0

At the same time, Alexei and those close to him recognized that they must also embrace the intellectual life of the West. They had to end the general ignorance and illiteracy at least among the boyars and gentry by introducing education

Spencer
  • 5,582
vladv
  • 11
  • There's no difference. Either or both instances could feature *must* instead of *had to. BUT many people have "misgivings" when it comes to Past Tense "must" (see Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? as asked here some years ago), so even a careful writer with no* such misgivings might not want to use it *twice* in the same sentence (to avoid "disturbing" his readers, even if he thought they were wrong to be bothered). – FumbleFingers Nov 26 '20 at 13:11
  • ALTERNATIVELY - perhaps the writer is taking the opportunity to "educate" his readers, by using BOTH verb forms in a context where it's contextually obvious they mean the same thing. Similar to the way a considerate writer will often follow the first use of a relatively rare term by some equivalent "definition" using different words, to save the less-well-educated reader needing to go and check in a dictionary. – FumbleFingers Nov 26 '20 at 13:15
  • I don't think writers get paid enough for that, @FF. Both must and had to were used inside the temporal scope of recognized that, which means must is not out of place in past tense (it has no tensed or infinitive forms, so it can only go as first auxiliary). It is interesting that had to, in the same context, is obligatorily past -- have to is out. Possibly because it refers to a present obligation and all those obligated are dead. – John Lawler Nov 26 '20 at 15:20
  • What is taught in Indian schools is that, MUST used in direct speech becomes HAD TO or must itself in indirect narration. She said, "I must qualify this time." She said that she had to (must) qualify that time. – Ram Pillai Nov 27 '20 at 00:42

0 Answers0