# who find themselves, however unworthily



## SuprunP

And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the lady with the sapphires, and they exchanged the arch expression of those who find themselves, *however unworthily*, to be witnesses at an historic moment.
(Titus Alone; Mervyn Peake)

Would you be so kind to tell me whether my understanding that 'unworthily' modifies 'find' is correct?

Thanks.


----------



## sb70012

SuprunP said:


> Would you be so kind to tell me whether my understanding that 'unworthily' modifies 'find' is correct?


Hi,
I would say "*however unworthily*" modifies the two parts. The words before and after that. Not just "find" or "to be".


----------



## wandle

SuprunP said:


> Would you be so kind to tell me whether my understanding that 'unworthily' modifies 'find' is correct?


As a matter of grammar it certainly ought to. As a matter of semantic sense it cannot really do so.
'To find oneself' in a situation is not an action, or even a state, but an expression of result. 
It is not a performance of any kind and thus cannot be worthily or unworthily executed.
The context shows that they were unworthy to be witnesses.

Two better options would be:
_find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses at an historic moment;
find themselves to be witnesses, however unworthy, at an historic moment._

I would prefer:
_find themselves witnesses, however unworthy, of an historic moment._


----------



## SuprunP

Thank you *sb70012* and *wandle*!


----------



## bennymix

Suprun, I think you were right 'however unworthily' is string of adverbs modifying 'find.'

Wandle's first option, which is also a kind of explication, makes this clear.

_find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses at an historic moment;_


----------



## wandle

> _find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses at an historic moment;_


In this option, the words 'however unworthily' modify the verb 'to be'.


----------



## bennymix

Point taken.  "To be" however, is not present in the OP example (you added them as explication);  I'd say the words (and verb) were elided, and so the force of the adverbs falls on the verb which _is_ there, namely 'find [themselves].'

ADDED:  There are mistakes in what I say, as pointed out by Wandle in post #9, responding.


----------



## SuprunP

Thank you *bennymix*!


----------



## wandle

bennymix said:


> "To be" however, is not present in the OP example


Yes, it is, though:


SuprunP said:


> those who find themselves, however unworthily, to be witnesses at an historic moment.





bennymix said:


> (you added them as explication);


No, sorry, I did not. I was showing two ways that Peake could have expressed himself differently and better:


wandle said:


> Two better options would be:
> _find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses at an historic moment;
> find themselves to be witnesses, however unworthy, at an historic moment._


I offered those two options as alternatives to the original.
They represent two valid choices which were available to Peake instead of the mistaken one he chose.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Wandle, thanks for the clarification.   My mistake.    You raise  excellent points, and I will address them, below.  The issue, really  comes down to Peake vs. your alternatives:

_Peake:  And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the lady with the  sapphires, and they exchanged the arch expression of those who find  themselves, however unworthily, to be witnesses at an historic moment.


Wandle 1 find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses at an historic moment;
Wandle 2 find themselves to be witnesses, however unworthy, at an historic moment._

---

The OP asked if 'however unworthily' modified 'find.'      That certain looks like Peake's intention,
in the sentence as written.   And you (Wandle) conceded as much.

_W: // As a matter of grammar it certainly ought to._//

I stick with the conclusion that 'find' is being modified, and will review W's arguments, a bit later.

Let's  look at Wandle's suggested improvements.   As W2 states, the people  are, in this approach, said to be *unworthy witnesses.*
While this is indeed clearer, and more happily constructed, it arguably changes Peake's meaning.   However one can easily get into
hair  splitting in the sort of case, e.g. "The state unjustly carried out  executions [of Smith and Jones]" vs. "The state carried out unjust  executions [of Smith and Jones]."   Adverbs applied to ways of acting  become adjectives applied to actions.

In the present case, is it the process of becoming witnesses that's characterized, or the character of the witnesses?  Let's not split hairs.

But  let's look at Wandle's argument, as he says, on semantic grounds.    Essentially he says, Peake can't commonsensically *mean* what it looks  like he's saying in grammatical terms.

W: _As a matter of semantic sense it cannot really do so.
'To find oneself' in a situation is not an action, or even a state, but an expression of result. 
It is not a performance of any kind and thus cannot be worthily or unworthily executed.
The context shows that they were unworthy to be witnesses._

===
This  is, upon reflection, a bit strange.  "to find oneself" certain looks  like a verb  "I found myself utterly disoriented."   Does this sentence  lack a verb?   Well, it appears Wandle is saying it's not the right sort  of verb, namely one of the two standard varieties,
verb of action,  or verb of state.  Supposing that were so, is Wandle really saying it's  some exotic type of verb that can't take an adverb, or at least the  adverb 'unworthily'?

The key point is Wandle's statement, that  'finding onself' is not 'performed' and can't be 'executed.'   But  surely Wandle is aware of any number of 'action' verbs, in the broad  sense, that can't be 'performed',  e.g. falling, dying, weakening.   So  we must read Wandle as claiming, "to find oneself" is an action verb,  but NOT the performance type, like running, hitting, killing.  Let's  call those 'action-but-not-quite' [Action NQ] verbs.

So Wandle's  claim, as I understand it, is that Action NQ verbs, can't take adverbs,  *at least those which relate to execution.*   Well, maybe not, but how  about other adverbs? 

Example,   "In the battle, John died ignominiously, kicked in the stomach by his own horse as he attempted to adjust the saddle."

IF  there are such adverbs, then Wandle would have to show that  'unworthily' isn't one, that 'unworthily' is limited to cases of  'execution' or mainstream action verbs.   And of course he doesn't.

Let's simplify:  [OP sentence, stripped down]  _The man and the woman found themselves, unworthily, to be witnesses at an historic event._

I think this preserves the essential grammatical and semantic points.

Let's compare with, continuing the example above,  _ "The man found himself, dismayingly, to be dying from a kick in the stomach by his own horse."_

I  will happily concede that some adverbs might only apply to 'execution'  verbs of action, but it seems pretty clear that a number can apply to  verbs of action in the broadest sense, including Action NQ verbs.

In  conclusion, there is no real reason to "improve" [or explicate] Peake  and connnect 'unworthily' with 'to be,' or--what seems Wandle's final  intent, to efface the misguided adverb and derive a related adjective  'unworthy' and apply it to 'witness.'

It turns out that the issue  of 'finding oneself' and the possibility of 'execution' is not really  determinative of the issue raised by the OP.   There is no  reason--certainly none given by Wandle-- to deny that a number of  adverbs can apply in cases where the 'action' (not quite) is incapable  of being executed.   The variety of verbs is widely recognized, e.g. in  M-W unabr,
_
*[VERB]:*  a word belonging to that part of  speech that characteristically is the grammatical center of a predicate  and expresses an act, occurrence, or mode of being ...._

Wandle  has not, in my opinion, succeeded in solving the 'what does  'unworthily' modify?' problem by resting his case on the issue of verbs  of performance or execution (action in the strong sense;  something one  *does*).   Nor, more basically, has he shown a need for such maneuvres in respect of alleged 'semantic-sense' problems said to fatally beset Mr. Peake in the quotation of the OP.


----------



## wandle

What does it take for the pair to find themselves witnesses? There is no process involved except the mental one of realising the fact that they are witnesses. That process itself (perhaps a matter of a few microseconds of electrochemical brain activity) is to them entirely unconscious: all they are aware of is the new insight suddenly present in their mind. That is a result, not a performance. (It is not even a state: it is no more than the boundary between the mental state of not knowing that they are witnesses and the state of knowing that they are witnesses.)

Because it is not an action or a performance, it cannot be done in one way or another: whether happily or sadly, sternly or timorously, worthily or unworthily. Peake has simply made a mistake. What in fact is the unworthiness he wants to express in the situation? It is that the pair are unworthy to be witnesses of an historic moment.

How did Peake manage to misalign his vocabulary in this instance? My guess is that his first thought was to write 'find themselves however unworthy to be witnesses' and that he rejected that because he did not mean to say 'find themselves unworthy to be witnesses' (that is, judge that they are unworthy). He then opted for the apparently easy solution of changing 'unworthy' to 'unworthily' without realising that _at that place in the sentence_ it does not make sense.


----------



## bennymix

Wandle: _What does it take for the pair to find themselves witnesses? There is no  process involved except the mental one of realising the fact that they  are witnesses. That process itself (perhaps a matter of a few  microseconds of electrochemical brain activity) is to them entirely  unconscious: all they are aware of is the new insight suddenly present  in their mind. That is a result, not a performance. (It is not even a  state: it is no more than the boundary between the mental state of not  knowing that they are witnesses and the state of knowing that they are  witnesses.)_

_Because it is not an action or a performance, it cannot be done in one  way or another: whether happily or sadly, sternly or timorously,  worthily or unworthily._

---
Verbs refer to actions, occurences, and states. Perhaps there are further categories, for example, 'resultive' verbs
or maybe these verbs are a subcategory of one of the first two macrocategories.

Besides  'find onself,' here are some examples that come to mind.  Realize,  conclude (in the mind), fail [The high jumper, in his last attempt,  failed to clear the bar], die.

Now since they are not 'done,' that is performed, some adverbs [to do with manner of performance] might not apply.  One can't realize vociferously, or eagerly fail.

Do  you seriously want to say no adverbs apply?   One can think of two  kinds of cases, I will label 1)external point of view, and 2) internal  point of view.  Roughly outsider vs agent's own commentary.

For  the first case, the speaker is telling her assessment of the result.   We're focussing, first, on the resultive verb, 'fail.'   

1)"When  it was time for John to walk onto the stage,  he'd failed,  unfortunately, to put anything on his feet.  But this only came to his  attention when he heard snickers in the audience, as he found himself in  bare feet."     

Notice is this case, 'failed',  --that result--  is called 'unfortunate' before anything 'clicks' (the 'finding  himself')in John's mind.

Similarly:  2) Alexander spread Hellenism throughout his large empire, establishing cities such as 
Alexandria, in Egypt. At 33, he died, unfortunately, before he could begin his campaign in Arabia.

Now,  in the Peake quotation of the OP, it's pretty clear we have another  type of situation, which above, I've called 'internal point of view',  namely the agent's.

This could happen, easily in a variant of the  first example.   John realizes his lack of footwear just before he has  to go out, but not in time to remedy the situation.

1*) "When it was time for John to walk onto the stage, he found himself,  dismayingly [= to his dismay], without anything on his feet.   He noticed his feet were bare, but had no choice but to proceed onto the stage, causing snickers, almost at once."   

Similarly, in the Alexander example:

2*) Alexander spread Hellenism throughout his large empire, establishing cities such as 
Alexandria, in Egypt. At 33, he died, ruefully, before he could begin his campaign in Arabia.

--
So,  Wandle, I give you your resultive verbs.    It's clear that some  adverbs apply (in two possible ways), despite there being no 'doing.'     You have no specific arguments as to why 'unworthily' cannot apply;    you simply include in a list of adverbs which often can't, such as sadly  or sternly.   And I agree some of these cannot apply to 'resultive'  verbs, although that limitation seems to come up more in the  internal-point-of-view situations.  For an external point of view, there  seem to be many fewer limitations;  e.g.  someone says, 
"The engineers for Challenger failed, sadly, to take account of the contraction of rubber gaskets in cool temperatures."

Even  though the man and woman in the OP may be 'doing' nothing, there is, in  their mental lives, a result.  The duration of the brain events, you  concede, may be milliseconds.  Really, it doesn't matter.  Where there  is a result, it can accompanied by something like what we'd call a  realization. "I'm unworthy of this."    Hence there has been no proven  problem with "The man found himself, unworthily, a witness to...."  A  number of other adverbs might work, also,  "dismayingly" "ruefully"  "regretfully" and so on.

Peake's prose is cumbrous, here, not faulty [misaligned].


----------



## velisarius

For what it's worth, I find wandle's two better options in post #3 ... better, unless you think that Peake's aim is to leave his reader wondering why "unworthily" is hovering uneasily between "find" and "be".


----------



## wandle

> So, Wandle, I give you your resultive verbs.


Well, I am not asking for resultive verbs or addressing a category. I am addressing the specific case of 'finding oneself to be a witness': the fractional moment of realisation when the individual perceives that he or she is a witness.

In this case, the only activity that goes on is the lightning-fast brain operation which underlies the conscious realisation. That brain activity is unconscious: the individual is aware only of the new insight. The individual is not performing the brain operation in any way which could be happy or sad, worthy or unworthy etc. 

Besides, the context shows that Peake does not mean that the realisation, the finding themselves to be witnesses, was performed 'unworthily': he means simply that the two people, at the point when they recognised that they were witnesses, recognised also that they _*were*_ unworthy to be witnesses: and Peake is authorially endorsing that view.

If my reconstruction in post 11 of his thought process is valid, then if he had only continued it a little longer he could have seen that by simply relocating the phrase he would have expressed himself correctly.
Instead of:
'_find themselves, however unworthily, to be witnesses at an historic moment_' 
he could have moved the phrase two places to the right:
'_find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses at an historic moment._'


----------



## bennymix

Wandle, I don't deny there is some plausibility to your conclusion and your emendation of Peake, in particular, that just above,
W: //'_find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses at an historic moment._'//

You, perhaps even more than some of us, have an excellent ear for what's good and clear usage.

As with all of us, however, explaining reasons and giving principles to back up our conclusions is the challenge.   I've shown, I believe, esp. in post #12, that your reasons and proposed principles don't seem to be valid; or, when valid are not clearly applicable.

In particular, the principle you formulated (below) is quite dubious, and subject to obvious counterexamples as per my post #12
_
W: Because it [finding oneself] is not an action or a performance, it cannot be done in one way or another: whether happily or sadly, sternly or timorously, worthily or unworthily.

_As I argued, resultive verbs, or verb whose 'actions' don't have duration,  or whose 'actions' can't be performed, are certainly subject to modification by various kinds (though not all) of adverbs._  My examples were

_
1*) "When it was time for John to walk onto the stage, he found himself,  dismayingly [= to his dismay], without anything on his feet.   He noticed his feet were bare, but had no choice but to proceed onto the stage, causing snickers, almost at once."   

2*) Alexander spread Hellenism throughout his large empire, establishing cities such as 
Alexandria, in Egypt. At 33, he died, ruefully, before he could begin his campaign in Arabia.

I might point out, lastly that your own emendation violates your principle and analyses.  "To be" [a witness], in the context of the OP is something which one 'finds oneself.'   "To be" in this sense [a kind of 'resultive' to be], cannot be performed, hence according to you, 

_it cannot be done in one way or another: whether happily or sadly, sternly or timorously, worthily or unworthily._

===
I appreciate this discussion with you;  it's brought me some clarity.   For the benefit of any readers, our conclusions and intuitions are not extremely different, it's the path to them that's been under--I hope, respectful-- debate.


----------



## wandle

Well, naturally we must respect each other and our different points of view. Not only do I enjoy these discussions, I have to fight against becoming addicted to them. However, I still feel that most of those examples are not relevant.
I have explained the specific point relating to _'find themselves to be witnesses'_ in the given context as clearly as I can.


> "To be" [a witness], in the context of the OP is something which one 'finds oneself.' "To be" in this sense [a kind of 'resultive' to be], cannot be performed,


As mentioned, I have not argued in terms of resultive verbs and this does not seem to me to be such a case.
In the phrase I suggested as an improvement, _'find themselves to be, however unworthily, witnesses'_, it is clear that 'unworthily' is bound in to the phrase 'to be witnesses'. This expresses a state which goes on for as long as the event continues and the pair remain present. It may be argued that 'to be witnesses of' is equivalent to the verb 'to witness'.

However, I agree that the phrase with the inserted adverb is not ideal, as indicated in my first post. 
It is better style at least to attach the idea of unworthiness to the noun. 
I offered two ways of doing that, my own preference being to drop the verb 'to be' altogether:
_'find themselves witnesses, however unworthy, of an historic moment'._


----------



## bennymix

Your last emendation definitely has merit.

_'find themselves witnesses, however unworthy, of an historic moment'.

_It's not Peake (style, ambience, etc.), of course, and its meaning is slightly different._

And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the  lady with the sapphires, and they exchanged the arch expression of those  who find themselves, *however unworthily*, to be witnesses at an historic moment.

_


----------



## wandle

bennymix said:


> Your last emendation definitely has merit.


Thank you, although I have not been suggesting emendations (that is, textual corrections on the assumption that there had been a typo), but ways to avoid the original error by the author.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

My impression is that what is considered "unworthy" is not just "find" but rather [(to) find themselves to be witnesses at an historic moment]. Hence the scope of the adverb is what's inside the square brackets.

GS


----------



## suzi br

Poor Suprun, plenty to absorb here. 
The unworthily bit is in brackets, the sentence can stand without it. They are witness to an historic event.  They exchange an arch expression because they are, or feel themselves to be, unworthy of such an experience.

Personally I would not be interested in any further labeling; I offer this in case you were in any way unsure as to the meaning under the weight all the verbiage


----------



## bennymix

_[Giorgio:] Hullo, everyone.

My impression is that what is considered "unworthy" is not just "find"  but rather [(to) find themselves to be witnesses at an historic moment].  Hence the scope of the adverb is what's inside the square brackets.
_
---
I'd certainly agree with this, Giorgio, but I'd ask you, as someone versed in grammar, whenever we have such complicated
strings after a verb, don't we, as a matter of convention, attribute the adverb to the first verb?

Example.
_Slowly, he [began to enter the building at the end of the road]._

In  one sense, sure, the whole picture is [began to enter the building at  the end of the road].   And in a sense that is what happened slowly, not  just 'beginning', but 'beginning to enter,' and not just that, but 'to  enter the building,' etc.   The whole
thing (sequence in context), so to say, is done slowly.

HOWEVER,  I'd say, by convention in grammatical analysis, 'slowly' is said to modify 'began';   the modification  so to say, transfers, successively to the other verbs and phrases, but  it begins at the first verb, to which it's  (as a rule of thumb in  analysis) attached.  {I believe this would show, for example, in  standard depictions of structure by trees or diagrams.}

There is one other alternative, no one mentioned explicitly:  The sentence adverb, which IS said to apply to a whole unit.

"_Quite seriously, all the vital functions [#] rise and set with the sun._"    And of course the location of such adverb is not determinative;  it  could have fallen at [#]  without affecting the analysis.

I gave this as example 2) in my post #12.

_At 33, he [Alexander] died, unfortunately, before he could begin his campaign in Arabia._

In  the OP case, the Peake passage,  'unworthily' does NOT seem to be  attributable to a author [third person], as a sentence adverb.   Do you agree?   It is  something the persons realize and experience.


----------



## EStjarn

SuprunP said:


> And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the lady with the sapphires, and they exchanged the arch expression of those who find themselves, *however unworthily*, to be witnesses at an historic moment.



I tend to read the adverb 'unworthily' as meaning 'worthlessly' here: they exchanged the arch expression of those who find themselves - without it being of any significance at all - to be witnesses at an historic moment.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo benny. Interesting points.

As for the attribution of an adverb to the sole verb involved — and not also to the stuff following it — I think it's a matter of level of analysis: your criterion is certainly valid syntactically, while mine might be considered appropriate semantically.

As for the OP sentence:

_And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the lady with the sapphires, and they exchanged the arch expression of those who find themselves, *however unworthily*, to be witnesses at an historic moment_.

I'm tempted by the other possibility, which you seem to exclude:
The author — or the narrating voice — uses the expression " ... _they exchanged *the* [arch expression of *those who find themselves *...]". The use of "the" and "those who" seems to me to the mark of the author's personal evaluation, based on his *previous experiences* of the same or similar kind. Moreover, the author uses this device to create an effect of connivence with his readers, making believe they shared his own personal experiences and, consequently, his impressions.

_Of course I may be wrong.

GS


----------



## wandle

Having addressed both aspects together in an earlier post, may I be permitted to revisit it?


wandle said:


> Besides, the context shows that Peake does not mean that the realisation, the finding themselves to be witnesses, was performed 'unworthily': he means simply that the two people, at the point when they recognised that they were witnesses, recognised also that they _*were*_ unworthy to be witnesses: and Peake is authorially endorsing that view.


The text involves the author's endorsement because the expression 'however unworthily' stands unqualified in conjunction with the expression 'find themselves to be'. It is clear that the author is committed to saying that they found themselves to be witnesses. 

If he had wanted to avoid saying at the same time that the sense of unworthiness was valid he would need to have made this clear by writing for example:
_'find themselves to be, for all their sense of unworthiness, witnesses at an historic event'_.

'Their sense of unworthiness' shows that it is not necessarily the author's sense.


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> Their sense of unworthiness' shows that it is not necessarily the author's sense.



How do you understand the word 'arch' here? And how do you connect it with the feeling of unworthiness?

I understand 'arch' means 'mischievous', which I can quite easily relate to a sense of not being among those whose opinions or presence counts as important when it comes to historic events  – as experienced perhaps by a child or, once, a jester.


----------



## wandle

> the arch expression of those who find themselves, however unworthily, to be witnesses at an historic moment.


As I see it, Peake is saying that:
(a) the unworthiness they felt was unworthiness to be witnesses of such an event (not unworthiness to find themselves so);
(b) he is endorsing the idea that the two were unworthy to be witnesses;
(c) not only did each of them feel this unworthiness personally, but by exchanging an arch glance they were each acknowledging that they shared this feeling with the other.
'Arch' conveys that the feeling was shared but also furtive: if it had not been shared, it would only have been privately shameful.


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> 'Arch' conveys that the feeling was shared but also furtive: if it had not been shared, it would only have been privately shameful.



I'm looking at the definition of 'arch' (adj.) and its many synonyms (playful, joking, teasing, humorous, sly, mischievous, saucy, tongue-in-cheek, jesting, jokey, pert, good-natured, roguish, frolicsome, waggish). 'Furtive' is not there.


----------



## wandle

Please note that I have not suggested that 'furtive' is a synonym of 'arch'. The question was:


> How do you understand the word 'arch' here? And how do you connect it with the feeling of unworthiness?


My answer is:


> not only did each of them feel this unworthiness personally, but by exchanging an arch glance they were each acknowledging that they shared this feeling with the other.
> 'Arch' conveys that the feeling was shared but also furtive: if it had not been shared, it would only have been privately shameful.


'_'Arch' conveys that the feeling was shared but also furtive_'. The arch glance conveyed that message.

The arch glance is the postman, so to speak; the content of the letter is 'that the feeling was shared but also furtive'.


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> Please note that I have not suggested that 'furtive' is a synonym of 'arch'.


 
Okay. I took for granted that your understanding of the word 'arch' was reflected in dictionaries or thesauruses. It remains unclear, however, why a writer would use 'arch', which apparently means 'mischievous' or 'playful', to convey that a feeling is shared but also furtive. It would seem misleading.


----------



## wandle

An individual sense of unworthiness makes one feel ashamed: the individual would be inclined to conceal it from others. Here, the shared sense of unworthiness is common to the couple, but still something they would probably conceal from anyone else. Hence I suggest that the arch ('roguish') expression conveyed a joint sense of furtiveness which came into being as a result of the sharing of their sense of unworthiness.


----------



## velisarius

Another definition for "arch" is in our dictionary: 3. "knowing or superior", which to my mind fits the situation better than "mischievous, playful".


----------



## bennymix

Hi Giorgio,

//I'm tempted by the other possibility, which you seem to exclude:
The author — or the narrating voice — uses the expression " ... _they exchanged *the* [arch expression of *those who find themselves *...]". The use of "the" and "those who" seems to me to the mark of the author's personal evaluation, based on his *previous experiences*  of the same or similar kind. Moreover, the author uses this device to  create an effect of connivence with his readers, making believe they  shared his own personal experiences and, consequently, his impressions._//

You are correct that I, in posts 12 and 21 excluded the 'sentence adverb' approach.   But maybe I was too hasty.   

I gave this as example 2) in my post #12.

_//At 33, he [Alexander] died, unfortunately, before he could begin his campaign in Arabia._//

Perhaps it's more analogous than I suspected at the time. 

What  you are suggesting is rather like this, yes?   "however unworthily" is  the *author's point of view*, what I called 'third person.'

As I  read EStjarn, he is suggesting something like this.   Wandle, above  seems to be suggesting something close to opposite (though he adds,  'endorsed' by the author).  

Wandle:  //he means simply that the  two people, at the point when they recognised that they were witnesses,  recognised also that they _*were*_ unworthy to be witnesses://

Upon  reflection, I don't think Wandle has made a convincing case, here.     It seems arguable that Peake sees unworthiness, but that the man and  woman do not.

Doesn't this line, Giorgio, rather fit would your  point about the whole sequence being modified?   If there is a 'sentence  adverb,' then unworthily clearly applies to the whole thing.

To take the two extremes then, would they not be, 

_*A*: And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the lady with the  sapphires,  and they exchanged the arch expression of those who find  themselves to be witnesses at an historic moment_  (and how unworthily --undeservedly-- were they in such position!).

vs. [what I called W2, above,

_*B*: And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the lady with the  sapphires, and they exchanged the arch expression of those who find  themselves to be [experience themselves to be] unworthy witnesses at an historic moment_.

According to Wandle, further they share or mutually acknowledge having that experience.

----
I think the first possibility, or something close to it, may solve the difficulty that ESt had pointed out.

Wandle has said  

//'Arch' conveys that the feeling was shared but also furtive: if it had  not been shared, it would only have been privately shameful. //

Close reading of the passage, and the range of usual meanings  of 'arch', do NOT suggest shame, either private or private and  shared.    The issue of 'shame' or 'worthiness' is apparently injected  by Peake, as commentary.   HENCE the odd placement of the adverb and his  advoidance of what Wandle argues to be a clear and preferable position  of  _unworthily_, or _unworthy_ late in the sentence.

ADDED:  Velisarius' suggestion of 'arch' as superior is fully consistent with the above analysis.   Indeed, if they are feeling superior, it seems LESS likely that they are feeling ashamed or unworthy.


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> An individual sense of unworthiness makes one feel ashamed: the individual would be inclined to conceal it from others. Here, the shared sense of unworthiness is common to the couple, but still something they would probably conceal from anyone else. Hence I suggest that the arch ('roguish') expression conveyed a joint sense of furtiveness which came into being as a result of the sharing of their sense of unworthiness.



In the Google Books preview of _Titus Alone_, I notice the lady with the sapphires is mentioned for the first time only a page earlier, about a minute or two in fictional time. The context is that, in a group of people, "a dark, cadaverous, over-distinguished, nostril-flaring man with a long blue jaw and chronic eyestrain" has just mentioned about a poem he's written, and there are reactions:.
A bald man knitted his brows; the pontifical gentleman lit his cigar, his face as expressionless as ever; and a lady, the lobes of whose ears had been ruined by the weight of two gigantic sapphires, half opened her mouth with an inane smirk of anticipation.
.​The blue-jawed man indicates he will recite the poem, making first a number of excuses for its form. People become impatient, and he adds:.
'A-l-t-h-o-u-g-h,' mused the man with the long blue jaw, who seemed to consider other people's time and patience as inexhaustible commodities like air, or water, 'a-l-t-h-o-u-g-h,' (he lingered over the word like a nurse over a sick child), 'there _were_ those who said the whole thing _sang; _who hailed it as the purest poetry of our generation - "incadescent stuff" as one gentleman put it - but there you are - there you are - how is one to tell?'
.​It is at this point the topic text enters into the picture:.
'Ah,' whispered a voice of curds and whey. And a man with gold teeth turned his eyes to the lady with the sapphires, and they exchanged the arch expression of those who find themselves, however unworthily, to be witnesses at an historic moment.
.​Upon which the blue-jawed man begins his recitation.

Considering this, I would say you're right in understanding 'unworthily' as having to do with unworthiness rather than, as I suggested earlier, worthlessness. It's the sudden notion of standing before a genius that creates that feeling. I don't think there's any shame involved, though, just awe, and the whole situation is that of mild excitement, making the meaning of 'arch' as 'playful' or 'mischievous' quite plausible.


----------



## wandle

It is interesting to read the wider context, though it brings nothing new to the issue of 'unworthily'.

As regards shame, a sense of unworthiness seems to me to involve shame almost by definition, even if it is private, that is, in the mind of the individual alone.

As regards furtiveness, if two people exchange an arch expression which conveys a shared sense of unworthiness at being in the presence of a man of genius, that feeling still seems to me something which they would not want to show frankly to him or presumably to others.


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> As regards shame and furtiveness, a sense of unworthiness seems to me to involve shame almost by definition, even if it is private, that is, in the mind of the individual alone.
> 
> If two people exchange an arch expression which conveys a shared sense of unworthiness at being in the presence of a man of genius, that feeling still seems to me something which they would not want to show frankly to him or presumably to others.



I would not suppose that those two are the only ones who feel unworthy, but would rather understand that the entire crowd does so from hearing that the poem has been hailed as the purest poetry of their generation.

I don't see unworthiness as directly related to shame. Imagine yourself standing before Shakespeare. Would you feel unworthy in terms of literary achievement? Would you feel ashamed?

I find the use of 'however' interesting here. I understand it to mean 'to whatever degree or extent' (cf. AHD). It suggests that we will not know the degree to which the feeling of unworthiness is experienced. Perhaps it is just a little. We really cannot say.


----------



## wandle

The word 'arch' in this context suggests to me a roguish and conspiratorial shared feeling. We are told it is a feeling of unworthiness. The implication is that this sense of unworthiness is felt by the two to apply to themselves as distinct from others. This implication to my mind strengthens the impression that the sense of unworthiness approximates closely to shame (which of course does not imply guilt) and involves a degree of furtiveness (a tendency to conceal their feeling).

The use of 'however' in this context implies 'however great the sense of unworthiness may have been'.


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> The implication is that this sense of unworthiness is felt by the two to apply to themselves as distinct from others.



What is special about those two - the man with gold teeth and the woman with the sapphires - is, as I see it, that they _exchange_ an expression. For all we know, each one in the crowd could have that same arch expression on their faces (where 'expression' means "a facial aspect or a look that conveys a special feeling," (Ibid.)).


----------



## wandle

'Arch' I think always implies some distinctiveness which separates whoever behaves archly from other people. It takes its meaning by an implied contrast with others. 

Even if we said that an individual alone had an arch expression, it would imply that he was making some cunning plan relating to other people: thinking about how he would put something over on others, for example.


----------



## EStjarn

The Online Etymology Dictionary gives:.
*arch* *(adj.)
*1540s, "chief, principal," from prefix _arch-_; used in 12c. _archangel_, etc., but extended to so many derogatory uses (_arch-rogue_, _arch-knave_, etc.) that by mid-17c. it acquired a meaning of "roguish, mischievous," since softened to "saucy."​.
I think one important point that we have missed mentioning is the fact that the phrase "however unworthily" is nonessential, meaning it adds extra information only. We should be able to interpret the clause in question without taking that phrase into account.


----------



## bennymix

EStjarn said,

_I  don't see unworthiness as directly related to shame. Imagine yourself  standing before Shakespeare. Would you feel unworthy in terms of  literary achievement? Would you feel ashamed?

I find the use of 'however' interesting here. I understand it to mean 'to whatever degree or extent' (cf. AHD).  It suggests that we will not know the degree to which the feeling of  unworthiness is experienced. Perhaps it is just a little. We really  cannot say. 				 			  			   		 			 			 			

====

_I agree as to 'however,' but I don't think the case has been made that the unworthiness IS experienced.    Your first para quoted 
gives reasons why it is not, in my opinion [esp. what I've put in red];  indeed not *to any degree.*  I do see clearly, however, that the overall thrust of your message and general point of view is that it is.
I've made my case in #32, above, that it's quite possibly the narrator's 'editorializing' or outside comment, so I won't repeat it, since you and Wandle apparently choose to ignore it.


----------



## wandle

EStjarn said:


> We should be able to interpret the clause in question without taking that phrase into account.





> they exchanged the arch expression of those who find themselves, however unworthily, to be witnesses at an historic moment.


Well, in this clause I cannot doubt that the sense of unworthiness forms part of the definition of 'the arch expression'.


----------



## bennymix

_Wandle: Well, in this clause I cannot doubt that the sense of unworthiness forms part of the definition of 'the arch expression'.                 _

Can you say why, though? _Superior, bemused, roguish_, etc. all seem to have little connection to unworthiness.


----------



## wandle

Since they consider themselves unworthy to be present at such a significant occasion, they feel as if they are getting something they are not entitled to. They exchange an arch, or roguish, glance as two boys might do who had separately climbed over a fence to get into a sports event, say, without paying.


----------



## EStjarn

bennymix said:


> I've made my case in #32, above, that it's quite possibly the narrator's 'editorializing' or outside comment, so I won't repeat it, since you and Wandle apparently choose to ignore it.



I'm glad you mention your point again. I think it's a good one. It's just that, if I do some introspection here, it's not difficult for me to imagine an instant surge of the feeling of unworthiness upon learning that the person in front of me, who I a moment earlier had not even noticed, "is" someone (whereas I myself is no one in particular). That's more or less what I understand happens in the narrative. The blue-jawed man's introduction has that sort of effect on his audience. It tells them that he's remarkable in some sense. With this understanding, it would seem unnecessary, or say confusing, that the narrator 'steps in' and tells the reader that those characters may be unworthy. Thus, I continue to see the unworthiness as perceived.


----------

