Reviews
Part of Love quotes: who, when and why it matters
Love quotes misquotes: a model of attribution drift
Love quotes misquotes: a model of how summaries gain quotation marks, with clues to investigate, attribution advice, and related translation issues.
Most of the romantic quotations that turn out to be wrong were never invented. They were summarized.
They began as paraphrase. Someone wrote an elegant sentence about what a poet felt, what a letter amounted to, or what a book argues about love.
Critics and biographers write elegantly. The sentence said in twenty words what the original said in three pages. Then it traveled and somewhere grew a pair of quotation marks.
That process accounts for more bad attribution in this category than fabrication does, and unlike fabrication it leaves a trail you can follow. Detecting love quotes misquotes is mostly a matter of following that trail back to the first page the line appears on.
What to take away
- A biographer's summary of what someone believed can become a direct quotation in about three hops, with nobody acting in bad faith.
- The tells are grammatical. Hardened paraphrases carry the vocabulary and sentence shapes of criticism, not of speech.
- The test is where the earliest appearance sitsinside a secondary work is the signature, and inside the person's own writing is the refutation.
- The honest repair is usually to keep the sentence and move the credit to whoever actually wrote it.
- The best-documented case in this category is a love poem signed "Roy Croft": the verses are not his, and the real writer's name is on record.
How a summary hardens
Six stages, each of them individually reasonable. The model is a general pattern, not the history of one particular line; the documented case further down shows how a few of these stages look on a real text.
How a summary hardens
- OneCritic characterizes in a sentence
- TwoLater writer borrows, credits
- ThreeBiographer's name drops out
- FourQuotation marks added
- FiveThird person becomes first
- SixDate and title attached
One: the description. A biographer, translator or critic characterizes a body of work or a relationship in a single sentence. It is their sentence, doing an interpretive job, and in the book it is clearly marked as theirs.
Two: the borrowing. A later writer finds the sentence useful and reproduces it, crediting the biographer. Still correct.
Three: the middle name drops. In the next retelling the biographer disappears, because the interesting name in the sentence is the subject's, not the interpreter's. Now the sentence sits next to the subject's name with nothing between them.
Four: the marks appear. Someone formatting a page treats the adjacent name as the speaker and adds quotation marks. This is the moment the paraphrase becomes a quotation, and it is done by design conventions rather than by any claim.
Five: the person shifts. The tense and pronoun shifts that mark indirect speech get undone, and third person becomes first. "He believed that love is" becomes "Love is", or occasionally acquires an "I". The sentence now reads as speech.
Six: the furniture arrives. A date, sometimes a work title, gets attached by a later compiler who assumes the missing details were lost rather than absent. The entry is now indistinguishable from a real citation.
The same sequence runs in every category, and it is the mechanism behind most maxims credited to leaders. Romantic material is worse hit for one reason: it is written about more than it is written, so the ratio of interpretation to primary text is unusually high.
A documented case: the poem signed "Roy Croft"
The love poem that circulates most widely under the name "Roy Croft" is not the work of anyone who bore that name. In the form readers meet, it opens:
I love you, not only for what you are, but for what I am when I am with you.
The poem is actually by Mary Carolyn Davies, and its earliest documented appearance is in the Epworth Herald on October 26, 1918, under the title "To a Friend." That is a name and a date the verses did not carry when they were written: the signature "Roy Croft" arrives with later printings, attached to the text with no biography, no other work and no paper trail behind it.
Read against the model above, the case rests on the same machinery, even though it skips the middle steps. Nobody paraphrased these verses and nobody had to. The writer's name dropped out, another name took its place, and reprinting supplied the rest of the furniture until the attribution looked as solid as a citation.
The routine below settles it in a single move. The earliest appearance anyone can reach is a periodical issue of 1918, printed under a different title and credited to a different writer, which is the secondary-source signature in its plainest form. Everything the verses have gathered since is reprinting, not evidence.
The repair keeps the poem. What changes is the name in front of it — Mary Carolyn Davies's, on record since 1918 — and, where the false attribution is repeated, a note saying that the name the verses travel under has no source behind it.
The grammatical residue
Hardened paraphrases sound wrong once you know what to listen for, because critical prose and personal speech are built differently.
- Analytical vocabulary.Words like "conception", "the beloved", "the lover", "sensibility", "the erotic" belong to writing about love, not to expressions of it.
- The definite article on abstractions.Criticism generalizes with "the": the loved one, the poetic imagination. People writing to a person do not.
- A describing verb inside the sentence.Something that reports a state rather than expressing it: constructions built around what love "represents", "signifies" or "consists in".
- Balanced subordination.Long written sentences with two matching subordinate clauses are essay architecture. Speech does not usually manage it.
- No addressee.Real romantic writing has a "you" in it or nearby. A hardened summary has nobody in it at all, which is why it generalizes so cleanly.
- Period mismatch.The vocabulary belongs to the century of the biographer, not the subject. This is where the internal dating tests do most of their work: take a distinctive word, idiom or spelling from the line, ask when it entered the language, and set that date against the period of the supposed speaker. A word that postdates the person is the cleanest proof the sentence is not theirs.
Where to look for the source
| Where the line first appears | What that means |
|---|---|
| Inside a biography or critical study, in the author's own voice | The classic signature. Read the surrounding paragraph and see whose sentence it is |
| In a translator's introduction | Often a summary of the poet's themes, later quoted as the poet |
| In program notes, liner notes or an exhibition label | Written to be readable in ninety seconds, and compressed accordingly |
| In a dramatization: a film, a novel, a stage play about real people | Invented dialogue that re-enters the record as testimony |
| In an encyclopedia entry summarizing a work | A summary of a book presented later as a line from it |
| In the person's own letters or published work | Not a hardened paraphrase. Record the edition and move on |
The fourth row is worth taking seriously because it is growing. Dramatizations write dialogue for real people by necessity, audiences remember the dialogue, and nothing in the finished object marks which lines came from a source and which were written for the scene.
Where the line first appears
Source
- Biography or critical study
- Classic signature
- Translator's introduction
- Summary of themes
- Program or liner notes
- Compressed
- Dramatization
- Invented dialogue
- Encyclopedia entry
- Summary of a work
- Own letters or work
- Not a paraphrase
What it means
- Biography or critical study
- Author's own voice
- Translator's introduction
- Quoted as poet
- Program or liner notes
- Readable in ninety seconds
- Dramatization
- Re-enters as testimony
- Encyclopedia entry
- Presented as a line
- Own letters or work
- Record edition and move on
Detecting one
- Find the earliest appearance you can reach.Everything depends on this and nothing substitutes for it.
- Look at what kind of book it sits in.Primary work, or somebody writing about the person? That single question resolves most cases.
- Read the paragraph around it in that earliest source.If the sentence is in the author's own voice, with no quotation marks, you have your answer on the page.
- Search the person's own texts for anything similar.A real sentence tends to have relatives: the writer will have circled the idea more than once. A hardened paraphrase is an orphan.
- Compare the register.Set the line beside a paragraph the person definitely wrote. Paraphrases usually sound more organized than their subjects ever did.
- Check whether it is a translation of a summary.A doubly derived line, summarized in one language and rendered in another, is common in this material and is nobody's sentence at all.
Related issues: reworking and translation
These two cases are of a different kind from the one above. They concern rival versions of a text, not a summary signed with a subject's name.
A poet read through someone else's English. Much of the Rumi that circulates as love poetry in English comes from Coleman Barks, an American poet who neither spoke nor read Persian and rewrote the poems from other English translations. A line from one of his books is therefore two steps from Rumi: a translation, then a reworking of it. That is the doubly derived case from step six above. The honest credit is "from Coleman Barks's version of Rumi", which tells the reader whose sentence they are holding.
A famous verse in two wordings. 1 Corinthians 13, often read at weddings, is Paul's praise of love, agapē in the Greek. The King James Version renders that word "charity", and most other English translations render it "love". So the closing line arrives as "faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity" in one Bible and with "love" in another. Neither reader has misquoted anything. Each is quoting a translation, and naming the version settles the apparent disagreement.
For checking a line that has neither case's paper trail, Quote Investigator is a website that fact-checks the reported origins of widely circulated quotes. It was started in 2010 by Gregory F. Sullivan, who runs it under the pseudonym Garson O'Toole, and its entries show the earliest appearances it found, which is step one of the routine above done for you.
What to do with one
Keep the sentence. It is often very good, which is exactly why it traveled.
- Credit the person who wrote it."As his biographer put it" is a real attribution to a real writer, and it is more interesting than a bare name because it tells the reader they are getting an interpretation.
- Use indirect speech for the subject."She argued, across the letters, that..." claims what the evidence supports and nothing more.
- Say when the paraphrase was made.A characterization written a century after the fact is a fact about the century that wrote it.
- Do not split the difference."Attributed to" on a sentence you know came from a biography is a hedge in the wrong direction. Report what the check found instead: "paraphrase by his biographer", "from a later translation", or "earliest source not found".
Common questions
Is a paraphrase in quotation marks always an error?
As a quotation, yes. As a claim about what someone thought, it may be entirely accurate. That is what makes this failure so persistent: the content survives the process intact, and only the attribution breaks.
The biographer had access to letters I cannot see. Does that change things?
It makes their characterization better evidence, and it still does not make it a quotation. Cite them for the characterization and note what they were working from. Where the letters are published, go and read them, as the default rather than the last resort.
How do I write this up without sounding like I am accusing anyone?
Describe the sequence rather than the motive. Nobody in a hardening chain does anything wrong; the sentence simply loses a name in transmission. Saying so plainly is both accurate and uncontroversial.
