The Moods of Indirect Quotation 9781463222192

Citation preview

The Moods of Indirect Quotation

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

386 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Moods of Indirect Quotation

John Jacob Schlicher

gorgia* press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-635-0

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The ^American Journal of Philology 26 (1905)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

v . — T H E MOODS OF INDIRECT I. The

QUOTATION. 1

Indicative.

It is natural for t h e a v e r a g e a d u l t t o m a k e a distinction a m o n g i d e a s , b e t w e e n t h o s e w h i c h a r e t h e p r o d u c t o f his o w n o b s e r v a t i o n and t h i n k i n g , and t h o s e w h i c h a r e c o m m u n i c a t e d to h i m r e a d y m a d e b y other persons.

I d e a s of the f o r m e r class a r e , as a

m a t t e r of c o u r s e , a l l o w e d to enter the mind w i t h o u t r e s e r v e

and

are a c c e p t e d as true, w h i l e t h o s e of t h e latter class find t h e m i n d o n its g u a r d , as it w e r e , and a r e o n l y a d m i t t e d on e q u a l t e r m s w i t h t h e f o r m e r after a m o r e or less careful s c r u t i n y , if i n d e e d t h e y are a c c e p t e d at ail. this r u l e in p a r t i c u l a r

T o b e sure, t h e r e a r e e x c e p t i o n s t o

cases and under

special

circumstances.

A careful a n d c o n s c i e n t i o u s m a n will b e on t h e alert a g a i n s t t h e s h o r t c o m i n g s o f his o w n m e n t a l a n d sensual p r o c e s s e s , o n t h e o n e h a n d , and l o n g or intimate a s s o c i a t i o n with a n o t h e r p e r s o n and u n i f o r m v e r a c i t y on his part will, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , l e a d o n e t o g r a n t his i d e a s t h e one's own.

same

unquestioning

admission

as

But if w e t a k e into a c c o u n t o n l y t h e a v e r a g e m i n d

in its o r d i n a r y w o r k i n g s , t h o s e conditions, n a m e l y , w h i c h m o u l d l i n g u i s t i c p r a c t i c e , w e are o b l i g e d t o l o o k u p o n t h e

distinction

b e t w e e n the t w o classes o f ideas as a f u n d a m e n t a l o n e .

The

p r o o f that this v i e w is c o r r e c t is f u r n i s h e d b y t h e w i d e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e distinction is r e c o g n i z e d in t h e f o r m s of s p e e c h . F r o m a p s y c h o l o g i c a l point of v i e w w e can r e a d i l y s e e that t h e t w o classes o f i d e a s m u s t affect t h e m i n d in d i f f e r e n t w a y s . F o r e n t i r e l y a p a r t f r o m intentional or u n i n t e n t i o n a l in the s t a t e m e n t s of o t h e r p e r s o n s , their ideas m u s t

falsehoods necessarily,

in a d e g r e e , t a k e u s u n a w a r e s , and a p p e a r s t r a n g e to us, s i n c e 1

T h e w r i t e r is c o n s c i o u s of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t i t l e a n d h e a d i n g s of t h i s p a p e r

are s o m e w h a t misleading.

I t s m a i n o b j e c t is to a s s i g n t h e L a t i n s u b j u n c t i v e

of i n d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n to its p r o p e r p l a c e as a m o o d , a n d w h a t is s a i d a b o u t t h e i n d i c a t i v e a n d t h e a c c u s a t i v e a n d i n f i n i t i v e is i n t e n d e d o n l y as a s e t t i n g f o r t h e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e s u b j u n c t i v e , a n d as a n a i d i n a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h i s m a i n object.

T h i s w i l l e x p l a i n t h e s k e t c h i n e s s of the t r e a t m e n t in t h e

first

two

d i v i s i o n s o f t h e a r t i c l e , w h i c h are n o t so m u c h c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h e t h i r d , as p r e p a r a t o r y to it. A p r e l i m i n a r y p a p e r w h i c h b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d s o m e of t h e p o i n t s t r e a t e d t h i s a r t i c l e w a s p u b l i s h e d in t h e S c h o o l R e v i e w for M a y , 1902.

in

THE MOODS

OF INDIRECT

QUOTA TION.

61

they are the result of a preceding mental experience with which we are, perhaps wholly, unacquainted. Besides, the fact that these various ideas come to us each with a stamp of its own, affected as it is, though ever so slightly, by the permanent or temporary peculiarities of its author, contrasts strongly with the uniformity, as it appears to us, of our own mental and sensual activities. And this lack of harmony in foreign ideas, with each other and with our own, even though the evidence of downright falsehood be lacking, will naturally tend to prevent our minds from feeling the same degree of ease and hospitality toward them which we feel toward ideas of our own production. Natural as all this appears, however, it is nevertheless evident that this distinction between foreign and native ideas as such, has not existed at all times in the history of language. For in addition to those forms of indirect quotation by which this distinction is clearly and consistently made, there are others in which it is not found as an inherent element, but only as an external addition, a sort of afterthought. W e find, namely, that not only the subjunctive, optative and infinitive are used in clauses of quotation, but that the indicative is used also. And in the case of the indicative it is not the mood, but the added verb of saying, which indicates in any way that the speaker is not expressing his own thought but that of someone else. If we strip the mood of its accessories, take it back, in other words, to the time when it stood in an independent clause, we have a form of expression for the foreign idea, which does not differ in the least from that which would be used for a native idea. At that stage, if A said " I saw a bear", B would later express the idea he gets by saying "A saw a b e a r " , exactly as if he had obtained the idea by the use of his own faculties, instead of obtaining it from the statement of A. There must have been a time, therefore, in the mental history of the race, as there is a time in the mental life of a child, when the distinction between meum and tuum in the matter of ideas was not yet clearly made, and when it was not found necessary to distinguish between them in speech. Of course, in any highly developed language we shall not look for this method of quotation in its baldest form outside of the nursery. For the confusion which it would cause between one's own ideas, which we feel to be true, and those of another person, whose veracity may perhaps be very doubtful to one, would be intolerable to the mental habits of a civilized adult. But language

62

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

is c o n s e r v a t i v e , a n d t h o u g h a f o r m h a s b e c o m e u s e l e s s in i t s e l f , it m a y still b e p a t c h e d a n d p r o p p e d in s u c h a w a y a s t o m a k e it d o service under different and m o r e e x a c t i n g conditions. a b e a r " w o u l d , for e x a m p l e , e a s i l y b e d e s i g n a t e d

" A saw

unmistakably

as t h e s t a t e m e n t o f A , b y t h e a d d i t i o n o f a p a r a t a c t i c v e r b

like

"he

dis-

told

me"

or " h e

said",

and

could thus be clearly

t i n g u i s h e d f r o m all i d e a s b e l o n g i n g t o B h i m s e l f .

A n d in t h i s

n e w f o r m t h e o r i g i n a l i n d i c a t i v e of i n d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t is, in fact, f o u n d w i d e l y u s e d , e v e n in h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d l a n g u a g e s , e s p e c i a l l y in t h e i r c o l l o q u i a l f o r m s .

In E n g l i s h , i n d e e d , t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e

o f t h e s u b j u n c t i v e h a s o n c e m o r e b r o u g h t t h i s f o r m of q u o t a t i o n to h i g h honor.

W e find it a l s o u s e d f r e e l y in G e r m a n .

In L a t i n

a n d G r e e k , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e p a r a t a c t i c f o r m as a m e t h o d o f q u o t a t i o n , that is, w i t h t h e v e r b o f s a y i n g o r t h i n k i n g in t h e s e c o n d o r t h i r d p e r s o n , o r in t h e p a s t t e n s e , a p p e a r s t o b e f o u n d o n l y in t h e s l i g h t e s t t r a c e s . 1

S t i l l , in o r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n it m a y

h a v e b e e n u s e d q u i t e e x t e n s i v e l y e v e n in t h e s e l a n g u a g e s . 2 T h i s p a r t i c u l a r f o r m o f i n d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n is c l e a r l y , as w e h a v e stated, an clause

adaptation

to m o r e

of

complex

a

primitive

conditions.

independent

indicative

In its n e w f o r m

satisfies the d e m a n d s of careful t h i n k i n g ,

it f u l l y

since the source

o w n e r s h i p of t h e i d e a is d e f i n i t e l y i n d i c a t e d .

or

N e c e s s a r y as t h e

addition of this paratactic v e r b of s a y i n g was, h o w e v e r , the dev e l o p m e n t o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n a l o n g t h i s line s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n a r r e s t e d in b o t h L a t i n a n d G r e e k .

F o r w e find n o t o n l y a g r e a t

scarcity

even

of

paratactic

forms,

but

the

hypotactic

forms

a p p e a r , in b o t h l a n g u a g e s , at a l a t e r d a t e t h a n w a s t h e c a s e in other constructions.

I n H o m e r , for i n s t a n c e , t h e h y p o t a c t i c f o r m

o f i n d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n w i t h t h e finite v e r b in t h e q u o t e d p a r t , is s t i l l in its first b e g i n n i n g s , 3 a n d in L a t i n it d i d n o t a p p a r e n t l y 1

S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , B e c k e r , B e i o r d n e n d e u. u n t e r o r d n e n d e

pp. 9-20.

detonderunt.

w h e r e the a d d e d v e r b of

s a y i n g or t h i n k i n g

r e l a t i v e nt or wf are o f c o u r s e c o m m o n 3

Satzverbindung,

S o P l i n . E p p . V I I , 27, 13, v e n e r u n t p e r f e n e s t r a s (ita n a r r a t ) in

tunicis albis duo cubantemque 2Cases

find

According

to S c h m i t t ,

Über

is

introduced

by

a

enough.

d. U r s p r . d . S u b s t a n t i v s a t z e s

mit

Relativ-

p a r t i k e l n i m G r i e c h . (p. 70) t h e r e are o n l y 15 c a s e s of the c l a u s e w i t h or;, ¿ f , e t c . u s e d in i n d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n in H o m e r (3 in t h e I l i a d , 1 2 in the O d y s s e y ) . A l l of t h e s e h a v e t h e i n d i c a t i v e , m o r e o v e r , a f t e r past as w e l l as p r e s e n t v e r b s . T h e c l o s e c o n n e c t i o n of

the constructions with

the i n d e p e n d e n t

indicative

o f q u o t a t i o n is a l s o s h o w n b y the f a c t t h a t t h e i r t e n s e s are a l l s t i l l a d j u s t e d t o t h e r e p o r t e r ' s p o i n t of v i e w ( G o o d w i n , M . a n d T . 671 a n d 674). XIV

373-6.

A . J. P .

THE MOODS

OF INDIRECT

QUOTATION.

63

recognition in written speech, so far as the main clause of the quotation is concerned, before the time of the decline. 1 But this backwardness of the hypotactic form of indirect discourse in Latin and Greek was not due to the adequacy or convenience of the independent or paratactic forms of which we spoke above, but rather to the fact that these languages had in the meantime developed another and entirely different method of indirectly quoting foreign words or ideas, namely the accusative and infinitive. II. The Accusative

and

Infinitive.

This construction shows a more vigorous growth and greater adaptability in Latin and Greek than it has in the Germanic languages. T h e two groups of languages are especially distinguished from each other by the wide use which is made of the construction in Latin and Greek with verbs of saying and thinking. Not only that, but it also seems, in the latter languages, to have reached a certain perfection in this wider field at a very early date. W e find, for example, that in Homer there are some 130 cases of it after alone, as against only 15 cases of the clause with ¿is, Sri and similar conjunctions, after all expressions of saying. 2 T h e form in which the accusative and infinitive is found in the earlier authors, in both Latin and Greek, is a very simple one. Its development from the accusative of the direct object is here still quite evident, for there is, as a rule, nothing besides the bare accusative with its added infinitive. Subordinate clauses are rather uncommon. Compact as this early form of the construction is and hardly more cumbersome than the direct object itself, while at the same time performing its function of quotation admirably, it is easy to see how it could, in the general movement from parataxis to hypotaxis, not only hold its own, but seriously threaten the full development and very existence of the more cumbersome paratactic form of quotation which we have just mentioned. In Latin, as we saw, it did, in fact, prevent this development throughout the whole classical period. Now when we find, in Homer and Plautus, that the overwhelmingly prevalent form of the accusative and infinitive was ' F o r an extensive collection of examples, see M a y e n , D e particulis Q u o d , Q u i a , Quoniam, Quomodo, U t pro acc. cum inf. post verba sent, et decl. positis, Diss. K i e l , '89. 2 S c h m i t t , 1. c. [It is noteworthy that oijfii rejects on and ¿if during the classic period. A l s o A . J. P. I V 56 ; X I V 374, X V I 395, X V I I 5 1 7 . — B . L . G . ]

64

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

a v e r y s i m p l e one, w e will o f c o u r s e n o t a s s u m e that this s i m p l i c i t y n e c e s s a r i l y reflects a l i k e q u a l i t y in t h e u t t e r a n c e o f t h e original speaker.

Neither

does

the

b r e v i t y of t h e

accusative

a n d infinitive p r o v e t h e b r e v i t y o f the original e x p r e s s i o n w h i c h it r e p r o d u c e s .

The

fact is rather that it matters little w h e t h e r

t h e o r i g i n a l s p e e c h be short a n d s i m p l e , or l o n g a n d c o m p l e x . F o r t h e h e a r e r ' s m i n d will n a t u r a l l y retain a n d r e p r o d u c e o n l y t h a t part of it w h i c h h a p p e n s to interest h i m at the time.

And

if, in a d d i t i o n to all this, t h e p e r i o d u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is o n e in w h i c h h y p o t a x i s h a s not y e t c o m e to be t h e c o m m o n m o d e o f e x p r e s s i o n , t h e form of t h e q u o t a t i o n will o f c o u r s e naturally be simple.1 B u t in t h e c o u r s e o f d e v e l o p m e n t , this p r i m i t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e m e t h o d o f q u o t i n g o n l y that part w h i c h interests the r e p o r t e r , will g i v e w a y to a m o r e o b j e c t i v e m e t h o d w h i c h d o e s fuller j u s t i c e to the e x p r e s s i o n of t h e original s p e a k e r .

T o the s i n g l e c l a u s e

o f the primitive q u o t a t i o n , o t h e r s will n o w b e a d d e d , s u c h as g i v e t h e time, c a u s e or s o m e other c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h had b e e n a part o f the o r i g i n a l s p e e c h .

A n d with the necessity o f m a k i n g t h e s e

a d d i t i o n s will c o m e a crisis in the h i s t o r y o f s u c h a c o n s t r u c t i o n as t h e a c c u s a t i v e and infinitive of e a r l y G r e e k and Latin.

For

its future will n e c e s s a r i l y d e p e n d u p o n its a b i l i t y to a d a p t itself t o t h e altered c o n d i t i o n s . We

can still

clearly distinguish

t w o lines a l o n g

which

an

e x t e n s i o n o f t h e s i m p l e a c c u s a t i v e a n d infinitive t o o k p l a c e in the paratactic stage.

T h e e v i d e n c e for one of t h e s e is f u r n i s h e d

b y t h e cases, r a t h e r n u m e r o u s in G r e e k , t h o u g h less s o in L a t i n , w h e r e w e h a v e t h e a c c u s a t i v e a n d infinitive in the s u b o r d i n a t e a s well as the m a i n clauses o f t h e quotation. 2

T h i s can o n l y

m e a n that the o r i g i n a l s i n g l e a c c u s a t i v e and infinitive h a d g r o w n by

the p a r a t a c t i c a d d i t i o n o f other c l a u s e s o f the s a m e f o r m ,

which 1

as

expressed

the

subordinate

i d e a s referred

to.

Such

a

It is e a s y , h o w e v e r , to l a y too m u c h s t r e s s u p o n t h e s t a g e of d e v e l o p m e n t determining absolutely

the

simplicity

or

complexity

of

a

construction.

F o r l i n g u i s t i c f o r m s a r e not o n l y the p r o d u c t o f t h o u g h t , b u t t h e m s e l v e s in t u r n , d e t e r m i n e t h e f o r m of t h e t h o u g h t .

W h e n a construction,

also,

whether

s i m p l e or c o m p l e x , h a s o n c e i n t r e n c h e d i t s e l f in c o m m o n u s a g e , it w i l l

not

r e a d i l y b e o u s t e d f r o m its p o s i t i o n , e v e n t h o u g h a r i v a l c o n s t r u c t i o n

should

b e r e a d y to t a k e its p l a c e .

change

Such a change would mean not only a

o f e x p r e s s i o n , b u t c o u n t l e s s r e a d j u s t m e n t s o f the s p e a k e r ' s h a b i t s o f t h o u g h t , as w e l l . 2

F o r e x a m p l e s cf. K t i h n e r , L a t . G r a m . I I , 1036 ff.

c o m m o n in r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s .

T h e i n f i n i t i v e is e s p e c i a l l y

THE MOODS OF INDIRECT

QUOTATION.

65

m e t h o d of e x t e n d i n g the construction s e e m s for that s t a g e a perfectly natural one. It was not destined to p l a y an important part, h o w e v e r , in the fully d e v e l o p e d l a n g u a g e , a n d its d o o m was s e a l e d , so far as a full d e v e l o p m e n t was c o n c e r n e d , j u s t as s o o n as the subordinate clause b e c a m e the c o m m o n construction for the addition of subsidiary ideas. F o r the connectives w h i c h i n t r o d u c e d t h e s e subordinate clauses w e r e practically e v e r y w h e r e else in L a t i n and G r e e k associated with clauses containing finite f o r m s of the verb. T h e s e c o n d w a y in w h i c h the s i m p l e a c c u s a t i v e a n d infinitive w a s e x t e n d e d so as to include subsidiary clauses, d i d not suffer in its g r o w t h from this obstacle. It illustrates, h o w e v e r , no less beautifully the c a p a c i t y of a l a n g u a g e t o m a k e the most of e x i s t i n g materials, in the process of a d a p t i n g itself to c h a n g e d conditions a n d requirements. W h i l e in the f o r m e r case the simple a c c u s a t i v e a n d infinitive g r e w b y a d d i t i o n s in w h i c h its o w n form was r e p r o d u c e d , it a c c o m p l i s h e d its extension in the latter b y pressing into s e r v i c e its o l d rival, the i n d e p e n d e n t indicative clause of quotation. E x a m p l e s of this c o m p o s i t e formation, t h o u g h v e r y rare, m a y still be found, as for instance in II. X V , 1 7 8 - 1 8 3 : el tU 01 ov hizEsaa* ¿TMrelaeat, aXV a/.(r. 7jCtt6rf:/>OR GOV tY o w e D&erai OI/.OV R/TOF) LAUV OL 'n) noXv tpepTEpot; slvai KCLI yevey 7RF>6rf:/>OR GOV tY o w e D&erai OI/.OV R/TOF) LAUV OL