early modern english - Grammaticality - 'what care I then for the Ridicule' (1778 November, US)


Original Source. Google Source: p 169, The Portable John Adams, by John Adams



AA to JA [Braintree, 12-23 November 1778]


In vain do I strive to through of [throw off] in the company of my Friends some of the anxiety of my Heart, it increases in proportion to my endeavours to conceal it; the only alleiviation I know of would be a frequent intercourse by Letters unrestrained by the apprehension of their becomeing food for our Enemies. The affection I feel for my Friend is of the tenderest kind, matured by years, [sanctified?| by choise and approved by Heaven. Angles [Angels—ED.] can witness to its purity, what care I then for the Ridicule of Britains should this testimony of it fall into their Hands, nor can I endure that so much caution and circumspection on your Part should deprive me of the only consolor of your absence—a consolation that our Enemies enjoy in a much higher degree than I do, Many of them having received 3 or 4 Letters from their Friends in England to one that I have received from France.



1. I guess that Abigail Adams writes that she doesn't care that her letters might be ridiculed by the British, if they fall into their Hands because her letters evince her affection for her Friend, so pure to be approved by Heaven and witnessed by Angels?


If my guess is right, then what about the grammaticality and syntax? Was it right even in 1778?


2. The Latin verb consolor worsens my confusion; did Abigail Adams use it as a noun?


Digression/excursus: For those who are wondering, a Google Books search on the use of 'I endure that' revealed this letter fortuitously and then impelled these several questions.



Answer




  1. The essence here is that because angels can vouch for the purity of her affection (for her husband, whom she calls "my Friend"), she is indifferent to any ridicule that the British might have for it. It is the affection she feels for him that has been "approved by Heaven".


The passage can be stripped of the non-essentials and slightly modernized to make the relationships clearer:



The affection I feel for my Friend is [...] approved by Heaven. Angels can witness to its purity, what care I then for [i.e. "so why should I care about?"] the Ridicule of Britains [i.e. Britons] should this testimony of it fall into their Hands [i.e. "if this proof of it were to fall into their hands"] ?




  1. Consolor is simply Adams's spelling of 'consoler'. She writes "consolor of your absence" where nowadays one would write "consolation for your absence".


Regarding the interpretation of "what care I then for the Ridicule of Britains":


Firstly, what is a parenthetical interjection in Adams's letter that is marked off by commas:



"[...], what care I then for the Ridicule of Britains should this testimony of it fall into their Hands, [...]"



today would be either turned into an independent sentence, or would be marked off with dashes (or maybe parentheses).


Meanwhile, the phrasal verb to care for has the meaning 'to feel affection or liking for'. Conversely, not to care for X can mean either 'to dislike X' or 'not to care about X'. It is this latter sense that I think is invoked in Adams's rhetorical declaration.


There are two possible ways I can think of to modernize the inverted structure with what ("what care I [then] for the ridicule").


The first uses the rhetorical why should:



"Why should I care about the ridicule [...] ?"



It also substitutes about for for, and includes a question mark at the end of the sentence. (Though one could instead use an exclamation mark if extra emphasis was desired.)


The second variant uses the modal verb do, likewise substitutes about for for, and includes an exclamation mark at the end of the sentence:



"What do I care about the ridicule [...] !"



(When spoken aloud, the main emphases would be placed on the words care and ridicule, or possibly I and ridicule.)


Meanwhile, the emphatic then that has been inserted into Adams's rhetorical phrase would nowadays be replaced by an emphatic introductory So in both variants:





  • "So why should I care about the ridicule [...] ?"




  • "So what do I care about the ridicule [...] !"





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

time - English notation for hour, minutes and seconds

I often see English notation about time using the " and ' symbols. I have always mistaken about the two, and even their meaning. I'm more used to "01:05:56", for example. How do you represent the hour, minutes, and seconds using the apostrophe and quotes punctuations? Which is for the hour, which is for minutes, and which is for seconds? Is it the common way to write duration of time elapsed? Do they have a special pronunciation? Answer It's not particularly common for expressions of time. It's similar to degrees-minutes-seconds: instead of decimal degrees (38.897212°,-77.036519°) you write (38° 53′ 49.9632″, -77° 2′ 11.4678″). Both are derived from a sexagesimal counting system such as that devised in Ancient Babylon: the single prime represents the first sexagesimal division and the second the next, and so on. 17th-century astronomers used a third division of 1/60th of a second. The advantage of using minute and second symbols for time is that it o
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

word choice - Which is the correct spelling: “fairy” or “faerie”?

Fairy vs. faerie — which is the correct spelling? Answer As others have noted, fairy is the standard modern spelling, and faerie is a pseudo-archaism. However, in some contexts there is now a semantic distinction between the two spellings! In particular, fairy tales and the associated idea of fairies typically refer to the genre of folk stories printed by the Brothers Grimm, then sweetened and popularized for modern audiences by Disney et al. Faerie stories , on the other hand, are stories about the fae : otherworldly, unpredictable, and dangerous creatures who appear in the folk-tales and myths of England and Ireland. In origin, of course, the fairies and the fae are one and the same, but the connotations and usage of the words today are headed in opposite directions. A Google image search for fairy vs. faerie shows a lot of overlap, but some very significant differences in tone and content between the two terms. Note that the search for "fairy" turns up a number
Read more