We confidently speak in words and phrases we know nothing about.
According to a bumper sticker you may have seen recently, "THE
LAST TIME A NATION LISTENED TO A BUSH, THEY WANDERED IN THE DESERT
FOR FORTY YEARS."
Our president, who is known to read the Bible, would surely take
that as a compliment, if he didn't scorn it as sacrilegious
flattery. He would recall that the nation in question wandered in
the desert on its way from slavery to the Promised Land.
But the bumper sticker's author obviously didn't mean it as
praise. Either he didn't think about what he was saying, or was so
tickled by his nifty play on the president's name that he simply
didn't care.
This reminds me of a similar misunderstanding I once witnessed
in a more solemn context. As a wedding present for a woman who was
studying Italian literature, a fellow professor-in-training bought
a silver platter and had it inscribed with a line from Dante:
quel giorno più non vi leggemmo avante ("that day
we read in it no farther").
No doubt this was meant as a romantic gesture, since Dante's
words refer to passion emerging between a man and a woman as they
read a chivalric romance. Unfortunately, their passion is
adulterous and lands them in Hell. (The characters' historical
prototypes were murdered by the cuckolded husband, who was also the
adulterer's brother.) Not the most auspicious present for a newly
married couple.
It's particularly hard to excuse this blunder, since the
offender presumably had to check the quotation in the
Inferno, where the damning context is unmistakable. More
forgivable is the widespread misuse of Shakespeare, whose words
have so permeated our language that most who quote them don't
recognize their source, or vaguely attribute them to some kindly
old sage of that name.
James Joyce makes fun of this tendency in Ulysses, when
Mr. Deasy approvingly cites the Bard's advice, Put but money in
thy purse. Stephen Dedalus knows that the words belong,
specifically, to the Satanic manipulator Iago in
Othello.
An even more common example is Polonius's going-away speech to
his son Laertes in Hamlet. How many times when I was
growing up did my dad remind me: Neither a borrower nor a
lender be? Your dad probably told you the same; and, like the
rest of Polonius's speech, it's not bad advice as far as it
goes.
So what then does it mean that Shakespeare puts those words in
the mouth of a pompous old fool whose meddling leads to several
deaths, including his own? If nothing else, that parents should
speak on the authority of common sense and experience, rather than
invoke literature as if it were holy writ. Of course, holy writ
presents the same dangers, as that anti-Bush bumper sticker goes to
show.
An old teacher of mine used to complain about the expression
"quoting out of context." "How else can you quote?" he
would point out. New meanings are inevitable when words are removed
from their original sources. That's part of what we call
communication. It's just a pity when the new meaning is an
impoverished version of the old.
My favorite example of this is "Midas touch," which everyone
takes to mean something good, forgetting what we all learned in
grammar school -- that when King Midas asks for everything he
touches to be turned into gold, he doesn't realize that food and
water are also part of the deal, and nearly dies before the god
Dionysius takes the power back.
The moral of the story, in other words: be careful what you wish
for. Of course people won't stop wishing for things -- such as
unlimited wealth -- that they ought to know are bad for them. So
maybe it's fitting that we should use "Midas touch" with no sense
of irony. By missing the point, generation after generation, we
make it all the more eloquently.
About the Author
Francis X. Rocca ia an American writer in Rome, Italy.