Rensselaer Journal, Volume 11, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 August 1901 — Not a Plagiarist. [ARTICLE]

Not a Plagiarist.

Historian Maclay Indignantly denies the charge that any part of his mortal work was stolen from the Edinburgh Review. “The idea that I have committed any act of plagiarism in my history," he exclaims, “is simply preposterous." Of course it is. Compare these two passages and the absurdity of the notion that one can have been stolen from the other becomes manifest: ' RBWIEW. MACLAY'S. Taking Mr. James Taking James at -et Els word we turn his word, we turn ,to Vol. IL, pp. 854-5, to Volume IL, pages and there we find 854, 355, and find ths French pri- him referring to the vateer Bordelais, French privateer "an extraordinary Bordelais as an exfine ship" of 24 guns, traordlnarily fine striking her colors ship of 24 guns to a British frigate striking her colors of 48 guns, “with- to a British 4«-gun out. as it appears, frigate, “without, making any resist- as it appears, mak•nce" certainly ing any resistance,” without provoking certainly without any comment from provoking any comMr. James. ment from James. The differences are obvious. The Edinburgh Review spoke of “Mr." James. Maclay leaves out the Mr. The Edinburgh Review had no comma after “word.” Mr. Maclay puts one in. The Edinburgh Review referred to "Vol, II." Mr. Maclay speaks of “Volume II." The Edinburgh Review abbreviated “pages" to “pp.” Mr. Maclays spells out the word in full. The Edinburgh Review put in the figures "854-5." Mr. Maclay makes them “354, 855." The clause about the French privateer Bordelais has several new words in the Maclay version. Finally Mr. Maclay ends as he began by leaving out the “Mr.” from befrore the name of James. This critical comparison makes it evident that Mr. Maclay owes nothing to anybody. The construction of bls history is as origins) as its tacts. —New York Journal