 |
 |
Jim Nohrnberg makes a good point about how even today we use verbs for oral expression when we refer to written expression, as in “Freud says” rather than “Freud writes” (and, of course, we use the present tense when technically we mean the past, since Freud wrote whatever he wrote decades ago).
I am always struck by this when looking at early modern manuscript lyrics, which often end with something like “quod Wyatt” or “finis quod Ralegh.” Quod would seem to suggest that the author spoke the poem out loud. On the one hand, the use of “quod” perhaps indicates a desire for the sense of the personal in a copied-down lyric expression, making the lyric to be the personal utterance of its composer in a state of emotion (it is the kind of thing he/she would say and not something he/she constructed somewhat more dispassionately as an artifact). On the other hand, one often finds “quod” used at the end of narrative broadside ballads, works which are not primarily presented as emotional personal expressions of their authors. Furthermore, one often finds “quod” used for texts only “signed” with initials, e.g. “quod T. C.” One could imagine a manuscript compiler just jotting down initials for an author he/she knew personally and still having the sense of the personal, but one finds this practice even in printed popular works, where it is unlikely that any particular buyer might know who wrote the work. Why say “quod” if the speaker is not an individual with whom one can definitely associate the utterance? Is it just a convention, like “Freud says,” or did it have more force than that, given that evidently for some early modern readers of poetry reading was primarily an oral activity?
Another thought about quod or quoth: I have often seen constructions such as “’Looke
in thy heart and write,” quod Sidney,” but I don’t remember ever seeing “Sidney
quod, ‘looke in thy heart and write.’”
(or “quoth the raven, ‘Nevermore!,’” but not “The raven quoth, ‘Nevermore!’”) Is “quod/quoth” the only English verb for
which the subject invariably comes after the verb rather than before it?
Just some Friday afternoon musings.
Scott
Professor of English
The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina
Charleston, SC 29409
(843) 953-5133
The Biblical Hebrew word qara/qera means both call and read. "And God called (qara) the light Day..." (Gen. 1:5) "'Whosoever shall read (qera) this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.' Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof." (Dan. 5:7-8.) Daniel, like Joseph reading Pharaoh's dreams, can show Belshazar the interpretation thereof. There are, of course, occasions when silent reading is assumed, as, from near enough the same period as Daniel, in Euripides' Hippolytus, where Theseus comes upon and reads the letter in the hand of the dead Phaedra silently, or at least as if unheard by company, even while it sounds or resounds in his own ears:
Theseus:
O horror! woe on woe! and still they come, too deep for words, to heavy to bear. Ah me!
Chorus-leader:
What is it? speak, if I may share in it.
Theseus
This letter loudly tells a hideous tale! where can I escape my load of woe? For I am ruined and undone, so awful are the words I find here written clear as if she cried them to me; woe is me! (Trans. H.P. Coleridge)
Things read in secret are presumably typically also read silently (as they may also have been written) -- and would therefore have been read, perhaps, with extra effort, because of the suppression of the habitual vocalization? one wonders. Augustine in the Confessions is surprised to come upon Ambrose reading silently (or, as we might also say, introvertedly), but elsewhere in the same text Augustine himself reads silently, at least momentarily, when he comes upon the famous passage -- upon his hearing a girl across the way singing "tolle, lege" -- about putting on Jesus Christ, or else he wouldn't have thereupon pointed it out in the text to his colleague Alpyius--though they'd been reading Paul together, and that presumably aloud, just before. Old texts not only lacked spaces between words and visual differentia like upper-case/lower-case distinctions, and letters with varied heights (contra uncials), but also lacked punctuation & paragraphing. It seems odd to us that words on a page would be heard rather than seen, perhaps even odder in the case of pictographs, hieroglyphics, cuneiform, ideograms, consonantal clusters without vowel points... It also seems odd that anybody could read at all, and make ready sense of what they were reading, without the text being broken down into sentence units. It must have taken at least two tries (one by each side of the bicameral brain?). Compare Psalm 62:11, "God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this," or Job 33:14-16: "For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night...Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction:..."). Breaking a Bible text into verses was something Jerome did, to help beginners make sense of it. Of course we often write as if we were speaking--"Freud says," meaning "Freud wrote." If the meaning of the sign in the library that says "Silence is Golden" dates from legislation for scriptoria in the ninth century, before that, then, it was a gabble, as might be reflected in stories like that of Pentecost and the translation of Scripture into the LXX. But in the Houghton Library of my youth senior scholars in the reading room were allowed (by the rather formidable Mrs. Jakeman) to use typewriters to transcribe what they were reading. The result was the gabble of the scriptorium, though maybe more like Morse code, phonically speaking. Students rattling away at their laptops while the prof. speaks in small classrooms somehow remind me of the pre-golden scriptoria. Of course I'm wondering if any of this sounds right (so to speak). After all, we counsel students to read what they've written aloud to a roommate, before submitting it to their teacher, to find out if it really makes any sense.
-- Jim N.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:11:37 -0400
Anne Prescott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Then there's the story, all over Google, that a startled Augustine came
upon Ambrose reading without moving his lips--one source cited (I think
maybe one also cited on this thread) claims that this is our oldest record
of silent reading. As a classicist might point out, all the important stuff
in the Middle Ages is really classical--I think Augustine counts as very
late classical, after all. How did early Carthusians read? Silently, I
assume. Indeed, couldn't some of the literate in even ancient times have
read silently when trying not to reveal, e.g., the contents of a letter or
just bother others? I find it hard to believe that Ambrose was the first.
Anne.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Katherine Eggert <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Elspeth Jajdelska (*Silent Reading and the Birth of the Narrator*) has
recently argued that silent reading became widespread only in the 18thcentury, with increasing childhood literacy.
****
** **
One reader of Sidney and Spenser, at least, was in the habit of thinking
that reading was a silent activity: Shakespeare’s readers are silent unless
they have to convey the information to the audience or another character.
Ophelia’s not mouthing words aloud when Hamlet comes upon her reading a
book, and Polonius has to ask Hamlet what he’s reading. “Look where sadly
the poor wretch comes reading,” says Gertrude of Hamlet. (Not “Hear where.
. . “ ) Achilles interrupts Ulysses’ silent reading in Troilus, 3.3.
Imogen reads silently a bit before going to sleep, unaware that Iachimo’s
hiding in her bedchamber.****
** **
Katherine****
** **
Katherine Eggert****
Associate Professor of English****
University of Colorado at Boulder****
226 UCB****
Boulder, CO 80309-0226****
[log in to unmask]****
** **
*From:* Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:
[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Martin Mueller
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:55 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: two questions****
** **
Paul Saenger's book Space between Words makes the argument that silent
reading is due to two independent medieval inventions: the space between
words and lower case letters with their ascenders and descenders. Put these
two things together and a lot of words, especially common words, have
shapes that are processed as individual units and indeed call on different
processing units in the brain. ****
** **
Being a proper medievalist, Saenger naturally claims that all the
important stuff happened long before the Renaissance. ****
** **
MM****
** **
*From: *Hannibal Hamlin <[log in to unmask]>
*Reply-To: *Sidney-Spenser Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
*Date: *Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:48:59 -0400
*To: *<[log in to unmask]UK>
*Subject: *two questions****
** **
Dear Si-Sp Colleagues,****
****
I have two questions of different sorts.****
****
First, for a graduate course I'm teaching on the Petrarchan tradition, I'm
curious what members feel are the best essays/chapters/excerptible pieces
on FQ 3.****
****
Second, does anyone know of hard evidence for the beginning of silent
reading (or conversely the continuance of reading aloud)? Last year, I
heard Gordon Campbell claim a very late date (17th c.?) for the beginning
of silent reading, and I've heard other claims made, but without
substantiation. Is there an authoritative study? Specifically, would
readers of Sidney and Spenser have read aloud, even privately?****
****
Many thanks,****
****
Hannibal****
****
-- ****
Hannibal Hamlin
Associate Professor of English
Editor, *Reformation*
Co-curator, *Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King
James Bible*****
http://www.manifoldgreatness.org/****
The Ohio State University
164 West 17th Ave., 421 Denney Hall
Columbus, OH 43210-1340
[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]****
****
[log in to unmask]
James Nohrnberg
Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
Univ. of Virginia
P.O Box 400121
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121