THE ETHICS OF QUOTATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22612, 2 July 1935, Page 5

THE ETHICS OF QUOTATION

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —It would appear that “ Plain Bill" has, through constant reiteration, created a thought child in his own brain and hopes that constant repetition will produce a similar result in the brains of your readers. If he imagines that he has convinced anyone but nimself that the sole reason for his attacks on Dr M'Millan is a desire for a higher standard of literary ethics in quotation he must be possessed of a very small amount of prespicuity indeed, unless he credits your readers with possessing none at all. Unless the popular opinion of Dr M'Millan is wide of the mark, that gentleman is quite capable of appreciating the value or otherwise of “Plain Bill’s” homily (if that term is applicable) without its being repeated ad nauseum, but I have not met anyone who believes that the excuse given has even the remotest connection with the reason, which is obviously personal and political, though just in what proportion these two influences operate is neither apparent or material. 1 If Dr M'Millan had devoted his undoubted ability and influence to a cause other than Labour (and the choice was and still is open) would “Plain Bill” ask us to believe that his pettifogging charge of' misquotation would then have been

brought? If so, it will be my turn to tell one. . After 30 years’ association with political campaigning in connection with every licensing and political issue except Labour I have no hesitation in affirming that if “ plain Bill’s ” pretended standard of suitability were applied universally (instead of against Labour exclusively), a very large proportion of those elected to public positions would necessarily have been rejected.. Fortunately these matters are decided by common sense and not by persona] or political bias. Misquotation and plagiarism are the regular stock-in-trade of many politicians, and the writer once heard one wind up a vigorous denunciation of his opponents with the dramatic declaration; “ Until this tongue is silenced in death I will continue to fight for the rights of man.” This bit of plagiarism, which perhaps ‘ Plain Bill will recognise, was accepted as original, and wag greeted with wild enthusiasm, although the hearers were not of that class contemptuously referred to by "Hitler” as “Henry Dubbs ’’—a term used by superior persons to indicate their opponents.—l am, etc., Vox et Praeterea Nihil. 18 London street. TO THE EDITOR Sir, —“ For fools rush in where angels fear to tread ” was said by Pope. I assure “ Cock-a-Doodle Doo ” I am neither “ careless ” nor “ forgetful.” Neither am I discourteous, though his question implies an absurdity. I do not know who wrote the lines: It isn’t the hen that cackles the loudest Lays the biggest egg. When I used them I said they were “ the. words of what I believe to be a classical comic ditty.” In a vain endeavour to range me with Dr M'Millan. regarding the misuse of quotations he infers that I passed them off as my own. Of that clumsy subterfuge I have said; “No person outside an institution where care and treatment are necessary could reasonably believe that I desired to suggest that those two lines were mine.” I say that agaip. And please allow me to say this again: “ I now ask the propagandists for Dr M'Millan to tell your readers where Dr M'Millan got the sentences which he attributed to Burke. That will give them an excuse for addressing you further.” — I am, etc., ■ Plain Bill. Dunedin, July 1. TO THE EDITOR Sir, —In this morning’s paper, over the signature “ Tigged You Last ” a correspondent misquotes Pope’s lines: — Words are like leaves, and where they most abound Much fruit of sense beneath Is rarely found. The word “much” is misquoted as “ most,” and the word “ rarely ” as “.seldom,” completely reversing the meaning of the quotation. Now the question is, Is the misquotation deliberate to suit the purpose of the writer, or. is it an accidental error? If we read it without charity, as “ Plain Bill ” did Dr M‘Millan’s quotation from Burke, we will say that it is deliberate. Otherwise, we will • say it is accidental. Of course, if we are interested in belittling the writer of the misquotation we can hardly claim to .be an unbiassed judge. Things seem large which we through mist Dullness Is ever apt to magnify. “ Plain Bill can hardly be considered dull, nor do I think that your readers are either blind or dull. —I am, etc., July 1. THE BUITERMAN.