ewhat of his powers of expression, and becoming less
capable of framing language into a harmonious whole. There would also be
a strong presumption that if the variation of style was uniform, it was
attributable to some natural cause, and not to the arts of the imitator.
The inferiority might be the result of feebleness and of want of
activity of mind. But the natural weakness of a great author would
commonly be different from the artificial weakness of an imitator; it
would be continuous and uniform. The latter would be apt to fill his
work with irregular patches, sometimes taken verbally from the writings
of the author whom he personated, but rarely acquiring his spirit.
His imitation would be obvious, irregular, superficial. The patches
of purple would be easily detected among his threadbare and tattered
garments. He would rarely take the pains to put the same thought into
other words. There were many forgeries in English literature which
attained a considerable degree of success 50 or 100 years ago; but it is
doubtful whether attempts such as these could now escape detection,
if there were any writings of the same author or of the same age to
be compared with them. And ancient forgers were much less skilful than
modern; they were far from being masters in the art of deception, and
had rarely any motive for being so.

(b) But, secondly, the imitator will commonly be least capable of
understanding or imitating that part of a great writer which is most
characteristic of him. In every man's writings there is something like
himself and unlike others, which gives individuality. To appreciate
this latent quality would require a kindred mind, and minute study
and observation. There are a class of similarities which may be called
undesigned coincidences, which are so remote as to be incapable of
being borrowed from one another, and yet, when they are compared, find
a natural explanation in their being the work of the same mind. The
imitator might copy the turns of style--he might repeat images or
illustrations, but he could not enter into the inner circle of Platonic
philosophy. He would understand that part of it which became popular
in the next generation, as for example, the doctrine of ideas or of
numbers: he might approve of communism. But the higher flights of Plato
about the science of dialectic, or the unity of virtue, or a person who
is above the law, would be unintelligible to him.

(c) The argument from imitation