The paper reconstructs the tension between the then emerging approach of emphasising authorial innovation and the traditional learned practice of adapting and reusing existing texts, which was cultivated in the early modern ars excerpendi. In 1717, a case of plagiarism occurred in the midst of a new historiographical genre (Reichshistorie) and attracted much attention. Complementing existing scholarship on early modern theories of plagiarism, the examination focuses on how learned communicative practice treated plagiarism. Contrary to the norm established in the discourse on plagiarism, the plagiariser and his work were not excluded from the respublica literaria. Instead, the case became part of academic memory, and was itself frequently reported in a plagiaristic manner. In closing, a comparative glance at the juridically-based treatment of a current case of plagiarism (a politician's dissertation of 2009) is taken. The paper argues that the contradiction between the theoretical norm and the actual eighteenth-century management of plagiarism resulted from the familiarity of unmarked „copying“ in pre-modern scholarly practice. The paper shows that early modern learned culture, although characterised by Steven Shapin as a „moral economy,“ neither felt compelled to impose its crucial ethical norm in a case of open non-conformance, nor did it consistently observe this norm for routine processes.

中文翻译：

---

Plagiieren 和 wissenschaftliche 创新？Kritik und Akzeptanz eines vor drei Jahrhunderten skandalisierten Plagiat im Zeitalter der Exzerpierkunst

本文重构了当时新兴的强调作者创新的方法与改编和重用现有文本的传统学习实践之间的紧张关系，这种做法在早期现代ars excerpendi 中得到了培养。1717年，在新的史学流派（帝国史）中发生了一起抄袭案，引起了广泛关注。作为对早期现代抄袭理论的现有学术研究的补充，该考试侧重于学习交流实践如何对待抄袭。与剽窃话语中确立的规范相反，剽窃者及其作品并未被排除在公共文学之外。取而代之的是，此案成为学术记忆的一部分，并且本身经常以抄袭的方式报道。最后，对当前抄袭案例（2009 年的政治家论文）的基于法律的处理进行了比较一瞥。该论文认为，理论规范与 18 世纪实际抄袭管理之间的矛盾是由于前现代学术实践中对无标记“复制”的熟悉所致。该论文表明，尽管史蒂文·沙平将早期现代学术文化描述为一种“道德经济”，但它既没有觉得有必要在公开不符合的情况下强加其关键的道德规范，也没有在日常过程中始终遵守这一规范。该论文认为，理论规范与 18 世纪实际抄袭管理之间的矛盾是由于前现代学术实践中对无标记“复制”的熟悉所致。该论文表明，尽管史蒂文·沙平将早期现代学术文化描述为一种“道德经济”，但它既没有觉得有必要在公开不符合的情况下强加其关键的道德规范，也没有在日常过程中始终遵守这一规范。该论文认为，理论规范与十八世纪实际抄袭管理之间的矛盾源于前现代学术实践中对无标记“复制”的熟悉。该论文表明，尽管史蒂文·沙平将史蒂文·沙平描述为一种“道德经济”，但早期现代学习型文化既不觉得有必要在公开不符合的情况下强加其关键的道德规范，也没有在日常过程中始终遵守这一规范。