LJB on Tonkin Gulf/Gettysburg Address - the common link!
halcombe
For no discernable reason, I've just got up the text of Lyndon
Johnson's mendacious TV address [1] following the Tonkin Gulf
Incidents (from a quick search, there looks like no worthwhile
description online, bizarrely enough - the best dead-tree treatment is
Moise's 'Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War' [2],
IMHO).
Anyhow, what struck me was this from LBJ:
"In the larger sense this new act of aggression, aimed directly at our
own forces, again brings home to all of us in the United States the
importance of the struggle for peace and security in southeast Asia."
The fact he should commit larceny [excepting a change from indefinite
[3] to definite article] against Abraham Lincoln's gem of oratory
seems on the face of it to aggravate his political offence: but he
(and his speechwriters) must have heard the words of the Gettysburg
Address so many times, is it possible that, they plagiarised
inadvertently?
I'm sure there must be dozens of well-known similar examples - where A
used B's prose in such a way as to leave a doubt whether the words
were intended as a quotation, deliberately passed off as A's work, or
unconsciously drawn from a well wrongly supposed common. But I can't
think of any offhand....
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/19990504165139/www.tamu.edu/scom/pres/speeches/lbjgulf.html
[2] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807823007/qid%3D949054713/sr%3D1-1/103-3437997-5199821
[3] Hay, Nicolay and Bliss versions checked!
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/gadrft.html
http://www.wordchecksystems.com/examples/gettysburg.htm
Mike Oliver
> Anyhow, what struck me was this from LBJ:
>
> "In the larger sense this new act of aggression, aimed directly at our
> own forces, again brings home to all of us in the United States the
> importance of the struggle for peace and security in southeast Asia."
>
> The fact he should commit larceny [excepting a change from indefinite
> [3] to definite article] against Abraham Lincoln's gem of oratory
> seems on the face of it to aggravate his political offence:
The only thing I can even guess you might be talking about is
the phrase "in the larger sense". Surely that phrase is not
unique nor even original to Lincoln; calling it plagiarism
seems bizarre (quite irrespective of the other merits or
demerits of the Johnson speech).
Mike Oliver
> halcombe wrote:
>> The fact he should commit larceny [excepting a change from indefinite
>> [3] to definite article] against Abraham Lincoln's gem of oratory
>> seems on the face of it to aggravate his political offence:
>
> The only thing I can even guess you might be talking about is
> the phrase "in the larger sense". Surely that phrase is not
> unique nor even original to Lincoln; calling it plagiarism
> seems bizarre (quite irrespective of the other merits or
> demerits of the Johnson speech).
In a bit of synchronicity, I happened to be thumbing through
_A_Mencken_Crestomathy_ tonight and found a couple of mismatched
bits of reflection on TGBA. First, from "Forgotten Men", March 1928:
But before him there also stretched an acre or two of
faces--the faces of dull Pennsylvania peasants from the
adjacent farms, with here and there the jowls of a Philadelphia
politician gleaming in the pale Winter sunlight. It was too
cold that day to his badly-cushioned bones for a long speech,
and the audience would have been mortally offended by a good
one. So old Abe put away his reflections, and launched into
the tried and sure-fire stuff. Once started, the _furor_loquendi_
dragged him on. Abandoning the simple and crystal-clear English
of his considered utterance, he stood a sentence on its head, and
made a pretty parlor ornament of it. Proceeding, he described the
causes and nature of the war in terms of the current army press
bureau. Finally, he launched a sonorous, meaningless epigram,
and sat down. There was immense applause. The Pennsylvania
oafs were delighted. And the speech remainsin all the school-books
to this day.
Compare what he said six years earlier, in "Five Men at Random, Prejudices":
The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most
famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the
whoopings of the Websters, Summers and Everetts seem gaudy
and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost
gem-like perfection--the highest emotion reduced to a few
poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be
found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never
even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.
Mencken, who for all his contempt for Southerners had Confederate
sympathies, then goes on to criticize the *content* of the speech,
but the two passages still seem rather at odds with one another.
Mike Lyle
You have to admire Mencken, that's a given. But let me reinforce the
rule of life "Never trust a journalist" with "Never even consider
trusting a humorous journalist".
Mike.
Daniel P. B. Smith
halc...@subdimension.com (halcombe) wrote:
> I'm sure there must be dozens of well-known similar examples - where A
> used B's prose in such a way as to leave a doubt whether the words
> were intended as a quotation, deliberately passed off as A's work, or
> unconsciously drawn from a well wrongly supposed common. But I can't
> think of any offhand....
Neville Chamberlain's infamous "peace in our time," which he perhaps
expected his audience to recognize as a quotation from the Anglican
prayerbook?
The Order for Evening Prayer, Daily Throughout the Year.
...
Then the Priest standing up shall say, O Lord, shew thy mercy upon us.
Answer. And grant us thy salvation.
Priest. O Lord, save the Queen.
Answer. And mercifully hear us when we call upon thee.
Priest. Endue thy Ministers with righteousness.
Answer. And make thy chosen people joyful.
Priest. O Lord, save thy people.
Answer. And bless thine inheritance.
Priest. Give peace in our time, O Lord.
Answer. Because there is none other that fighteth for us,
but only thou, O God.
Priest. O God, make clean our hearts within us.
Answer. And take not thy Holy Spirit from us.
Murray Arnow
And most of all, "Never trust a drunk."
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <d7fa3848.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> halc...@subdimension.com (halcombe) wrote:
>
> > I'm sure there must be dozens of well-known similar examples - where A
> > used B's prose in such a way as to leave a doubt whether the words
> > were intended as a quotation, deliberately passed off as A's work, or
> > unconsciously drawn from a well wrongly supposed common. But I can't
> > think of any offhand....
>
> Neville Chamberlain's infamous "peace in our time," which he perhaps
> expected his audience to recognize as a quotation from the Anglican
> prayerbook?
ObNitpick: Chamberlain said "Peace *for* our time."
<http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/uk/peace.html>.
--
Bob Lieblich
A poor correction, but mine own
Daniel P. B. Smith
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
Are you SURE? If true, this wouldn't be a nitpick at all but would, of
course, totally undermine my observation.
Chamberlain's speech is frequently interpreted to be an acknowledgement
that he was settling for a short-term solution. I've long believed that
was a misinterpretation by people unfamiliar with the Anglican Book of
Common Prayer. If he said "peace FOR our time," then he DID mean he was
talking about a short-term, expedient solution.
Something VERY STRANGE is going on, because if you compare the two sites
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1938PEACE.html
you'll see that they are similar except for the preposition used.
And they're both .edu sites purporting to present source document!
Google searches on
chamberlain "peace in our time"
and
chamberlain "peace for our time"
return 2310 and 491 hits, respectively.
http://www.lib.msu.edu/vincent/findaids/ChamberlainN.html , a university
catalog of audio recordings, describes it as "peace IN our time."
However, _Nice Guys Finish Seventh_ refers to it as "peace for [not
_in_] our time"--but without discussion. A 1950 Oxford DOQ has it as
"peace FOR our time."
But then again, something online called the "Britannica Concise"
http://education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3Ac/chamberlain__neville
has it as "peace IN our time."
The Columbia Encyclopedia online at Bartleby
http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/MunichPa.html
has it as "peace IN our time."
Encarta
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761566542
has it as "peace FOR our time," which, of course, settles it, since
Encarta is always wrong.
Actually what baffles me is that I can't find anything describing the
controversy or acknowledging that there IS a controversy. Everyone just
quotes him as saying "peace in our time" or "peace for our time" or,
occasionally, "peace for our time (NOT 'peace in our time')" without
explanation.
Maybe he meant to say "It's one small peace for our time, one giant war
in our time."
Mike Lyle
Be fair, I've met several drunks who weren't journalists.
Mike.
Donna Richoux
> In article <3DA0379B...@Verizon.net>,
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <d7fa3848.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> > > halc...@subdimension.com (halcombe) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sure there must be dozens of well-known similar examples - where A
> > > > used B's prose in such a way as to leave a doubt whether the words
> > > > were intended as a quotation, deliberately passed off as A's work, or
> > > > unconsciously drawn from a well wrongly supposed common. But I can't
> > > > think of any offhand....
> > >
> > > Neville Chamberlain's infamous "peace in our time," which he perhaps
> > > expected his audience to recognize as a quotation from the Anglican
> > > prayerbook?
> >
> > ObNitpick: Chamberlain said "Peace *for* our time."
> > <http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/uk/peace.html>.
>
> Are you SURE? If true, this wouldn't be a nitpick at all but would, of
> course, totally undermine my observation.
>
> Chamberlain's speech is frequently interpreted to be an acknowledgement
> that he was settling for a short-term solution. I've long believed that
> was a misinterpretation by people unfamiliar with the Anglican Book of
> Common Prayer. If he said "peace FOR our time," then he DID mean he was
> talking about a short-term, expedient solution.
>
> Something VERY STRANGE is going on, because if you compare the two sites
I've said it before, I'll say it again. When it's a matter of getting a
quotation correct, go straight to Xrefer.com -> quotations or
Bartleby.com -> quotations. Except for actual on-line material, like
Gutenberg books, poetry, and essays, you're not going to do better.
Xrefer.com has:
Chamberlain, Neville (1869 - 1940)
British Conservative politician; Prime Minister, (1937 - 1940)
This is the second time in
our history that there has
come back from Germany to
Downing Street peace with
honour. I believe it is
peace for our time.
Speech from 10 Downing
Street, 30 September
(1938), in The Times 1
October (1938).
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1938PEACE.html
>
> you'll see that they are similar except for the preposition used.
>
> And they're both .edu sites purporting to present source document!
>
> Google searches on
> chamberlain "peace in our time"
> and
> chamberlain "peace for our time"
> return 2310 and 491 hits, respectively.
A useless sort of search, I'm afraid. For example, it turns out that
"peace in our time" appears in the Book of Common Prayer, so any page
(Quotations about Peace?) that happened to mention Chamberlain and also
this Book of CP quote is going to turn up as a faulty count.
>
> http://www.lib.msu.edu/vincent/findaids/ChamberlainN.html , a university
> catalog of audio recordings, describes it as "peace IN our time."
>
> However, _Nice Guys Finish Seventh_ refers to it as "peace for [not
> _in_] our time"--but without discussion. A 1950 Oxford DOQ has it as
> "peace FOR our time."
>
> But then again, something online called the "Britannica Concise"
> http://education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3Ac/chamberlain__neville
> has it as "peace IN our time."
>
> The Columbia Encyclopedia online at Bartleby
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/MunichPa.html
> has it as "peace IN our time."
Close, you got to Bartleby, but you didn't get to the Quotations
section. If you had selected Quotations, you would have found:
The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.
NUMBER: 11218
QUOTATION: My good friends, this is the second time in our
history that there has come back from Germany to Downing
Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.
We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I
recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.
ATTRIBUTION: Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940), British
politician, prime minister. speech, Sept. 30,
1938, Downing Street, London. The Penguin Book
of Twentieth Century Speeches, ed. Brian
MacArthur (1992).
Bartleby and Xrefer agree, so I say there is no problem. It's the
business of quotation reference works to get these little details right.
Most people just trying to make a point on some Web page or other don't
feel the same sense of obligation.
> Encarta
> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761566542
> has it as "peace FOR our time," which, of course, settles it, since
> Encarta is always wrong.
>
> Actually what baffles me is that I can't find anything describing the
> controversy or acknowledging that there IS a controversy.
Perhaps because countless quotations are remembered wrongly? The
difference in meaning here is slight enough that no one would be
terribly angry.
>Everyone just
> quotes him as saying "peace in our time" or "peace for our time" or,
> occasionally, "peace for our time (NOT 'peace in our time')" without
> explanation.
Google is good for finding some things, it is terrible for finding out
other things. Quotations are one of those.
>
> Maybe he meant to say "It's one small peace for our time, one giant war
> in our time."
--
-- Donna Richoux
"A time for war, a time for peace"- Ecclesiastes
Donna Richoux
That's all I see, too. Halcombe, is "in a larger sense" or "in the
larger sense" not ordinary English where you are?
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Tom
he was addressing Englishmen who had been brought up on Cranmer's prayer
book (& to many nonconformists whose prayer books contained lots that was
lifted from Cranmer & may have contained that line), & it was clearly
intended as a tag that his hearers would recognize.
OTOH, if he did get it wrong, he wasn't the first politician to misquote a
classic, & certainly won't be the last....
Tom Parsons
--
--
t...@panix.com | I have decided to bypass my inner child
| and go directly to my inner spoiled brat!
http://www.panix.com/~twp | --Unattributed
Donna Richoux
> Well, if he did say "peace for our time," he got it wrong, IMNSHO.
Well, hell, yes, he got it wrong. Famously wrong. The country, no, the
continent was at war within a year. In, for -- it doesn't matter.
>Because
> he was addressing Englishmen who had been brought up on Cranmer's prayer
> book (& to many nonconformists whose prayer books contained lots that was
> lifted from Cranmer & may have contained that line), & it was clearly
> intended as a tag that his hearers would recognize.
>
> OTOH, if he did get it wrong, he wasn't the first politician to misquote a
> classic, & certainly won't be the last....
Your whole is based on the assumption that he was trying to quote a
passage from the Book of Common Prayer. Since there is a definite change
in meaning between "in our time" and "for our time" perhaps you should
credit him with the sense of saying the one he meant?
In -- sometime in our lives
For -- from now on, for the rest of our lives, or the foreseeable
future.
--
Donna Richoux
Thomas A Lawson
wrote:
As a long-term admirer of Mencken I find the above incredible. It does
not read like Mencken, and is certainly at odds with the press reports
of the day: "President Lincoln also spoke." The "dull Pennsylvania
oaf" apparently sat on their hands. At least, that is what I was
taught as a child in the US.
After much googling I have been unable to find this.
>Compare what he said six years earlier, in "Five Men at Random, Prejudices":
>
> The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most
> famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the
> whoopings of the Websters, Summers and Everetts seem gaudy
> and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost
> gem-like perfection--the highest emotion reduced to a few
> poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be
> found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never
> even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.
>
>Mencken, who for all his contempt for Southerners had Confederate
>sympathies, then goes on to criticize the *content* of the speech,
>but the two passages still seem rather at odds with one another.
You can say that again!
Can you verify your source?
The Sanity Inspector
wrote!
>In a bit of synchronicity, I happened to be thumbing through
>_A_Mencken_Crestomathy_ tonight and found a couple of mismatched
>bits of reflection on TGBA. First, from "Forgotten Men", March 1928:
> The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most
> famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the
> whoopings of the Websters, Summers and Everetts seem gaudy
> and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost
> gem-like perfection--the highest emotion reduced to a few
> poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be
> found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never
> even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.
President Lincoln's address was delivered in a clear loud tone
of voice, which could be distinctly heard at the extreme limits of the
large assemblage. It was delivered (or rather read from a sheet of
paper which the speaker held in his hand) in a very deliberate manner,
with strong emphasis, and with a most business-like air.
--The New York Times
The President succeeded on this occasion because he acted
without sense and without constraint in a panorama that was gotten up
more for the benefit of his party than for the glory of the nation and
the honor of the dead. We pass over the silly remarks of the
President; for the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil
of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall no more be
repeated or thought of.
--The Harrisburg PA Patriot and Union
Mr. Lincoln did most foully traduce the motives of the men who
were slain at Gettysburg...Readers will not have failed to observe the
exceeding bad taste which characterized the remarks of the President
and Secretary of State at the dedication of the soldiers' cemetery at
Gettysburg. The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he
reads the silly, flat, and dish-watery utterances of the man who has
to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the
United States.
--The Chicago Times
...the ceremony was rendered ludicrous by some of the
sallies of that poor President Lincoln...Anything more dull and
commplace it would not be easy to produce.
--The Times of London
That this was the right thing in the right place, and a
perfect thing in every respect, was the universal encomium.
--The Cincinnati Gazette
There are grave-yards enough in the land--what is Virginia but
a cemetery?...But there is peculiar significance in the field of
Gettysburg, for there 'thus far' was thundered to the rebellion...The
oration by Mr. Everett was smooth and cold...The few words of the
President were from the heart to the heart. They can not be read,
even, without kindling emotion.
--Harper's Weekly
...but he who wants to take in the very spirit of the day,
catch the unstudied pathos that animates a sincere but simple-minded
man, will turn from the stately periods of the professional orator to
the brief speech of the President.
--The Detroit Advertiser
We know not where to look for a more admirable speech than the
brief one which the President made at the close of Mr. Everett's
oration...Could the most elaborate and splendid oration be more
beautiful, more touching, more inspiring, than those thrilling words
of the President? They had in our humble judgment the charm and power
of the very highest eloquence.
--The Providence Journal
I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near
to the central idea of the occasion in two hours as you did in two
minutes.
--Edward Everett
In our respective parts yesterday, you could not have been
excused to make a short address, nor I a long one. I am pleased to
know that, in your judgment, the little I did say was not entirely a
failure.
--Abraham Lincoln, in reply
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
--The Jam
Peter Moylan
> Well, if he did say "peace for our time," he got it wrong, IMNSHO.
I'm a little behind on the news here. Does this mean that someone
has convinced W not to invade Poland?
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Robert Lieblich
>
> Tom wrote:
> > Well, if he did say "peace for our time," he got it wrong, IMNSHO.
>
> I'm a little behind on the news here. Does this mean that someone
> has convinced W not to invade Poland?
Only if Poland promises to give up trying to become a nucular power.
Us Murricans are verry strict.
--
Bob Lieblich
Verrry strict indeed
Thomas A Lawson
God bless you for this definitive conclusion to this thread.
Daniel P. B. Smith
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
> >
> > Tom wrote:
> > > Well, if he did say "peace for our time," he got it wrong, IMNSHO.
> >
> > I'm a little behind on the news here. Does this mean that someone
> > has convinced W not to invade Poland?
>
> Only if Poland promises to give up trying to become a nucular power.
>
> Us Murricans are verry strict.
According to the latest top-secret intelligence reports leaked by the
White House, Poland could acquire nuclear weapons in less than a year if
it had access to weapons-grade fissionable material.
According to the latest top-secret intelligence reports leaked by the
White House, Luxembourg could acquire nuclear weapons in less than a
year if it had access to weapons-grade fissionable material.
According to the latest top-secret intelligence reports leaked by the
White House, Lane Technical High School in Chicago could acquire nuclear
weapons in less than a year if it had access to weapons-grade
fissionable material.
The Sanity Inspector
<jus...@ditpublishing.com> just wrote!
>God bless you for this definitive conclusion to this thread.
<*blush*>
Thanks, I needed that!
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Your whole is based on the assumption that he was trying to quote a
> passage from the Book of Common Prayer. Since there is a definite change
> in meaning between "in our time" and "for our time" perhaps you should
> credit him with the sense of saying the one he meant?
>
> In -- sometime in our lives
> For -- from now on, for the rest of our lives, or the foreseeable
> future.
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. "Peace in our time" may also mean
that the peace is for all of our time. "Give peace in our time, O
Lord" can perfectly well be prayed in time of peace, and is.
They did burn Cranmer at the stake, though.
Have we ever done the capital for vocative "O" in mid-sentence? A nice
little anomaly, presumably something to do with MS (and I don't
remember if I ever knew why the capital s in "MS", either).
Mike.
dcw
Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Have we ever done the capital for vocative "O" in mid-sentence? A nice
>little anomaly, presumably something to do with MS (and I don't
>remember if I ever knew why the capital s in "MS", either).
We don't have many one-letter words in English. Most of them have a
capital.
I don't understand your point about MS.
David
Mike Lyle
Well in that case, why is a whole one-third of them written in small?
And "I" hasn't always been exclusively capitalled, even when it was
spelt "y". (Needless to say, I sidled very casually indeed to the
dictionary to check before committing myself on that!)
MS just strikes me as a strange way to abbreviate a single word; I
suppose it must have been regarded as two: "manu scriptus", like "post
scriptum". I'd have expected Ms, like Mo for Missouri, if I'd come to
it fresh.
Mike.
Tom
> MS just strikes me as a strange way to abbreviate a single word; I
> suppose it must have been regarded as two: "manu scriptus", like "post
> scriptum". I'd have expected Ms, like Mo for Missouri, if I'd come to
> it fresh.
Whenever context lets me get away with it, I write it as Ms, out of a desire
to sow confusion. I was a feminist before feminism as we know it to-day
existed, but when it comes to "Ms," I give priority to the purity of our
sweet English tongue.
Tom (bad attitude) Parsons
Aaron J. Dinkin
> D.C....@ukc.ac.uk (dcw) wrote in message news:<81...@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk>...
>
>> In article <3fa4d950.02101...@posting.google.com>,
>> Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Have we ever done the capital for vocative "O" in mid-sentence? A nice
>> >little anomaly, presumably something to do with MS (and I don't
>> >remember if I ever knew why the capital s in "MS", either).
>>
>> We don't have many one-letter words in English. Most of them have a
>> capital.
>
> Well in that case, why is a whole one-third of them written in small?
Perhaps: Because "I" and "O" are given their so-called long-vowel sounds,
and usually have a certain amount of stress; whereas "a" is almost always
unstressed and pronounced as a mere schwa?
(Anyway, "a" isn't really a one-letter word; it's a two-letter word, but
we don't always write the <n>.)
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom