ce that such pretences are not
respectable. But the difference between these vulgar frauds, these
devices of ridiculous jays whose ill-secured plumes are seen falling
off them as they run, and the quiet appropriation of other people's
philosophic or scientific ideas, can hardly be held to lie in their
moral quality unless we take impunity as our criterion. The pitiable
jays had no presumption in their favour and foolishly fronted an alert
incredulity; but Euphorion, the accomplished theorist, has an audience
who expect much of him, and take it as the most natural thing in the
world that every unusual view which he presents anonymously should be
due solely to his ingenuity. His borrowings are no incongruous
feathers awkwardly stuck on; they have an appropriateness which makes
them seem an answer to anticipation, like the return phrases of a
melody. Certainly one cannot help the ignorant conclusions of polite
society, and there are perhaps fashionable persons who, if a speaker
has occasion to explain what the occipat is, will consider that he has
lately discovered that curiously named portion of the animal frame:
one cannot give a genealogical introduction to every long-stored item
of fact or conjecture that may happen to be a revelation for the large
class of persons who are understood to judge soundly on a small basis
of knowledge. But Euphorion would be very sorry to have it supposed
that he is unacquainted with the history of ideas, and sometimes
carries even into minutiae the evidence of his exact registration of
names in connection with quotable phrases or suggestions: I can
therefore only explain the apparent infirmity of his memory in cases
of larger "conveyance" by supposing that he is accustomed by the very
association of largeness to range them at once under those grand laws
of the universe in the light of which Mine and Thine disappear and are
resolved into Everybody's or Nobody's, and one man's particular
obligations to another melt untraceably into the obligations of the
earth to the solar system in general.

Euphorion himself, if a particular omission of acknowledgment were
brought home to him, would probably take a narrower ground of
explanation. It was a lapse of memory; or it did not occur to him as
necessary in this case to mention a name, the source being well
known--or (since this seems usually to act as a strong reason for
mention) he rather abstained from adducing the name because it might
injure t