A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health

V. The Matter Of Plagiarism

In a number of places throughout Prophetess of Health allusions are made to Ellen White’s borrowing the sentiments and occasionally the wording of certain health reform writers such as Mann, Coles, etc. Typical are the words appearing on page 83: “In her essay ‘Health,’ which reads like L. B. Coles,” etc., or on page 156 where speaking of one point the book states that she “neglected, as she so often did, to cite her earthly source.” CBPH 29.2

Time magazine in its August 2, 1976, issue carries an article titled “Prophet or Plagiarist?” devoted to the book, Prophetess of Health, Ellen G. White, and the Seventh-day Adventist church. They put it this way: CBPH 29.3

Numbers contends that many of White’s supposedly unique revelations simply reflected contemporary views, and may sometimes have been plagiarized from the writings of 19th century health reformers and diet faddists. CBPH 29.4

While reference is made on page 25 of this critique to Mrs. White’s use of historical and health works, and certain specific items of borrowing will be dealt with in the chapter by chapter review which follows, it may be well at this point to give a little time to a discussion of plagiarism as such. CBPH 29.5

The charge that Mrs. White was guilty of plagiarism—literary theft—is not new to Seventh-day Adventists. It was first introduced by D. M. Canright in 1889. The word plagiarism may be frightening to some, as it may call up questions both moral and legal. Let us look at the matter candidly, taking into account the attitude and practice of other well known authors of Ellen White’s day and appraise the involvements of one author borrowing from another. CBPH 29.6

For clarity, comprehension and strength we can do no better than to quote from F. D. Nichol’s discussion of the matter in Ellen G. White and Her Critics. CBPH 29.7

The Historical Background of Literary Borrowing

In order rightly to evaluate the charge before us, we need to examine the subject of literary borrowings in its historical setting. The old saying that there is nothing new under the sun finds ample illustration in the history of literature. Literary ideas, themes, plots, et cetera, seem to be strangely alike century after century. Different writers fall into similar forms of expression in describing similar incidents. One writer, though patently borrowing phrases or sentences from another writer, may use these simply as a part of his foundational material on which he rears a literary edifice that is sufficiently different from that of the other writer to warrant the judgment that it is a piece of truly original literary architecture. It is in this very area that much of the dispute and uncertainty have arisen. CBPH 29.8

So general has been the practice, by prose writers as well as by poets, of drawing more or less from earlier works that the noted author, Vicente Blasco-Ibanez, declared, in a vein of hyperbole: CBPH 29.9

One is compelled not only to say, but also to believe, that all the great writers, absolutely all, are plagiarists, and that the best of each does not belong to him, because he has taken it from others.—Quoted by Maurice Salzman in Plagiarism, The “Art” of Stealing Literary Material, p. 22. CBPH 29.10

Another writer on this general subject observes; “The great [literary] artist is only one of a long chain of borrowers and adapters.”—W. A. Edwards, Plagiarism, An Essay on Good and Bad Borrowing, p. 114. CBPH 29.11

Religious Writers Borrowed Without Acknowledgment

The greatest difficulty of all in evaluating a charge of plagiarism against an author has been in the field of religious writing. Religious writers, in general, have felt that they were writing, not to advance their own interests, but the interests of the kingdom of God, and that whatever might contribute to that objective should be drawn upon. They have also felt that the common source of all religious writing is the Bible, on which no one has a monopoly. Listen to this frank statement by none other than John Wesley as to how he proceeded in his writing in relation to other authors: CBPH 29.12

I once designed to write down barely what occurred to my own mind, consulting none but the inspired writers. But no sooner was I acquainted with that great light of the Christian world, (lately gone to his reward) Ben Gelius, than I entirely changed my design, being thoroughly convinced it might be of more service to the cause of religion, were I barely to translate his Gnomon Novi Testamenti, than to write many volumes upon it. Many of his excellent notes I have therefore translated. Many more I have abridged, omitting that part which was purely critical, and giving the substance of the rest... CBPH 29.13

I am likewise indebted for some useful observations to Dr. Heylin’s Theological Lectures: and for many more to Dr. Guyse, and to the Family Expositor of the late pious and learned Dr. Doddridge. It was a doubt with me for some time, whether I should not subjoin to every note I received from them the name of the author from whom it was taken; especially considering I had transcribed some, and abridged many more, almost in the words of the author. CBPH 29.14

But upon farther consideration, I resolved to name none, that nothing might divert the mind of the reader from keeping close to the point of view and receiving what was spoken only according to its own intrinsic value.—Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, Preface. CBPH 30.1

All Commentators Have Borrowed—Often Without Credit

A Bible commentator makes this general statement with regard to the practice followed by theological writers through the years in quoting from men who had preceded them: CBPH 30.2

All the commentators have drawn largely from the fathers, especially from St. Augustine; and most of them have made general property of Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby. Poole has exhausted the old continental writers; Henry has made very free with Bishop Hall and others; Scott and Benson have enriched their pages abundantly from Henry; Gill has translated the spirit of Poole’s “Synopsis,” but he most generally gives his authorities; Adam Clarke and Davidson have been much indebted to all the best critics, though the former does not always mention his obligations, and the latter never; but his preface to this admirable “Pocket Commentary” is an honest confession that he pretends to be no more than a compiler; some original thoughts appear, however, to be scattered among his notes.—Ingram Cobbin, The Condensed Commentary and Family Exposition of the Holy Bible (London: William Tegg, 1863), Pre face, p. iv. CBPH 30.3

In general, it did not occur to these writers to put quotation marks around every phrase or sentence they might borrow, much less to give documentary reference. They seemed to reason that they were drawing from a common pile of building material that had been produced by earlier literary builders. They saw no reason why they ought not to be free to pick up a brick here or a board there, or even several boards nailed together, to incorporate into the edifice that they were constructing. CBPH 30.4

Or, to change the figure: They felt that they could rightly borrow from the blueprints of earlier author-architects a design for a pillar, a cornice, or some other detail of the new edifice they were creating. They felt that in turn the blueprint of their finished literary edifice would provide further material from which later authors would draw, and thus they would be making a contribution that would ethically justify their borrowings. Nor did they feel that the finished structure which came from their hand and pen was any the less theirs because they had followed this procedure. It never occurred to them that they must label the pillar, or the cornice, or whatever it was that they borrowed in design, as having come from an earlier design, in order to be considered honest builders... CBPH 30.5

In thus giving a recital of some of the literary practices of the past, particularly in the field of religious writing, we are not necessarily saying that such practices were ideal—we are sure they were not. For some generations there has been a steadily growing conviction that an author should give to his readers clear evidence of his literary borrowings. In fact, the trend has gone almost to the extreme today, so that many writers feel that they should not only use quotation marks, but also give the name of the author, if they borrow so much as a part of a sentence. CBPH 30.6

Both the moral and the legal angles of literary borrowing have provoked endless disputes and revealed every shade of opinion. Authors who have devoted books to the subject confess to difficulty in framing a wholly satisfactory definition of plagiarism. Courts have likewise found themselves in difficulty. It is not an uncommon thing for higher courts to reverse lower courts in suits for infringement, infringement being the legal aspect of plagiarism. CBPH 30.7

A modern writer on this subject said, with regard to the writing of his own book: CBPH 30.8

I am fully aware of the difficulty of deciding what is plagiarism of a sort. If I had indicated the source of every statement made, the notes would have been so numerous as to interfere with the continuity of the letterpress: I have, therefore, confined myself to occasional references, and have indicated the quotations I have made; but I must bear the blame of having sometimes used the investigations of others with only a general acknowledgment of indebtedness.—H. M. Pauli, Literary Ethics, pp. 126, 127. CBPH 30.9

The Legal Aspect of Plagiarism

Because of the well-defined copyright laws that now obtain in the United States—and in most other countries for that matter—it is possible for an author who feels that another writer has plagiarized his work to enter suit against him. Needless to say many such suits have been instituted. As a result there is a rather large body of decisions that set forth the consensus of legal thinking on this matter. The following is quoted from the authoritative summary of the current rulings of the courts regarding this matter: In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration, but to constitute infringement it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied, although on the principle of de minimis non curat lex it is necessary that a material and substantial part of it shall have been copied, it being insufficient that mere words or lines have been abstracted. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute a piracy. The question is one of quality rather than quantity and is to be determined by the character of the work and the relative value of the material taken, and it has been said that in deciding questions of this sort the court must look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work.—18 Corpus Juris Secundum, Sec. 94, p. 218. CBPH 30.10

Making extracts, even if they are not acknowledged as such, appearing under all the circumstances of the case, reasonable in quality, number, and length, regard being had to the object with which the extracts are made and to the subjects to which they relate, is a fair and noninfringing use.—Ibid., Sec. 105, p. 224. CBPH 31.1

What Is the Essence of Plagiarism? CBPH 31.2

After we have considered the legal aspect, and the changing viewpoint of different generations as to how extensively a writer may properly copy from others without acknowledgment, we still have before us the primary question: Morally speaking, what is the essence of the offense called plagiarism? The answer is evident: The attempt of a writer to deceive his readers into thinking that the entire work which bears his name is wholly his own, when in fact some strands of the fabric were drawn, not from his own mental spinning wheel, but from the fabric of some other author’s work. ²—Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 410. CBPH 31.3

Prophetess of Health contends that Ellen White borrowed without giving credit from Mann and Coles, etc. There is evidence that in articles touching on physiology, hygiene, and nutrition written subsequent to the issuance of her basic health writings published in 1864 and 1865, she did occasionally embody her thoughts in words and phrases of these health writers—writers to whom she had already called attention. But concerning the first health writing she declared in 1867: CBPH 31.4

I did not read any works upon health until I had written Spiritual Gifts, volumes iii and iv, [August, 1864] Appeal to Mothers, [April, 1864] and had sketched out most of my six articles in the six numbers of “How to Live” [Jan.-June, 1865]... CBPH 31.5

And after I had written my six articles for “How to Live,” I then searched the various works on Hygiene and was surprised to find them so nearly in harmony with what the Lord had revealed to me. And to show this harmony, and to set before my brethren and sisters the subject as brought out by able writers, I determined to publish “How to Live,” in which I largely extracted from the works referred to.—The Review and Herald, October 8, 1867, 30:260. CBPH 31.6

The materials she extracted and used stood as separate, properly accredited articles or excerpts. After this clear-cut declaration of 1867, her later use of words and phrases from sources to which she had called attention gave evidence she had nothing to cover up. CBPH 31.7

We conclude this discussion with a summation made by Nichol: Can Mrs. White rightly be charged with plagiarism? Let us break down the question into several parts to cover the moral and the legal phases: CBPH 31.8

1. Was there an intent to deceive? We believe the unprejudiced reader will willingly answer No. And that answer removes completely the shady color of evil intent that some have sought to cast over Mrs. White in this matter. CBPH 31.9

(In the following questions we have quoted phrases from the summary of the current court rulings on infringement—the legal side of plagiarism—which was cited earlier in this chapter.) CBPH 31.10

2. Did Mrs. White take “so much ... that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated”? The answer is surely an emphatic No... CBPH 31.11

3. Were the borrowings “reasonable in quality, number, and length,” particularly in regard “to the nature and objects of the selections made” and “the subjects to which they relate”? The answer is Yes.—Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 427. ³ CBPH 31.12