Silva Rerum | 17.12.2016 Nowadays, using in one’s own work fragments of a text written by someone else and not referring to the source of such passages is considered unquestionably condemnable. Some centuries ago, however, this was not seen as a problem. The same paragraph or even a longer passus could be found in works by different authors, in the same or a slightly modified form, and it did not cause any stir.
Officially, this issue was resolved in England only in 1710 based on the decree of Queen Anna, which granted protection of authors’ rights to their works – printed or still in manuscript. This did not mean, however, that the matter of illegal publishing or use of someone else’s works was immediately resolved, but it definitely resulted in a different approach to the issue of free use of other people’s intellectual property (although back then, this term was not yet known). The “side effect” was, therefore, that authors – at least those who wished to preserve their good reputation – were less willing to use works by others, which before was a common practice, taking place at an enormous scale.
What does it all have to do with John III or his wife? It turns out, quite a lot, if we consider that authors of several accounts about the king himself and the Commonwealth under his rule most certainly plagiarized one another, of course without admitting to it. Zest to the whole story adds the fact that the same can be said also about two works written in England shortly before introduction of the new rules protecting authors against illegal use of their works. Meant are here “The History of Poland” by Bernard Connor and a report by Robert South entitled „An Account of his [South] Travels into Poland with the Earl of Rochester in the year 1674”. And it is quite tricky to determine who copied whom.
Let us start from the fact that Connor’s book, one of the most well-known foreign accounts about the Commonwealth in the 17th century, is basically – according to present standards – a bold plagiarism, as it consists to a large extent of passages of works by other authors. This text has long been the object of scientific research, concerning Polish and British relationships in the modern era, although for a long time it was not available for a broader circle of readers. Only recently, there has been a critical publication of it in the Polish language, thanks to which readers can familiarize themselves not only with the text of the treaty itself, but also with its origins, the author and sources he used when working on his book. Those included, among others, publications by Szymon Starowolski, Marcin Kromer, Krzysztof Hartknoch, Guillaume de Beauplan and Gaspar de Tende (de Hauteville).
Among authors of works which Connor used (or which he frequently copied, being more or less creative), missing is, however, the name of Robert South, an Anglican clergyman, who came to the Commonwealth in 1676, in the suite of ambassador Lawrence Hyde, the later Earl of Rochester. For someone who reads his description of the Commonwealth and is also familiar with the text by Connor, it almost immediately becomes obvious that the two works are surprisingly similar. Let us conduct a short experiment and study a passage in which Connor describes Maria Casimire, first in the Polish translation, and then in original:
Królowa ma obecnie około 54 lat, choć wygląda na mniej niż 40. Nosi francuskie suknie, tak jak mają w zwyczaju polskie damy. Prawie płynnie mówi po polsku, co w połączeniu z jej słodkim usposobieniem, światowym obyciem i doskonałą prezencją zapewniło jej przywiązanie Polaków, wpływ na króla oraz poważanie na sejmie tak wielkie, że – z wielką roztropnością – wszystkim kierowała. Przy czym przy każdej okazji za życia króla popierała interesy Francji, swego rodzinnego kraju (p. 203).
The same fragment in original:
The Queen is now about fifty four Years of Age, tho she appears not to be forty; she goes in the French dress, as all the Polish Ladies do, She speaks almost naturally the Polish Tongue, which with her sweet Temper, refined Sense, and majestic Air gained her such Affection with the Poles, such Influence over the King and such interest always in the Diet that she managed all with a great deal of Prudence, and that to the advantage of her native Country France (…) (p. 186-187).
And now a fragment from South’s account, where he describes the queen, who he met when he accompanied Hyde:
The Queen is now about 33 Years of Age, tho she appears not to be much above Twenty: She is always attired after the French Mode, as all the Polish Ladies are; and speaks the Polish Language full as well as her natural Tongue; which with her sweet Temper, refined Sense and Majestic Air, has since her Accession to the Throne, gained her such Affection with the Poles, such Influence over the King, and such Interest lately among the Senators that she manages all with the great deal of Prudence, and that to the Advantage of her Native country France (p. 26-27).
As we can see, similarities are striking and can hardly be considered coincidental. The only major differences have to do with chronology: the age of the queen and the fact of John III’s death. Comparison of other passages of both works also does not leave room for any doubts. There are many more similarities in the two texts, concerning both events from the history of Poland and customs of the country, as well as descriptions of people and places.
But who copied whom and why? Theoretically, South’s text was written earlier, directly after his journey (it is dated December 1677), but the account from his stay in the Commonwealth, including his meeting with John III and his family, was printed only in 1717. The description of the journey to Poland was published for the first time in London, as part of a collection of South’s letters and sermons, one year after his death (Posthumous works of the late Reverend Robert South, D.D., containing sermons on several subjects… London, printed for E. Curll).
However, there is no doubt that Connor could have read the text when he was working on his own description. Robert South had many friends and acquaintances in academic circles (in his youth, he studied at Oxford and Cambridge). Among them was a superb Hebrew scholar and specialist in languages of the Near East from the Oxford university, doctor Edward Pococke, who is said to be the initiator of the project of writing an account about the Commonwealth, and who became its addressee. This way, South’s text probably got to Oxford and it is possible that there, Connor heard about it and familiarized himself with it. It is known that in spring 1695 he visited the university in order to – according to his own words – prepare for publication a small Latin treaty concerning medicine and present to those sirs my humble knowledge of anatomy and medical matters (p. 49), and already back then he considered writing a larger work on the topic of the Commonwealth, or even started working on it. Therefore, he could have used his stay in Oxford to collect materials helpful in writing his book, and thus learn about South’s account and gain access to it.
There is also another possibility. South could have sent a copy of his treaty not only to his friend, but also to his patron, Hyde. During his stay in England, Connor is said to have met the aristocrat (who was already the Earl of Rochester) and obtain from him some details regarding this country [the Commonwealth] which earlier I knew nothing about (p. 73). It is, therefore, possible that he got his hands on the text through Hyde. Also, it cannot be ruled out that during Connor’s stay in England, he personally met South, who still served as a canon at Westminster Abbey and travelled in circles similar to those met by the Irishman in London.
However, at this point the story becomes complicated, since in the printed account by South, there are fragments informing about events much later than Hyde’s mission (for example, the father of the queen receiving a cardinal’s hat in 1695) and referring to the work of de Hauteville, which was published only in 1686. What is more, if we compare passages from South’s text with the work by de Hauteville, it turns out that South as well was not completely original and “borrowed” rather freely larger parts of text from the Frenchman. The lecture suggests, however, that he added to the knowledge gained from literature and mixed it with his own observations as well as information coming, for example, from talks he held with citizens of the country.
Therefore, one can assume that at some point – probably about 1695 – South re-edited his earlier text, „enriching” it with observations of de Hauteville, and it was this modernized version that Connor read. If we consider the freedom with which he used works of other authors, this version seems the most probable one. The mystery could be solved once and for all if a manuscript of South’s account was found. Until then, we can only speculate.