I’m reading A Survey of Modernist Poetry by Laura Riding and Robert Graves. This struck me:

“Yet the sonnet theory can be provoked in Shakespeare’s sonnets as all pre-Shakespearian dramatic theories can be provoked in his plays.”

The sentence is in service of the authors view that it’s not enough to present as evidence of experimentation an excellent poem as excellent poems may have in them borrowings as well as innovations. I very much liked the use of “provoked.”

It implies temptation. I’m a fan of the phrase “an attractive heresy” and this use of “provoked” comes off as a crib mate. It’s like there’s something coquettish but not necessarily, true or false, needing to be drawn out. I planned on using it myself. Though that’s perfectly okay, I still feel a hint of the plagiarist when I use a word in an unexpected way after spotting the new shade in someone else’s writing.

As luck would have it, I had the Philadelphia/Tampa Bay game on. My attention was split and I misread. The actual sentence reads,

“Yet the sonnet theory can be proved in Shakespeare’s sonnets as all pre-Shakespearian dramatic theories can be proved in his plays.”

I went over it too quickly and mucked up my synapsis. So now it’s mine; guiltless provocation.

That sense of transgression is silly, though, and I wish I could get rid of it. Plagiarism is a serious matter but not even the most sanctimonious (since Shakespeare’s already been mentioned above I should point out that he coined the word “sanctimonious”) watchdog (he came up with “watchdog” as well) would castigate (“castigate” too) anyone for accepting and spreading a new word or use of an old word. It’d be a laughable (Shakespeare’s) critic (that too) to consider anything but the traditional (yup) usage the belonging (Shakespeare’s as well) of any one person. That’d be bloody (yes) obscene (and yes.)