Search This Blog



Planetary Motions
, published by Giant Steps Press, is now available on Amazon for $14.95.



Spoor of Desire: Selected Poems
is available for $16.00 from FootHills Publishing, P.O. Box 68, Kanona NY 14856 or see www.foothillspublishing.com.

Tourist Snapshots was available from Randy Fingland's CC Marimbo, P.O. Box 933, Berkeley CA. CC Marimbo has, unfortunately ceased publishing, though I still have a few copies to spare.

Dada Poetry: An Introduction was published by Nirala Publications. It may be ordered on Amazon.com for $29.99 plus shipping. American buyers may order a copy from me for $23 including shipping.

Each book is available from the author William Seaton.


A categorized index of all work that has appeared on this site is available by looking under the current month in the Blog Archive section and selecting Index.


This site is listed in BlogCatalog and

Literature Blogs
Literature blog








Friday, August 1, 2025

The Christian Romanticism of Chateaubriand’s Atala and René

 

 

Our Masterpiece Is the Private Life: In Pursuit of the “Real” Chateaubriand  — The Public Domain Review

Portrait of Chateaubriand 

by Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson, 1809.

 

 

References in parentheses to Atala refer to the 1905 edition with an introduction, notes, and a vocabulary by Oscar Kuhns; those to René to Claude Martin’s edition of 1984.  Numbers in brackets refer to endnotes.  Translated passages are my own hasty renderings; the original French is relegated to endnotes. 

 

 

     Chateaubriand is universally considered the founding figure of French Romanticism, and there can be no question about the label’s general accuracy.  His self-consciously emotional analyses of nature and of love made him an icon in his day, much as Byron was in England just a few decades later [1],  Many readers have found René to have something in common with Childe Harold as exemplars of the mal du siècle, and something of their kinship as celebrities might be inferred from the tousled portraits of the viscount by Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson and of the baron by Thomas Phillips. 

      Chateaubriand not only created a character who wandered the world trying to free himself from alienation, he himself spent time in an America that was still largely possessed by its natives.  The question has been debated by historically-minded critics how much of America Chateaubriand actually saw.  He surely never visited the Mississippi River or Florida, and it is very unlikely that did he ever wrote while squatting on the floors of Indian hits, as he liked to claim.  Indeed, it is not direct observation but rather his tumultuous imagination that underlies his descriptions of America,

     Among the most rhetorically elaborate and mythic passages in Atala is the opening description of the Mississippi River, so extravagant as to be altogether unrealistic, so majestic it is worth quoting at length. 

 

When all these rivers are swollen with the torrents of winter, when the storms have uprooted great swaths of forest, the felled trees fill their sources.  Before long the mud has cemented them and creepers joins them together and the plants, sending out roots in every direction, consolidate the debris.  Carried off by the foaming waves, they descend in the Meschacebe which takes hold of them, carrying them to the Gulf of Mexico only to run grounds on banks of sand, multiplying thereby the river’s outlets.  Now and then the river raises its voice while passing these heaps and   its overflowing waters spread among the forests’ colonnades and the pyramidal Indian tombs.  It is the Nile of the desert.  But grace is always accompanied by grandeur in scenes of nature.  While the central current pulls the corpses of pines and oaks toward the sea, one sees currents on either side rising, along the shores, floating islands of water cabbage and water-lilies, the yellow blossoms of which mount up like little pavilions.  Green snakes, blue herons, pink flamingos, and young crocodiles embark as passengers on these flowery vessels, and the colony, unfurling its golden sails before the wind, lands asleep in some secluded cove of the river.                 (1-2) [2]

 

     This grand vision of great island-like agglomerations of timber cascading downstream, reshaping the topography moment by moment, in effect constantly reshaping the continent, is enacted between the columns of the trees and near to native peoples’ funerary pyramids, suggesting Greek and Roman antiquity and the even older Egyptian civilization.  Not only are the great floating islands of debris covered in flowers; they are also rich to an unlikely degree in fauna, birds and reptiles, which sail like the early explorers until they come to rest by chance and establish a terra nova. 

     The primary characteristics of Chateaubriand’s America are its magnificent richness in animals and plants and the wildness of its formation amid turbulent earth-shaping floods.  The new world is specifically associated with Eden, for instance in Genesis’ mention of four rivers but the reference is rendered ambiguous by the counterbalance of Milton’s four infernal streams [3].

     The fecundity of nature recurs elsewhere, for instance, during the escape of Atala and Chactas when the cedars and live oaks, covered with Spanish moss, teem with wildlife: “butterflies, bright flies, hummingbirds, green parakeets, and blue jays” (28) [4] in a veritable swarm of life.  Likewise, the scene at Niagara Falls is awe-inspiring not simply because of the cataract, but also because of the eagles who “ride on currents of air” and the altogether unreal picture if “wolverines” who “hang by their flexible tails at the end of a low branch, to seize from the abyss the broken corpses of elks and bears” (77)[5]. 

     Yet such fantasies were not the only indulgences Chateaubriand allowed his imagination.  Since his reconversion to Roman Catholicism in 1798, he had abandoned the philosophes to become a committed Christian, and both Atala and René were portions of his Génie du christianisme, a work which as a whole sought to justify religion on largely aesthetic rather than intellectual or spiritual grounds.  Thus, while nature may be a staggering marvel, human beings, infected by original sin, are unredeemed until accepting Jesus.  In order to advance, Atala must “have recourse to the Christian God” and pray to Mary (18).   The”savages” inflict dreadful tortures on their captives (19), and in fact cruelly kill the benevolent Father Aubry (79).  They are, at best, “child-like” (68), with “sorrows” that “arise from ignorance” which can be remedied only by “necessary instruction” (58) [7].  Chactas cannot be a lover of Atala unless he “learn the lessons of the Christian faith” (64).  Doubt is impossible as Chateaubriand describes a veritable theophany. 

 

The grotto seemed suddenly lit up; one could hear in the air the words of angels and the tremelos of heavenly harps; and when the recluse took the holy vessel from his tabernacle, it seemed I saw God himself emerging from the side of the mountain. (65) [8]

 

     A powerful figure for René’sfaiblesse” is his prospect from the top of Etna. 

 

     A youth full of passion, sitting at the mouth of a volcano, weeping for the mortals whose homes he sees below is doubtless, o old men, an object deserving of your pity, but, whatever you might think of René the scene provides an image of his nature, of his being.  Thus during my entire life I have had before my eyes the creation, at once huge and imperceptible, and an abyss open at my side. (67) [9]

 

His is an existential anxiety, not a Christian “dark night of the soul,” specifically because what he faces is not the prospect of judgement and eventual apocalypse, but rather a drear emptiness.  Though he placed the novella as part of his apologia for Christianity, the hero lacks Christian hope.  A distinctly modern variant on the medieval sin of acedia (sometimes spelled accidie) which Aquinas describes (in Summa Theologica II) not as a symptom of sensitivity or a contemplative stage but rather as a flight from the divine, amounting very nearly to unbelief.  The closing words of the epilogue’s narrator in Atala indicate a remoteness from Christian salvation: “man, you are nothing but a passing illusion, a melancholy dream.  You exist only for sadness; you are nothing but the dolor of your soul and the unending misery of your soul.” (81) [10]

     This is not the only contradiction which Chateaubriand ignored as a consequence of his clinging to Christianity’s consolations.  The glorification of nature itself evident in the opening passage (and throughout) is sweeping and unqualified, familiar from many other authors’ Romantic rhetoric, yet inconsistent with the Christian notion of the natural world as fallen.  The most fundamental statement of this proposition  is Genesis 3:17: “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life,” but the idea recurs, for instance in Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

     America was an apposite scene for René’s ambivalence toward nature, natives, and, indeed, the entire creation.  Since Europeans arrived on these shores, the country was often described as an unspoiled paradise but equally often as hell.  Thus to many early settlers Indians must be remnants of the ten lost tribes of Israel whose conversion would lkead to the apocalypse.  Thomas Morton who founded the colony at Merrymount called New England Canaan in his 1637 book, and for John Winthrop the Massachusetts Bay Colony was “a city on a hill,”  [11] while William Bradford says the new world was a “hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men" [12].  For William Crashaw the devil "visibly and palpably reigns” in America and for John Smith “the chefe God they [the natives] worship is the Devel.” [13]

     Just as Chateaubriand’s lifelong royalist politics may seem to harmonize poorly with his liberal sentiments on m any issues, his allegiance to orthodox Christianity compromises his Romanticism.  His enthusiasm for nature is prototypically Romantic, but, to be consistent, this would be accompanied by a view of the indigenous people as Rousseauian “noble savages,” though for Chateaubriand their heathenism is a fatal deficiency.   Similarly, René’s despair is a godless one, though he is nominally Christian.  These contradictions would scarcely have bothered the author, whose conclusions were always more impressionistic than systematic.  Atala and René dramatic examples of the mythic use of the American colonies by an author who broke considerable new ground while insisting on traditional religious faith.

    

 

 

1.  In his Mémoires d’outre-tombe (vi) Chateaubriand clearly regards Byron as a rival, complaining of the British writer’s failing to name him as an influence and disappointedly calling himself “one of those fathers who are disowned when the son has come to power” in an trope invoking Oedipal anxiety of influence.

2.  Quand tous ces fleuves se sont gonflés, des déluges de l’hiver, quand les tempêtes ont abattu des pans entiers de forêts, les arbres déracinés s’assemblent sur les sources. Bientôt la vase les cimente, les lianes les enchainent, et des plantes, y prenant racine de toutes parts, achévent de consolider ces débris. Charriés par les vagues écumantes, ils descendent au Meschacebé: le fleuve s'en empare, les pousse au golfe Mexicain, les échoue sur des bancs de sable, et accroit ainsi le nombre de ses embouchures. Par intervalles, il éléve sa voix en passant sur les monts, et répand ses eaux débordées autour des colonnades des foréts et des pyramides des tombeaux indiens; c'est le Nil des déserts. Mais la gráce est toujours unie à la magnificence dans les scénes de la nature: tandis que le courant du milieu entraîne vers la mer les cadavres des pins et des chénes, on voit sur les deux courants latéraux remonter, le long des rivages, des iles flottantes de pistia et de nénufar, dont les roses jaunes s'élévent comme de petits pavillons. Des serpents verts, des hérons bleus, des flamants roses, de jeunes crocodiles, s'embarquent passagers sur ces vaisseaux de fleurs, et la colonie, déployant au vent ses voiles d’or, va aborder endormie dans quelque anse retirée du fleuve.

3.  See Genesis 2:10 and Paradise Lost II, 575.

4.  Papillons, de mouches brillantes, de colibris, de perruche vertes, de geais d’azur.

5.  Des aigles, entraînés par le courant d'air, descendent en tournoyant au fond du gouffre, et des carcajous se suspendent par leurs queues flexibles au bout d'une branche abaissée, pour saisir dans l'abîme les cadavres brisés des élans et des ours.

6.  La fille de Simaghan ut recours au Dieu des chrétiens.

7.  Tous vos malheurs viennent de votre «ignorance; c'est votre éducation sauvage et le manque «d'instruction nécessaire qui vous ont perdue;

8.  La grotte parut soudain illuminée; on entendit dans les airs les paroles des anges et les frémissements des harpes célestes; et lorsque le solitaire tira le vase sacré de son tabernacle, je crus voir Dieu lui-même sortir du flanc de la montagne.

9.  Un jeune homme plein de passions, assis sur la bouche d'un volcan, et pleurant sur les mortels dont il voyait à ses pieds les demeures, n'est, sans doute, ô vieillards, qu'un objet digne de votre pitié; mais, quoi que vous puissiez penser de René, ce tableau vous offre l'image de son caractère et de son existence: c'est ainsi que toute ma vie j'ai eu devant les yeux une création à la fois immense et imperceptible, et un abîme ouvert à mes côtés.

10.  Homme tu n'es qu'un songe rapide, un rêve douloureux ; tu n'existes que par le malheur ; tu n'es quelque chose que par la tristesse de ton âme et I'éternelle mélancolie de ta pensée.

11.  In his 1630 sermon "A Model of Christian Charity."

12.  Bradford,  Of Plymouth Plantation (1952) p. 62.

y.  Wm. Crashaw, "The Epistle Dedicatory" to Alexander Whitaker's Good News from Virginia (London, 1613), in Early Accounts of Life in Colonial Virginia, 1609-1613.  Ed. W. F. Craven (Delmar, N.Y.: Scholars' Facsimile & Reprints 1976, n. p.

13.  John Smith A Map of Virginia with a description of the country (1612), 29.

An Undercurrent of Pacifism in the Song of Roland

 

     During the Vietnam War, while I was yet an undergraduate, protected for the time by a student deferment, I recall speaking with a visiting lecturer, a British professor who specialized in Celtic and Old Norse literature.  Current events had brought him to a new view of the subject matter to which he had devoted his career.  “I realize now,” he said with soft regret, “virtually everything I have been studying glorifies war.”  He might have made his objection much broader: since the development of writing, martial valor has indeed been the touchstone for male excellence, as beauty has been for female. 

     Possible responses to this scholar’s anxiety might include the reminder that artistic representation of an action by no means entails endorsing what the fictional characters do.  Even if the persona explicitly expresses values other than the reader’s, this hardly justifies rejecting the text.  One need not accept Platonic Forms to profit from reading Plato, nor must one be a Roman Catholic to value Dante.  Finally, of course, people who have never participated in war are nonetheless certain to have had challenging experiences of other sorts for which military ventures make a fitting analogue or figure of speech.

     In an  interview conducted at about the same time as my conversation with the medievalist , with perhaps similar concerns in mind, Kenneth Rexroth maintained that every heroic poem contains, along with praise for the courageous warrior, “a profound condemnation of war” [1] as well.  In general, literature itself blossoms when employed to articulate ambiguities and ambivalences, and evidence is not lacking for Rexroth’s sweeping claim.  When Andromache pleads with Hector to avoid the hazards of fighting, he responds that his reputation demands that he put himself at risk.  Though he envisions her being forced into slavery, as indeed happened following the fall of Troy, her husband cannot turn from his duty.  This, of course, is a woman’s objection, but when Odysseus summons Achilles’ shade from the Underworld in the Odyssey and praises him for his distinguished career, noting that even in death he rules [2], the principal hero of the Trojan War tells his former comrade-in-arms he would rather be a poor but living man than lord over all the dead.  Here is a sharp critique of the pursuit of fame through combat.  Similarly, amid the heroics of Prince Hal and Harry Hotspur, Falstaff punctures the illusion of the glory of combat with a perspective closer to that of Mauldin’s hard-pressed Willie and Joe.

 

There’s honor for you. Here’s no vanity. I am as hot as molten lead, and as heavy too. God keep lead out of me; I need no more weight than mine own bowels. I have led my ragamuffins where they are peppered. There’s not three of my hundred and fifty left alive, and they are for the town’s end, to beg during life.  [3]

                                      

      A similar moment occurs in the Song of Roland, in the very conclusion where it might best influence the listener or reader’s impression of the whole.  Summoned to yet another combat, Charlemagne reacts with weary resignation.

 

Li empereur n’y volsît aller mie:

“Dieu,” dit le Roi, si peineuse est ma vie

Pleure des yeux, sa barbe blanche tire.” (ll. 4261-4263)

 

[“The emperor did not want to go.  “Oh, god,” the king said, “how painful is my life,” as with weeping eyes, he tugs on his white beard.”]

 

     While the placement of this image at the poem’s end increases its weight of significance, it is hardly the first anti-heroic passage.  Throughout the poem Charlemagne has been regularly depicted in such thoughtful moods.  Indeed, the beard-stroking is a leitmotif, the visible signification of his pensive attitudes, associated in general with his authority and wisdom, but numerous time the gesture accompanies distressed reflections of the suffering of war [4]. 

     What should the reader make of Roland the hero, given that Charlemagne, the most sagacious figure in the story, feels such ambivalence?  Roland’s judgement is far from unerring; his decisions are sometimes clouded by vainglory and impulsiveness (resembling in this the most courageous of fighters both on and off the printed page).  His nomination of his treacherous stepfather, who is also Charlemagne’s brother-in-law, for the mission to Marsile, which Ganelon takes as an attempt to do him in, is the origin of the story’s crisis, so Roland might be seen as inviting his fate.  Even in strictly military terms, Roland’s gallantry verges on hubris when he long refuses to blow the trumpet out of concern for appearing cowardly. 

      In the genre of chansons de geste Roland embodies a rashness in the face of death the very seriousness of which validates the hero’s indifference to consequences while Charlemagne represents the more mature judgement that peace, while less glorious, makes more sense.  I am reminded of Shel Silverstein’s 1973 country music song “The Winner” (performed by Bobby Bare) in which Tiger Man McCool resists a needless fistfight, recounting how his body has been battered by a lifetime of brawls and readily conceding “Well okay I quit I lose you're the winner.”  This leads his challenger, to whom he says, “you remind me a lot of my younger days,” to the realization that since “my eyes still see and my nose still works and my teeth're still in my mouth,” “I guess that makes me the winner.”  Machismo and sensible self-preservation are directly opposed, but only the elder’s cooler head can ignore the impulse to fight.    The tension between aggression and survival instinct is perennial and will continue to be enacted on the world stage as well as in song as long as rash youths like Roland pursue fame through violence.

  

 

1.  See Rexroth, Kenneth, "On Peace" (1966). Special Collections: Oregon Public Speakers. 34.  Rexroth is not alone in this claim.  See, for instance, Caroline Alexander’s introduction to her translation of the Iliad, the first by a woman.

2.  XI, 485.

3.  (Henry IV, part 1, Act V, scene iii, ll. 35 ff.)

4.  See for examples, lines 215, 2930, 2943, 2982, and 3712.

Snobbery

 

“Sketch in the Lobby of the House of Commons” 1881


     I do not doubt that I have been, out of my hearing, called a snob.  I would much rather attend the Metropolitan Opera than the Superbowl, and, in fact, I have never in my adult life watched any sporting event.  I could not name a single tune of Beyoncé or Taylor Swift, yet I could easily distinguish Mozart from Brahms.  I have read three dozen books by Trollope and none by Stephen King.  I have visited Kathmandu yet never mean to set foot in Epcot Center.  Am I here strutting or simply stating facts?  Do these preferences make me a snob?

     Perhaps the court of my gentle readers could use more evidence.  If I am to be deemed a snob, I must have achieved that status as early as my teen-age years.  In my freshman year of high school we read Great Expectations, but our class was given a shortened version, which I spurned.  For several weeks I, probably with a degree of ostentation, carried a fat unabridged edition.  During my junior year, the literature textbook [1] contained a photo essay on Richard Wilbur, whom I have always admired as a virtuoso poet and a skilled translator, but I saw that the editor’s goal in featuring him was quite clearly to demystify his arcane profession by depicting a fairly young, rather good-looking, casually dressed writer in a cardigan sweater  who would not put off the young.  Does my feeling patronized by this appeal constitute snobbery?

     Art museums at one time displayed the visual art of the past with considerable dignified reserve, only labeling works with title, artist’s name, and perhaps a date.  Once these institutions conceived the ambition of increasing their appeal to the general public, they began adding further information, historical, biographical, and interpretive.  Like textbook introductions to poems, such editorial additions may have aided some, but at the cost of substituting the predigested views of accepted experts for the viewer’s or reader’s direct and spontaneous responses.  Then, perhaps with the 1972 show The Treasures of Tutankhamen in the British Museum which reached the Metropolitan in New York in 1976, was born the blockbuster show with its greatly expanded publicity expenditures followed by even greater revenues. King Tut’s free publicity even reached Saturday Night Live where it inspired Steve Martin’s amusing song about “the boy king.”  Those with a genuine interest in ancient art noticed that a new profit-oriented, business-based model had replaced the earlier aims of education and scholarship.

     According to the New York Times eighty percent of visitors to the Louvre come to see the Mona Lisa [2].  I can personally report that once they have entered the room these tourists do not even study the painting. Instead, standing shoulder to shoulder, they take selfies of themselves trying to capture Leonardo’s work in the background, presumably to prove to their skeptical friends that they actually made the trip.  Is it snobbish to think that these people are getting no experience of art whatsoever and would have a better time at Disneyland Paris?

     Turning to music, for the past week and a half I have been attending the Bravo!Vail music festival. The program includes celebrated performers, a good admixture of old and new music, and an admirable inclusion of non-white musicians and composers.  Yet, in pursuit of larger audiences, the organizers have also included such programs as a showing of The Princess Bride with the Dallas Symphony playing the soundtrack, then another evening devoted to movie music, and, far worse, an entire program in which a reduced corps of orchestral musicians aided by rock performers sang pop songs of the ‘80s.  Such programs scarcely display the classical performers’ skills. The semi-orchestral arrangements of top forty songs are surely no improvement over the original versions.  I do concede that the music of movie composers like John Williams at least potentially deserves a place in the concert hall, but I suspect their place in the program was motivated less by the value of their work than by the artistic director’s ambition to sell tickets to people who liked Stars Wars and Jurassic Park.  The kids in the audience who were waving their light sabers are not, I think, more likely to ask their parents to bring them back to hear Mozart.  Does my distaste for the replacement of aesthetic values with financial ones make me a snob?

     As a teen, I was fiercely loyal to “Chicago’s fine arts station” WFMT, often listening with friends and sometimes taping broadcasts of operas or symphonies.  The station allowed the inimitable Studs Terkel his Wax Museum, and relaxed its braces for Leadbelly and Tom Lehrer on the Midnight Special every Saturday evening, but concert hall music was central.  Now, with classical an ever-declining share of recorded music sales, the far fewer surviving stations playing Bach and Brahms tend to program only single movements while the music occupies ever-decreasing segments of the day.  Their standards and their respect for the audience has deteriorated.  And in my youth my taste was not so peculiar.   A 1955 study of the Minneapolis Symphony (now the Minnesota Orchestra) revealed that the median age of its ticket-buyers was 33, very close that of the nation as a whole, with students making up nearly a quarter of attendees [3].  Now game shows and interviews with pop singers and comedians and endless discussion of the news have supplanted the original cultural role of NPR outlets.  One hears virtually no poetry at all on even the best community-supported stations.  In spite of radio’s being an ideal medium for the art it has, I suppose, too few enthusiasts to merit inclusion in regular programming when public stations as well as commercial ones are courting numbers.

     Something comparable is seen with public television.  Early PBS shows had been largely those which could not survive in the marketplace and yet were considered worthy: lessons for GED or language-learning, music, plays, both classic and modern.  Yet these so-called “educational” stations began to play for a mass audience with soap opera-like features like BBC’s Forsyte Saga in 1967 which, due to the actors’ accents alone, seemed somewhat classy.  While aiming for a mainstream viewership doubtless increased their revenues, the gain came at the cost of diluting the role of such stations, making them more like all the money-oriented outlets to which they had once been a real alternative. 

     Higher education has been similarly degraded.  The ignorant used to complain about professors being evaluated on research rather than on teaching, but this objection is based on a misconception of the role of colleges which in fact represent the only place in modern society where scholars and scientists may pursue new knowledge for its own sake, without regard to financial considerations.  Universities have turned into vocational schools, with their administrators often welcoming the change in hopes that it might bring both new tuition-paying students as well as funding from commercial enterprises, while “impractical” majors like Classics fall to the wayside and the idea of a liberal education is quite forgotten.  My wife accuses me of pretending to aristocratic values by maintaining that no one should have to be bothered by the obligation to earn a living through work for wages.  I prefer to think that aesthetic and intellectual pursuits, which are, after all, ubiquitous in human society, are not elitist, but rather profoundly popular.  The manipulation of symbols, cognitive exercise in general, is the most characteristically human of occupations and one of the most pleasurable.    Pursuit of knowledge, like art, is a self-justifying activity.  One knows it is good because it is so achingly beautiful, and one knows beauty through pleasure, whether contemplating Euclid or Homer, Max Planck or James Joyce.   Yet the fact remains that many people who are surely in no way less human do not care to engage with thinkers and artists and might consider those who do pretentious. 

     Surely the worst sort of snob is a long-winded one, and I fear my evidence, whether tending toward guilt or innocence, has accumulated to a great enough heap, but for any meaningful verdict to be rendered one must first define the offense.  Snobs have been spoken of for only a few hundred years and the current usage is considerably more recent.  Some authors maintain that the word arose from the expression “sine nobilitate,” abbreviated “s. nob.,” which, without evidence, they claim appeared in university records and lists of ship passengers to indicate people who might be addressed without the use of a title.  Though this ingenious origin has been disproven, it is not entirely wide of the mark. 

     Those who were first called snobs could scarcely have been taken for noble even at first glance.  Francis Grose’s A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue in 1785 contains this entry: “Snob, a nick name for a shoemaker.”  Quite likely the  prior and underlying meaning is simply a person of the lower classes of whom the cobbler was merely representative, though this can only be speculation about speech unrecorded in print.  A bit of doggerel titled “Epitaph on a Cobler” from 1790 begins “Here lies poor Bob/ An honest snob.”  Cambridge undergraduates around the same time called the townspeople snobs (while at Oxford the term was cads), rather as if I and my fellow students at the University of Illinois had referred to the locals as farmers, whatever their occupation.

     Thus from the start the term was associated with class, though ironically, today it is the Cambridge students who would be called snobs.  The term was popularized and its meaning altered by Thackery’s Book of Snobs the title page of which announced that its author was “One of Themselves,” that is, a snob.  Thackery provided a succinct definition: “He who meanly admires mean things is a Snob—perhaps that is a safe definition of the character.”  In practice, however, he used the term in several senses.  Some of his examples conform to the early meaning of vulgar or plebeian, for instance the man who eats peas on a knife or picks his teeth with a fork.  Again, to contemporaries it is the diner who feels superior due to practicing more genteel table etiquette who would be the snob.  Still the enduring comedy of the practice is suggested by the anonymous verse, variously attributed to Edward Lear, Spike Milligan, Ogden Nash or Shel Silverstein:

 

I eat my peas with honey,

I’ve done it all my life;

It makes the peas taste funny,

But it keeps them on the knife.

 

     Yet Thackery extended the word’s meaning from working class people to those of the middle class who, usually incompetently, ape a fashionable lifestyle.   Major Ponto and his wife bankrupt themselves by imitating their “betters.” The author is subjected to their daughters’ incompetent piano-playing. The Pontos relish the company of the disagreeable Lord Gules because of his aristocratic birth and the family us financially ruined by their son’s expenditures to maintaining an upper-class facade.         

     There remained only one further twist to bring the current sense of the word.  Today one may properly be called a snob if one feels that one’s possessions, material, intellectual, or even spiritual, make one superior to those less gifted.  Looking down on others is an error of taste, it is unseemly, and constitutes the real heart of true snobbery.  The Oxford English Dictionary’s earliest example of this barbed sort of snobbery has to do not with financial or aesthetic but rather religious one-upmanship, citing Shaw’s The Doctor’s Dilemma (1911): “All her childish affectations of conscientious scruple and religious impulse have been applauded and deferred to until she has become an ethical snob of the first water.”

     The sense of sharpness that soon accumulated around this sort of disdain is exemplified by Orwell’s relentless experience of his wealthier classmates’ contempt as scholarship boy in a prestigious school.  “I suppose,” he comments, “there is no place in the world where snobbery is quite so ever-present or where it is cultivated in such refined and subtle forms as in an English public school.” [4]  Yet he noted a sort of snobbery as well among waiters who identify with their genteel clientele and even  among tramps who wish to let everyone know that they had “come down in the world.” [5]  

     I might defend myself by claiming my fondness for the films of Chaplin and the Marx brothers, the cartoons of Winsor McKay and of George Herriman, and the music of Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, but all of these are artists who, though they worked in popular genres, are applauded by intellectuals.  My cousin compiles evidence on the considerable role of people with my surname in Scottish history, but a coat of arms has no significance for me.  I curse neckties and find my wardrobe in  the Salvation Army, but I am afraid I might here approach a form of inverted snobbery which has surely a different meaning entirely.

     I must fall back in then end on my insistence that I feel no shadow of superiority to those of differing tastes.  Unfortunately, the best support for this claim is subjective.  I can only depend on what I may hope is a reputation for broad sympathies, extending to all those who have found a way to agreeably pass the day on this black earth, whether it be among those who relish Taylor Swift or Stravinsky, Hamburger Helper or bouillabaisse, Star Trek or Wallace Stevens.  If I have failed to convey my appreciation for the myriad sorts of sensibilities that flourish in our species, my readers may be assured that I embrace those who fancy professional wrestling no less than those with a taste for Noh drama.  Perhaps we potential snobs not only cultivate special tastes; we may be a special taste as well and attract only those who will be amused by our affectations.  Let each enjoy what is found to be enjoyable, whether it be playing at being a snob or laughing at those who do.

 

 

 

1.  New York Times, Jan. 28, 2025, “Mona Lisa to Get Her Own Room as the Overcrowded Louvre Expands.” 

2.  I think it may have been Norman Foerster’s American Poetry and Prose, but I am uncertain.

3.   Greg Sandow, “Age of the Audience, Once More,” Arts Journal Blog for December 18, 2007, at artsjournal.com.

4.  The Road to Wigan Pier (1958), p. 169.

5.  Down and Out in  P:aris and London (1933), p. 89.