ANNE PRATT versus JOHN SOWERBY
A box of papers held by the library of the Natural History Museum,
London, gives evidence of an altercation between Anne Pratt and the
botanical illustrator, John Edward Sowerby. It gives an interesting
sidelight on Anne's character, as well as showing her handwriting.
In
the box are 35 leaves with two or more plates. On each leaf is
pasted a plate from Pratt's The
Ferns of Great Britain
(1855). Pasted at
the sides, so they can be lifted, are plates from a book of the same
title by John E. Sowerby and Charles Johnson (text by Johnson, illustrations by Sowerby dated 1855).
It is apparent that Sowerby complained to the publisher that Pratt had plagiarised some of his illustrations. This box of papers is Pratt's
response to this complaint, as on 20 of the leaves there are handwritten comments, some phrases being double-underlined for emphasis.
As an example, take her comments on
Polypodium phegopteris, the
Beech-fern. There are three plates pasted on the sheet, Pratt's,
Sowerby's, and one from an earlier publication. “An assumption.
On closely comparing the two the difference will be manifest. I am
much inclined to think that Mr Sowerby's whole plant is copied from
the one published in 1810. Mine is from nature.”
Asplenium spp., two Spleenwort species (illustrated). “Mr Sowerby appears to be right as far as concerns the frond marked A but no further. To call this an infringement of copyright is childish. [!] Mr Sowerby's Adiantum nigrum is a tracing from a plate published in 1809...”.
Asplenium spp., two Spleenwort species (illustrated). “Mr Sowerby appears to be right as far as concerns the frond marked A but no further. To call this an infringement of copyright is childish. [!] Mr Sowerby's Adiantum nigrum is a tracing from a plate published in 1809...”.
These continue in the same vein,
accusing Sowerby of copying from plates published from 1790 to 1811.
Her exasperation with his accusations comes through. “Mr Sowerby's
own plates are slavish copies...If Mr Sowerby were right the
objection is contemptible but
he is wrong...Mr
Sowerby is right here but I blush to think that an artist can notice
such a trifle [!]...I am at a loss here to trace the likeness
[between my plate and his] but if I could I should reply that Mr
Sowerby's is a facsimile of a plate published as far back as
1790...”.
She becomes exasperated. “I am sorry for Mr Sowerby's character
(he professing to give the public a new book) to say that each of the
prints in his present book are facsimiles reversed [!] from
publications of 1793. 1802 and 1811.”
We are grateful to Andrea
Hart of the Natural History Museum for drawing our attention to this
archive.