The "quoth" at the end of the thing spoken (by so-and-so) 
functions much like punctuation: it occupies the place of 
the "close quotation" in quotation marks, so it logically 
comes immediately after the words being quoted.
    Poetic license, rhetorical re-emphasis, metrical 
expediency, etc., allow Poe to use the recognizably 
terminal indication, "quoth the raven" (with the words in 
the conventional order: as if it were, "quod T.R.") in 
advance of the thing quoted ("'Nevermore'"), which is 
given the emphatic position (pre-)occupied by whatever 
word ends a sentence.  (Compare the translation of the 
prophets' signature, "Thus saith the Lord," but which can 
come either before the prophet's message, to announce it, 
or after, to seal and authorize it.)

  On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:08:05 -0400
  Scott Lucas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Scott C. Lucas
> 
> Professor of English
> 
> The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina
> 
> Charleston, SC  29409
> 
> 
> 
> (843) 953-5133
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:33 AM, James C. Nohrnberg <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> 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 
>>>><[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> *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/****<http://www.manifoldgreatness.org/****>
>>>>
>>>> The Ohio State University
>>>> 164 West 17th Ave., 421 Denney Hall
>>>> Columbus, OH 43210-1340
>>>> [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
>>

[log in to unmask]
James Nohrnberg
Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
Univ. of Virginia
P.O Box 400121
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121