German Things Considered: German Studies Research

The Semiotics of (Im)Polite Address in Joachim Meichel’s 1635 German Translation of Cenodoxus: Der Doctor von Paris

Jakob Bidermann’s famous Latin moral play Cenodoxus Der Doctor von Pariß was first performed in 1602 in Augsburg at the school where he taught. The events in this Jesuitendrama are similar to those recounted in the legend of St. Bruno, who is supposed to have become quite pious after witnessing the damnation of a well-respected 11^th century Parisian doctor (Tarot [Bidermann] 1965:158). (The bibliography is found at the end of this e-book.) Some thirty three years later Joachim Meichel’s German translation appeared in 1635. His translation is remarkable in that it effectively brings about a complex linguistic interplay among characters. One aspect of this interplay is politeness, more specifically polite address. The spectrum of verbal acts constituted by this interplay motivates the characters’ actions on a variety of levels.

In Bidermann’s dramatic version of the St. Bruno legend, a servant named Dama exhibits great skill in manipulating the self-loving doctor to his own personal advantage. He uses language as one of many tools in interacting with him. By contrast, Exoristus and Nauegus---both socially and linguistically less skilled than Dama---are unsuccessful in their dealings with the doctor. All three figures address the doctor using the polite abstractions Eure Gnaden (Your Grace[s]) or Ihre Gnaden (Their Grace[s]). Dama uses the Ihre-forms relatively more often than the other characters. Although he has a subservient role, he is the only character who consistently succeeds in his interpersonal dealings with the doctor. On the other hand, the prisoner Exoristus and the sailor Nauegus prove themselves incapable of gaining the doctor’s favor. Their use of Ihre-forms is limited, whereas Dama addresses the doctor seven times with an Ihre-construction and seven times an Eure-construction. Nauegus addresses the doctor three times with an Eure-construction and once with an Ihre-construction. Such a mixture and variety of forms would seem at first glance to be random and hardly worth comment. As we will see, however, this variety corresponds to the characters’ interactional goals and outcomes.

Historically in German, in addition to the polite pronoun Ihr, honorific abstractions such as Eure Gnaden or Eure Majestät were used to address nobility, royalty and certain other privileged classes. (Refer to Listen 1999 for a more complete overview of polite address in the early modern era in German.) Beginning in the 16th century, dramas and epistolary texts show constructions with a third person possessive used as direct address, such as Ihre Gnaden or Ihre Majestät. Some texts even mix the two forms within the same scene or letter. Philologists have scarcely pondered the significance of this type of variation. Some have assumed the two types of usage were synonymous (Metcalf 1938); others note the different usages but do not speculate as to motivation (Keller 1904). Using concepts developed in politeness theory, the present paper shows how the characters in Meichel’s German translation of Cenodoxus use the two forms Ihre Gnaden and Eure Gnaden in different ways and to different ends. We will see how the two have slightly different politeness values. Using the appropriate form at the appropriate time allows the characters to accomplish what they want in their interaction with others.

In order to discuss the discourse contexts of address, we need to define a few terms. I will claim, in short, that the instances of Ihre-forms are speech acts which potentially threaten the addressee’s negative face. “Negative face” is defined by Brown and Levinson as the “want of every ’competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others” (1978:62). The addressee’s negative face is threatened when the speaker indicates by an utterance that he or she desires to affect the interlocuter’s freedom of action in some way.

Utterances which fall into this category are 1) acts that predicate some future act of the addressee, such as orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminders, threats, warnings, dares; 2) acts that put some pressure on the addressee to accept or reject the speaker’s future action, such as offers and promises; and 3) acts that predicate some desire of the speaker toward the addressee or the addressee’s goods, such as compliments, expressions of envy or admiration, or expressions of strong emotion (Brown and Levinson 1978:65-6).

Discourse analysis of relevant text locations shows how the three characters, Dama, Nauegus, and Exoristus, address their interlocutors and what the outcome of their verbal interaction is. In example (1) below, Dama warns the doctor to watch out for an “insane madman,” Mariscus, who in actuality is not rabid as Dama portrays him to be, but is rather livid at Dama for having been deceived by him earlier in the day.

(1)
DAMA: Das thue ich drumb Jhr Gnaden sagen / Damit sie könne hüten sich / Vor dem vnsinnign Wütterich. / Er ist kein Mensch halt ich darfür / Ja wilder dann ein wildes Thier.
DOCT: Fürwar es ist mir laid für jhn (28:622)
(DAMA: I am telling Their Grace this so that you can be on your guard against the insane madman. I don’t consider him a human, yes, he is wilder than a wild animal.
DOCT: Indeed, I feel sorry for him.)

Dama thus only pretends to be concerned about the doctor’s safety when he advises him to watch out for the “vnsinnign Wütterich.” Nonetheless, the doctor affirms Dama’s admonition with his positive response, “Fürwar” (indeed). Dama continues along in this same vein by focusing the doctor’s attention on Mariscus again.

In example (2) below, he uses an interrogative to urge the doctor to take note of the madman’s ravings.

(2)
DAMA: Hört Jhr Gnaden was für ein Spil?
MAR: Ich wil den Buebn / …
DOCT: Ich förcht mir / rueff die Diener her. (29:632)
(DAMA: Do Their Graces hear the carrying on?
MAR [madman]: I want that fellow …
DOCT: I’m afraid, call the servants.)

Since the function of the question is not interrogative, but indirectly suggestive of a course of action the addressee should take, the addressee does not answer, but says instead three lines later, "Ich förcht mir" (I am afraid). Dama is motivated to pose this rhetorical question by his desire to divert attention away from himself. The question is thus a very polite ruse that brings the doctor to focus his attention on Mariscus.

As his servant, Dama is expected to be responsive to his master’s commands. In examples (3) through (6) that follow, Dama commits himself to action, thus making an implicit promise to carry out the doctor’s requests.

In examples (3) and (4) below, we see Dama’s simple affirmative responses to his master’s beckoning. The moment of interpersonal contact is critical. The polite Ihre-form shows Dama’s sociolinguistic savvy, as well as his recognition of the crucial nature of the moment.

(3)
DOCTOR: Komb her Dama
DAMA: Was will Jhr Gnad? (42:87)
(DOCTOR: Come here, Dama.
DAMA: What does Their Grace want?)

(4)
DOCTOR: [...] vnd komb darmit herein.
DAMA: Alßbald Jhr Gnaden. (45:207)
(DOCTOR: ... and come in with it.
DAMA: At once, Their Graces.)

Examples (5) and (6) below show Dama’s simple affirmative responses. The first is to a direct question which is also a disguised order. The second is a bald imperative. Dama shows the appropriate level of verbal subservience in his linguistic choices for responding to the doctor.

(5)
DOCTOR: Merckst wol was ich befilche dir?
DAMA: Jhr Gnaden Ja / ich merck es wol: Will es außrichten wie ich soll. (50:345)
(DOCTOR: Notest thou what I command thee?
DAMA: Their Graces, yes, I note it well: Will carry it out as I am supposed to do.)

(6)
DOCTOR: Tritt ab du Jung.
DAMA: Jr Gnaden, Ja. (62:729)
(DOCTOR: Leave, thou boy.
DAMA: Their Graces, yes.)

Below in example (7), Nauegus bids the doctor to realize how fortunate the latter has been to have received so much from divine generosity. Nauegus tries to get the doctor to acknowledge this. In uttering this, Nauegus wants the doctor to re-evaluate his attitude and see the situation from another perspective.

(7)
NAUEGUS: Jhr Gnaden wöll zu Hertzen fassen / Wie sie von Gott hab auß der massen Empfangen Segen / Glück vnd Gaben (51:378)
(NAUEGUS: Would that Their Graces understand how you have abundantly received blessings, fortune, and gifts from God.)

All seven utterances mentioned thus far are parts of encounters in which a face-threatening act can readily be construed. That is, they are utterances which predicate some future act of the addressee, or that put some pressure on the addressee to accept or reject the speaker’s intended actions. We have also seen that the characters used Ihre-forms in their interaction with the interlocutor.

Whereas Ihre-forms in Cenodoxus are predominantly face-threating acts, the same text shows Eure-forms in a whole variety of contexts and interactions. The majority of speech events of this type do not involve a high level of speaker-hearer interaction, but rather tend to be less threatening. In example (8) shown below, Dama informs the doctor that petitioners and supplicants want to see him.

(8)
DAMA: Beym Thor warten der Leut gar vil / Die all begeren nur allein / Bey Ewer Gnaden selbst zuseyn (27:580)
(DAMA: At the gate wait many people who all desire only to be with Your Grace.)

At issue is the people’s desire to see the doctor, not Dama’s desires or requests. Although a request is implicit, it is a request of third parties which the speaker is relating to the hearer. The doctor’s negative face is thereby in no way threatened by Dama’s speech act.

Dama continues to describe the scene outside the doctor’s home. In example (9) below, Dama relates to the doctor the attitudes of the people outside.

(9)
DAMA: Vnd geben für sie können nit / Von dannen weichen einen tritt / Biß sie vernemme ewer Gnad Vnd jhnen gebe hilff vnd rath. (27:591)
(DAMA: And maintain they cannot move a single step from there until Your Grace see them and give them help and advice.)

In example (10) below, Dama recounts to the doctor how he has searched the city to find Mariscus to ask him to dine with the doctor. He is reporting on events, not asking anything of the doctor or promising anything to him. There is no interpersonal negotiative give-and-take as with face threatening speech acts.

(10)
DAMA: Auß jhnen einer sagt was gstalt / Ein Casus vnserem bekanten /Dem Marisco sey zugestanden / Den ich zum Tisch für Ewer Gnad / Hab außgesucht die gantze Statt / (28:602)
(DAMA: Of them one told what sort of thing has happened to our acquaintance Mariscus whom I have sought through the whole city to bring him before Your Grace for lunch.)

In examples (11) through (14) that follow, Dama relates to the doctor what others say about him. Dama is a go-between, a verbal intermediary recounting circumstances as from third parties. The doctor seems not to doubt the veracity of his flattery, but asks Dama for more. Again, Dama’s speech acts here involve direct address that is part of declarative or descriptive statements. The utterances do not predicate action or limitation of action on the part of either interlocutor at the other’s behest or favor.

(11)
DAMA: Auch sagten sie genädigr Herr / Wie Ewer Gnad hoch Weißheit / Gaben / Von Gott für andere Menschen haben. (42:98)
(DAMA: They also said, gracious sir how Your Grace have much wisdom , gifts from God above other people.)

(12)
DAMA: Sie lobten auch gar hoch zumal / Die Demuet vnd die freundlich red / So Ewer Gnad mit jhnen hett / (42:102)
(DAMA: They also praised greatly / The humility and the friendly talk / Which Your Grace would have with them.)

(13)
DOCTOR: Was haben sie sonst mehr gemeldt?
DAMA: Sie haben noch mehr Lob erzehlt / Das alles sich auff Ewer Gnad / Gar aigentlich geschicket hat. (43:115)
(DOCTOR: What else have they reported?
DAMA: They have spoken still more praise all of which indeed was fitting for Your Grace.)

In example (14) in particular, Dama announces the presence of two gentlemen who have come to visit the doctor. Although a request is being made, it is a request of third parties. Dama uses the Eure-form to relay the visitors’ desire to see the doctor.

(14)
DAMA: Herr Hugo vnd Herr Philaret stehn / gnädiger Herr / draussen beed / Vnd synd darumben kommen her / Wanns Ewer Gnad nit zwider wer / So wolten sie gern bey ihr seyn. (92:143)
(DAMA: Mr. Hugo and Mr. Philaret both stand outside, gracious sir, and have come here for the purpose that if it shouldn’t displease Your Grace / then they would like to have its [=your] company.)

In the following examples (15) and (16), Nauegus begs the doctor for alms. Nauegus does in fact initiate face threatening acts in the form of requests. Unlike Dama, Nauegus does not use Ihre-forms when asking something of the doctor. He thus instigates face-threatening acts in his own interaction with the doctor.

(15)
NAUEGUS: Durch Ewer Gnaden Seeligkeit / Vnd Tugenten bekannt so weit / Bitt / sie wöll sich erbarmen mein. (50:349)
(NAUEGUS: Through Your Grace’s blessedness and virtues known from afar I plead that you would have mercy on me.)

(16)
NAUEGUS: Ist Ewer Gnaden Tugentreich / Vnd mir an Sünden nichte gleich / Wolt sie nit zürnen vber mich. (51:367)
(NAUEGUS: If Your Grace is virtuous and not like unto me in matters of sin you would not be angry with me.)

Unfortunately for Nauegus, however, the doctor does not accede to the request for alms. Nauegus’s interactional goals fail miserably. In example (17) below, Nauegus asks for divine protection of the doctor.

(17)
NAUEGUS: Der güetig Gott wöll Ewr Gnaden / Vor Vnglück bhüetten vnd vor schaden. (51:363)
(NAUEGUS: Would that the good God protect and guard Your Grace against misfortune and injury.)

In an ironic bit of subtle foreshadowing, this desire of Nauegus also comes to naught; the doctor is eventually damned.

Another petitioner, this one named Exoristus, comes to the doctor. His request to the doctor is shown in example (18) below. When making a request on behalf of his companions, he uses the more flattering Herrlichkeit (Lordship).

(18)
EXOR: Wir bitten Ewer Herrlichkeit / Durch dero höchste Seeligkeit: / Sie wölle doch sich vnser Armen / Auß güte genädigklich erbarmen. (53:436)
(EXOR: We plead with Your Lordship through your supreme blessedness: that you would have mercy on us poor folk out of gracious goodness.)

As was the case with Nauegus, Exoristus is not successful with his verbal act. Like Nauegus, he use an Eure-form in addressing the doctor. He then makes a further futile attempt to relate to the doctor their despair, as shown in example (19) that follows.

(19)
EXOR: Ewr Gnad seh vnser Ellend an / es möcht doch ainem grausen dran.
(EXOR: May Your Grace see our destitution it might well horrify one.)

As clearly shown in examples (16) through (19) cited above, verbal acts with Eure-forms cover a wider range of speech act categories than those with Ihre-forms. Significant here is that although not all face threatening acts in Cenodoxus involve Ihre-forms, the converse is true: all occurrences of Ihre-forms in the drama involve a face threatening act of some kind. In spite of Metcalf’s comments to the contrary, the two forms apparently were not synonymous for Meichel and his audience. The distribution of the forms with regard to type of interaction suggests that the Ihre-forms were more polite than the Eure-forms; where they appeared in the speech events, the negative face of a more powerful addressee was potentially being threatened.

The polite distancing mechanisms inherent in abstractions of address such as Eure Gnaden and Ihre Gnaden can be characterized as metonymies and thus as indirect and more polite than second person pronouns. Although less direct than du, plural address is still more direct than address by such abstractions. The significant difference between du and ihr lies in the plurality of hearers. Whether only one hearer is part of the speech event or several, the usage reflects address of a group. When ihr is used to address an individual, both distancing and power metaphors are involved: distance, in that no individual is being addressed directly, and power, in that a plurality of hearers is imagined, traditionally called “maiestatis pluralis.”

Unlike the pronouns du and ihr, for a speaker to address a hearer with an abstraction like grace, majesty or mercy is a metonymy, in that the attributed characteristic (e.g. grace) of the hearer is used to stand for the hearer. A formula such as Eure Gnaden still contains a second person reference in the Eure. On the other hand, when Ihre Gnaden is used as address, the direct second person reference is covert. Because it retains second person morphology in the possessive, Eure Gnaden is more direct than Ihre Gnaden. Ihre Gnaden is more distant than Eure Gnaden because of the reference to only explicitly third person participants. Thus, Ihre Gnaden contains not only a metonymy as does Eure Gnaden, but a metonymy of a more distant and imagined third person. The increased distancing gained motivates its use as the more polite form.

Our discourse analysis has shown the characters’ interaction to be dynamic on multiple verbal levels. Dama’s social and verbal skills serve him well. He is able to manipulate the doctor both by what he says and how he says it. Being the insider, his dealings with the doctor are more fruitful than those of the others. By contrast, Nauegus and Exoristus lack the same spectrum of requisite interpersonal skills. Of course, this is not to say that the only reason for their failure is that their speech acts are sociolinguistically inept. Rather their behavior, both verbal and social, becomes even less appealing for the doctor who is already disinclined to accede to their wishes.

The characters of Meichel’s German translation of Bidermann’s drama become more complex in light of the ways in which they use (or fail to use) polite address to interact effectively with one another. The results of their verbal interaction speak to the connotations which their linguistic choices carried. Knowing exactly what to call someone proves to be a crucial factor for the characters in Cenodoxus.

Bibliography

Bidermann, Jakob. 1965. Cenodoxus.1635. Trans. Joachim Meichel. Ed. Rolf Tarot. Stuttgart: Reclam.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4. Ed. John J. Gumperz. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.

Keller, Albrecht. 1904. “Die Formen der Anrede im Frühneuhochdeutschen.” Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 6: 129-174.

Listen, Paul. 1999. The Emergence of German Polite Sie: Cognitive and Sociolinguistic Parameters. New York: Peter Lang.

Metcalf, George J. 1938. Forms of Address in German (1500-1800). Washington University Studies, New Series, Language and Literature 7. St. Louis: Washington UP.