Thoughts on quotations
I put a daily quote on this blog - sometimes a comment on current events, somethings something which is designed to be uplifting, sometimes a piece of advice which seems to good not to share.
If I'm in the least doubt about the provenance of the quote I try to check it. Sometimes one can validate the quote: sometimes one ends up correcting the source or finding that it would not be appropriate to use it. Sometimes I cannot confirm the provenance of the quote but end up using it anyway on the basis that it makes a good point whoever originally said it, but where this applies, as with the famous 'Voltaire' quote "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" or the 'Cardinal Richelieu' quote below, I usually qualify the quote with a few words of clarification to the effect that the quote is "attributed to" the named author.
It is fortunate that attributing the above quote to Cardinal Richelieu without being able to give proof of who really said it is no longer something you can be sent to the Bastille or hanged for. The cardinal may well have said or written something like this, or it may have been said by one of his agents - but we cannot prove it.
The earliest confirmed document attributing a statement along these lines to Richelieu is the memoirs, published in 1723, of Françoise Bertaut de Motteville who only entered the French court after Richelieu had died, so she was repeating at best second hand reports that the cardinal had been in the habit of saying this, from people who knew Richelieu personally, rather than having heard it herself.
The version of the quote given in those memoirs is rather less memorable than that most often quoted today, refers to two lines of handwriting (rather than six) and suggests that those lines would be enough to make an accusation against the most innocent.
Of course, if he really was in the habit of making such a remark, as Motteville was told, it is not impossible that he uttered both versions on different occasions, but it illustrates the caution required when repeating the words attributed to people who lived centuries ago.
A good example of the reason I try to check quotes and include such a caveat where necessary came today with the use of some words attributed to C.S. Lewis, author of the Narnia books, which were shared by some people on social media as a New Year message.
Lewis was quoted on Twitter and other platforms as having written that
“There are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind.”
A powerful message, and a quote which is nearly - but not quite - correct, though it is important to understand the context.
Lewis did indeed write something close to this - the words "far, far" have been added, but he wrote the rest of it.
However, when the words are removed from their natural context they may come over as delivering a somewhat different message to the one which Lewis actually meant.
The words are taken from a letter which Lewis wrote in 1963, five months before the end of his life. He may or may not have known that he was dying himself, although he of all people certainly knew that he was mortal. However, the lady he was writing to, Mary Willis Shelburne, was in hospital and gravely ill. Although in fact she recovered and lived for another twelve years, it was thought at the time the letter was written that she might not survive the illness and the letter was clearly written to comfort someone who was afraid of dying.
The full letter can be found in "The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3." and there is an article about the quote and what it means here.
Lewis was not saying that the future here on Earth will be better than the past, which is how those words may come over when ripped from their proper context. He was writing as a Christian believer about the life which he believed would come after death.
If that is the message you wish to convey by using the quote, fair enough - but Lewis, who had a fairly dark and pessimistic view of this mortal existence, would probably not have signed up to the optimistic message about life on earth, which his words are often quoted to appears to support.
You can often learn so much more from a statement if you understand it's context.
If I'm in the least doubt about the provenance of the quote I try to check it. Sometimes one can validate the quote: sometimes one ends up correcting the source or finding that it would not be appropriate to use it. Sometimes I cannot confirm the provenance of the quote but end up using it anyway on the basis that it makes a good point whoever originally said it, but where this applies, as with the famous 'Voltaire' quote "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" or the 'Cardinal Richelieu' quote below, I usually qualify the quote with a few words of clarification to the effect that the quote is "attributed to" the named author.
It is fortunate that attributing the above quote to Cardinal Richelieu without being able to give proof of who really said it is no longer something you can be sent to the Bastille or hanged for. The cardinal may well have said or written something like this, or it may have been said by one of his agents - but we cannot prove it.
The earliest confirmed document attributing a statement along these lines to Richelieu is the memoirs, published in 1723, of Françoise Bertaut de Motteville who only entered the French court after Richelieu had died, so she was repeating at best second hand reports that the cardinal had been in the habit of saying this, from people who knew Richelieu personally, rather than having heard it herself.
The version of the quote given in those memoirs is rather less memorable than that most often quoted today, refers to two lines of handwriting (rather than six) and suggests that those lines would be enough to make an accusation against the most innocent.
Of course, if he really was in the habit of making such a remark, as Motteville was told, it is not impossible that he uttered both versions on different occasions, but it illustrates the caution required when repeating the words attributed to people who lived centuries ago.
A good example of the reason I try to check quotes and include such a caveat where necessary came today with the use of some words attributed to C.S. Lewis, author of the Narnia books, which were shared by some people on social media as a New Year message.
Lewis was quoted on Twitter and other platforms as having written that
“There are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind.”
A powerful message, and a quote which is nearly - but not quite - correct, though it is important to understand the context.
Lewis did indeed write something close to this - the words "far, far" have been added, but he wrote the rest of it.
However, when the words are removed from their natural context they may come over as delivering a somewhat different message to the one which Lewis actually meant.
The words are taken from a letter which Lewis wrote in 1963, five months before the end of his life. He may or may not have known that he was dying himself, although he of all people certainly knew that he was mortal. However, the lady he was writing to, Mary Willis Shelburne, was in hospital and gravely ill. Although in fact she recovered and lived for another twelve years, it was thought at the time the letter was written that she might not survive the illness and the letter was clearly written to comfort someone who was afraid of dying.
The full letter can be found in "The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3." and there is an article about the quote and what it means here.
Lewis was not saying that the future here on Earth will be better than the past, which is how those words may come over when ripped from their proper context. He was writing as a Christian believer about the life which he believed would come after death.
If that is the message you wish to convey by using the quote, fair enough - but Lewis, who had a fairly dark and pessimistic view of this mortal existence, would probably not have signed up to the optimistic message about life on earth, which his words are often quoted to appears to support.
You can often learn so much more from a statement if you understand it's context.
Comments