Interesting to see your newsletter that touched on both tact and apocryphal quotes, as I recently had an experience that involved both. I lack tact, a fault I have had my entire life. That came back to bite me.
Here's the story. A woman here on Substack had posted a note that quoted Calvin Coolidge (her favorite president, she said) saying, "nothing in the world can replace persistence", etc., etc. As apocryphal a quote as they come. Calvin Coolidge said nothing like that (he was a man of few words, and most of his words tended toward the trite and thus unquotable), but the quote has been circling around the internet lately anyway.
So I posted a note in response, saying, "Nice words, but Calvin Coolidge never said them." I added a sentence or two that were a little more tactful, but that tactless first sentence apparently struck a nerve and got a furious response. Turns out the woman had taken a break from social media because the constant sniping had depressed her, and when at last she ventured back, what did she get but more venom. She let me have it.
Shamed at my own tactless words, I deleted my note rather than explain my intention was to inform rather than to chide. Too late to mollify, I thought. Best just to flee.
But your newsletter today brought that episode back to mind, and raises two questions I've long longed to ask the esteemed quote maven Mardy.
1. Why does it matter so much who said the words we quote? Is it just that it's important to give proper credit and avoid plagiarizing, or is there something more to getting authorship right?
Doesn't a quote mean exactly the same thing no matter who said it? After all, the meaning of the words doesn't change. The sentiment of the quote still has the same power regardless of its origin, doesn't it?
As an example, what's wrong with putting the words "nothing in the world can replace persistence" in Calvin Coolidge's mouth? It seems like the kind of thing he would say.
2. When some authors like a quote and use it but they know its provenance is dodgy, they will say in their book something like this, "attributed to Mark Twain". What do you think of that practice? Myself, I don't like it (I prefer "author unknown"), but I'm not sure why I don't like it.
And thanks for your timely (for me) take on tact. I needed a lesson on being more tactful, and your lesson was a tactful one. So the next time I see Calvin Coolidge apocryphally quoted (and it will probably be the story about his repartee with Mrs. Coolidge about the rooster and the hens), I'll correct with kindness, skillfully extended.
The quotation is one that has evolved over the years. The earliest version appears to be from a self-help book published in 1881 by the Reverend Theodore Thornton Munger. That was about "purpose" rather than "persistence", and there were many other differences from the modern version.
By 1902 the quotation had reached its modern form in a speech by business executive Edward H. Hart. The quotation was first attributed to Calvin Coolidge in 1929 just after he had left the presidency, and a copy of the quotation appeared on a program at a memorial service for him after his death in 1933.
So who deserves credit for the quotation? Certainly not Calvin Coolidge. And it's not that the author is unknown, but just that no one else can really be singled out either. Perhaps it is as Mark Twain and a variety of others, including Henry Ford, said in a variety of ways, there is no such thing as a new idea.
Thanks for sharing your story, John. Most interesting. I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I too am a stickler for accuracy in quotations. To me, inaccuracy in this arena is a form of intellectual sloppiness or laxness. There's also a Golden Rule component: as I don't want my own words to be misquoted in any way, I don't want to do it to the words of others.
I love the definition you chose of sensitive mental touch!!
And perhaps my favorite of the other choices:
People with tact have less to retract. — Arnold H. Glasow
Following the same line of thought as John S's comment, imo, the dialog in the world today of online society engages too much unthinking, or less tactful, debates.
(kind-of like when people are driving & somehow become anonymous blurting out whatever comes to mind, or worse...)
I love the description of tact as related to emotional intelligence. Didn't realize that the term emotional intelligence is relatively new. Just Googled it and learned that it was coined around 1990. It is a quality in other humans that I value so much.... Dr. Mardy, thank you for the reminder!
Thanks, Patrick, but that is not a Truman quote. Here's the original from my DMDMQ: "Tact is the ability to step on a man’s toes without scuffing the shine on his shoes." O. A. Battista, in Quotoons: A Speaker’s Dictionary (1977)
Interesting to see your newsletter that touched on both tact and apocryphal quotes, as I recently had an experience that involved both. I lack tact, a fault I have had my entire life. That came back to bite me.
Here's the story. A woman here on Substack had posted a note that quoted Calvin Coolidge (her favorite president, she said) saying, "nothing in the world can replace persistence", etc., etc. As apocryphal a quote as they come. Calvin Coolidge said nothing like that (he was a man of few words, and most of his words tended toward the trite and thus unquotable), but the quote has been circling around the internet lately anyway.
So I posted a note in response, saying, "Nice words, but Calvin Coolidge never said them." I added a sentence or two that were a little more tactful, but that tactless first sentence apparently struck a nerve and got a furious response. Turns out the woman had taken a break from social media because the constant sniping had depressed her, and when at last she ventured back, what did she get but more venom. She let me have it.
Shamed at my own tactless words, I deleted my note rather than explain my intention was to inform rather than to chide. Too late to mollify, I thought. Best just to flee.
But your newsletter today brought that episode back to mind, and raises two questions I've long longed to ask the esteemed quote maven Mardy.
1. Why does it matter so much who said the words we quote? Is it just that it's important to give proper credit and avoid plagiarizing, or is there something more to getting authorship right?
Doesn't a quote mean exactly the same thing no matter who said it? After all, the meaning of the words doesn't change. The sentiment of the quote still has the same power regardless of its origin, doesn't it?
As an example, what's wrong with putting the words "nothing in the world can replace persistence" in Calvin Coolidge's mouth? It seems like the kind of thing he would say.
2. When some authors like a quote and use it but they know its provenance is dodgy, they will say in their book something like this, "attributed to Mark Twain". What do you think of that practice? Myself, I don't like it (I prefer "author unknown"), but I'm not sure why I don't like it.
And thanks for your timely (for me) take on tact. I needed a lesson on being more tactful, and your lesson was a tactful one. So the next time I see Calvin Coolidge apocryphally quoted (and it will probably be the story about his repartee with Mrs. Coolidge about the rooster and the hens), I'll correct with kindness, skillfully extended.
And so, John, since I use the quote in a speech, do you know who said it?
The quotation is one that has evolved over the years. The earliest version appears to be from a self-help book published in 1881 by the Reverend Theodore Thornton Munger. That was about "purpose" rather than "persistence", and there were many other differences from the modern version.
By 1902 the quotation had reached its modern form in a speech by business executive Edward H. Hart. The quotation was first attributed to Calvin Coolidge in 1929 just after he had left the presidency, and a copy of the quotation appeared on a program at a memorial service for him after his death in 1933.
Both Garson O'Toole at the Quote Investigator (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/01/12/persist/) and Barry Popik at the Big Apple (https://www.barrypopik.com/new_york_city/entry/nothing_is_more_common) have traced this history. Wikiquote's Calvin Coolidge page also mentions the quotation (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge).
So who deserves credit for the quotation? Certainly not Calvin Coolidge. And it's not that the author is unknown, but just that no one else can really be singled out either. Perhaps it is as Mark Twain and a variety of others, including Henry Ford, said in a variety of ways, there is no such thing as a new idea.
Thanks, John.
Thanks for sharing your story, John. Most interesting. I'm not sure I can answer your question, but I too am a stickler for accuracy in quotations. To me, inaccuracy in this arena is a form of intellectual sloppiness or laxness. There's also a Golden Rule component: as I don't want my own words to be misquoted in any way, I don't want to do it to the words of others.
I think, like John above, that we could all do to be more tactful. I don’t think on it enough. Thank you Mardy (and John).
Truly my pleasure, John. We could all be more tactful than we are.
I love the definition you chose of sensitive mental touch!!
And perhaps my favorite of the other choices:
People with tact have less to retract. — Arnold H. Glasow
Following the same line of thought as John S's comment, imo, the dialog in the world today of online society engages too much unthinking, or less tactful, debates.
(kind-of like when people are driving & somehow become anonymous blurting out whatever comes to mind, or worse...)
Thanks, dj. I also love that Glasow quote, and concur with your other thoughts.
CANDIDATE FOR INCLUSION IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
GROTHEISM --the ability to say the right thing and to attribute any quotation to its true author.
Thanks for your kind and clever words, Louis. Much appreciated!
I love the description of tact as related to emotional intelligence. Didn't realize that the term emotional intelligence is relatively new. Just Googled it and learned that it was coined around 1990. It is a quality in other humans that I value so much.... Dr. Mardy, thank you for the reminder!
Thanks, Barbara. Yes, it is a modern term, but it fits Lincoln perfectly, doesn't it?
How about, Tact is the ability to step on a man's toes without messing up the shine on his shoes."
Harry S. Truman
Thanks, Patrick, but that is not a Truman quote. Here's the original from my DMDMQ: "Tact is the ability to step on a man’s toes without scuffing the shine on his shoes." O. A. Battista, in Quotoons: A Speaker’s Dictionary (1977)