mind being referred to
as an "upstart crow". Instead, Austin proposes
that the reference was a response to the "besmirching"
of his reputation by Gabriel Harvey, and that Greene
was merely echoing a phrase used by Harvey which contained
a reference to "borrowed & filched plumes".
According to this theory, Greene was responding to this
"besmirching" of his literary reputation by
Harvey instead of insinuating that Shakespeare was a
plagiarist.
Other Shakespearean scholars have focused on comparing
specific works of Shakespeare with extant texts which
are either the sources used by the bard in composing
his plays, or pirated versions of the bard's
own work re-hashed from memory by lesser playwrights
after attending one of Shakespeare's performances at
the Globe Theatre.
Along these lines, Leo Kirschbaum analyzed "The
Authorship of 1 Henry VI", citing expert opinion
which holds "that no one but Shakespeare could
have plotted so grandly, or written such intricately
designed but dramatically effective individual scenes".
The disintegrators, as Kirschbaum call them--those
critics who maintain that Shakespeare's works exhibit
signs of composite authorship--"have not read the
play [1 Henry VI] carefully enough" to appreciate
Kirschbaum's thesis--"the plays in the 1623 folio
are by Shakespeare alone and are, by and large, as they
left Shakespeare's pen once and for all."
Also along the lines of examining specific works by
Shakespeare, G.I. Duthie analyzes "The Taming of
a Shrew and The Taming of The Shrew" as "an
unsettled problem" of authorship. As Duthie outlines
at the beginning of this analysis, there are three hypotheses
generally offered to explain this unsettled issue of
authorship:
(i) that
A Shrew is one of the sources of The
Shrew
(ii) that A Shrew is founded upon The
Shrew, and
(iii) that A Shrew and The Shrew
are independently based upon a common source, a lost
Shrew play.
In regard to
the third hypothesis, a Danish folk-tale is cited as
such a common source, with an English version of this
tale possibly having circulated in Elizabethan times.
After an extensive textual analysis and comparison,
Duthie concludes that Shakespeare's The Shrew
is "re-working" of a "lost play"
upon which the memorially re-constructed A Shrew
was also based.
A more recent assessment from a lawyer's perspective
first alerts the bard, "William Shakespeare, you
stand accused of being a crow, an ape and a thief"
and then asks, "How do you plead?" before
launching into a hypothetical scenario with both Shakespeare
and Greene presenting their respective cases, Greene
pressing his claim of plagiarism against the bard, and
Shakespeare defending himself in a counter-claim of
libel against Greene (Anthony Julius 1998).
Julius highlights
paradoxical notions such as literary creativity being
hindered rather than helped by narrow definitions of
copyright law, pointing out Ralph Waldo Emerson's suggestion
that "Great men . . . are more distinguished by
range and extent than by originality. No great man is
original. The greatest genius is the most indebted man."
Had William Shakespeare been restricted in his appropriation
of histories, folktales, plots, and so on, as he revised,
adapted, and improvised these for the stage, he might
have retired to Stratford without bequeathing to the
world those 38+ plays which are generally accepted in
the Shakespeare canon.
Therein is another paradox, that of a text's being "both
original and derivative: original because derivative,
even" (Julius). Was Shakespeare original? Most
certainly. Were his works derivative? Very much so,
but with extensive adaptation and revision from their
original form for the Elizabethan stage.
The alleged contemporary references to Shakespeare as
a plagiarist remain speculative and open to critical
interpretation as do the questions revolving around
the issues of Shakespearean derivation and originality.
The ocular
proof in the form of written records about the bard
suggests that he was an author worthy of the recognition
which accrued to his name both during his lifetime and
thereafter, his friends undertaking to publish his work
"without ambition either of selfe-profit or fame:
onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend &
Fellow alive as was our Shakespeare."
References
End Profile LIT-1592-WS
|
...
...
________________________________________________________________________________ |
| 
Found something useful at this site? Want to see the public naming/databasing of plagiarists continue? Please consider dropping a bit of spare change in the hat via secure PayPal in support of the Famous Plagiarists Research Project (web hosting, database management, ongoing research).
|
Maya
Angelou
Samuel Taylor Coleridge: “Damaged Archangel”
Charles Dickens
Daniel Defoe
T.S. Eliot
F. Scott Fitzgerald
William Golding
Thomas Hardy
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Washington Irving
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Christopher Marlowe
John Milton
Edgar Allen Poe
Ezra Pound
Aleksandr Pushkin
Sir Walter Scott
William Shakespeare
Percy Bysshe Shelley: A Shattered Visage
Edmund Spenser
Jonathan Swift
back
to top
Disclaimer:
All of the famous plagiarists featured in this webspace remain
“alleged plagiarists”, the documented allegations
having been made by others in the professional literature
and/or the popular media. Further details relating to these
allegations will be forthcoming in the book edition of Famous
Plagiarists. Although Dr. Lesko is a professor at Saginaw Valley State University, the Famous Plagiarists Research Project represents the individual research of John P. Lesko, plagiarologist, and SVSU accepts no responsibility for the content of these pages. Comments or questions should be directed to
|
