[Ads-l] (Off List) Quote: Kind to her inferiors. And where does she find them?

Mon Apr 20 14:16:25 UTC 2015

(I'm replying on-list because I'm making an assertion about the connotations of "condescension".)

I don't think "condescension" generally meant treating inferiors as "equals."  That would have been dramatically inconsistent with a hierarchical society.  Despite Johnson's "to sink willingly to equal terms with inferiours".  (Did he not on occasion choose what he thought a word ought to mean, rather than how people actually used it?)

I would look to the other half of Johnson's definition of the verb, "To depart from the privileges of superiority by a voluntary submission".  And to the OED's sense 2., "fig. To come or bend down, so far as a particular action is concerned, from one's position of dignity or pride; to stoop voluntarily and graciously; to deign."  And to a word used much more frequently(n.1), "obliging", adj., in sense 1.a, "Of a person, disposition, etc.: ready to do a service or kindness; courteous, civil, accommodating."

Thus I suggest "the word 'condescension' generally meant treating inferiors with kindness and courtesy, without regard to their station".
Joel
(1) See NGram Viewer, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=condescending%2C+obliging&year_start=1650&year_end=1799&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccondescending%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cobliging%3B%2Cc0 

________________________________
From: ADSGarson O'Toole <adsgarsonotoole at gmail.com>
To: Joel Berson <berson at att.net> 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:39 AM
Subject: (Off List) Quote: Kind to her inferiors. And where does she find them?

Thanks for your response Joel. What do you think about using the
following explanation for "condescension"?:

[Begin excerpt]
Please note that the word "condescension" now has a negative
connotation, but in the text above from the 1700s the word
"condescension" referred to the treatment of inferiors as equals which
was viewed as a positive personal quality.
[End excerpt]

Garson

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Joel Berson <berson at att.net> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:      American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:      Joel Berson <berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Quote: Kind to her inferiors. And where does she find them?
>              (antedating Dorothy Parker 1941 January 4)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Garson, I think you need to reconsider your addition below.=C2=A0 "Humility=
> " was directed towards superiors, it's not the "condescension" that the goo=
> d Doctor was (also) praising.
> Joel    From: ADSGarson O'Toole <adsgarsonotoole at GMAIL.COM>
>  To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU=20
>  Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:26 PM
>  Subject: Re: [ADS-L] Quote: Kind to her inferiors. And where does she find=
>  them? (antedating Dorothy Parker 1941 January 4)
>  =20
> Thanks for your great feedback, LH. I feared that Boswell's use of
> "condescension" might confuse readers, but I was too lazy to do
> anything about it. Now I've added the following remark:
>
> [Begin excerpt]
> Please note that the word "condescension" now has a negative
> connotation, but in the text above from Boswell the word was not
> pejorative; instead, a praiseworthy humility was suggested.
> [End excerpt]
>
> Garson
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu> wro=
> te:
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------=
> ------
>> Sender:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.=
> EDU>
>> Poster:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>> Subject:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Re: Quote: Kind to her inferiors. And where =
> does she find them?
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (antedating Dorothy Parke=
> r 1941 January 4)
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ------
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Joel Berson <berson at ATT.NET> wrote:
>>>=3D20
>>> I suggest that the 1867 quote, "respectful to superiors, and kind to =3D
>> inferiors and equals", doesn't really belong to the chain of not being =
> =3D
>> able to find any inferiors. =3D20
>>> It's rather in the tradition of the moral imperative of the late 17th =
> =3D
>> & 18th centuries to defer to one's superiors and be obliging (courteous, =
> =3D
>> civil, accommodating) and condescending (from the verb, "=3DE2=3D80=3D98T=
> o =3D
>> depart from the privileges of superiority by a voluntary submission; to =
> =3D
>> sink willingly to equal terms with inferiours=3DE2=3D80=3D99 (Johnson)") =
> to =3D
>> one's inferiors.
>>>=3D20
>>> The first part of the 1770 quotation from Dr. Johnson, "she was =3D
>> remarkable for her humility and condescension to inferiours, he =3D
>> observed, that those were very laudable qualities", also fits this -- =3D
>> humble before superiors, condescending towards inferiors. =3D20
>>
>>
>> Notice also the positive meaning with which Dr. Sam imbues =3D
>> "condescension".=C2=A0 That positive character for =3D
>> "condescend"/"condescension" persisted at least through Jane Austen a =3D
>> half-century later, but when and how did it disappear and turn to a =3D
>> pejorative (at least in the U.S.)?=C2=A0 Has this revaluation been discus=
> sed =3D
>> somewhere?=C2=A0 It's easier to find information about the innovation of =
> new =3D
>> senses or uses of words than the loss of old ones.=C2=A0 In fact, the cur=
> rent =3D
>> U.S. senses of "condescend"--given by AHD as
>>
>> 1. To do something that one regards as beneath one's social rank or =3D
>> dignity; lower oneself.=3D20
>> 2. To behave in a patronizing or superior manner toward someone
>>
>> --are not exactly represented in OED entry (which as it happens includes =
> =3D
>> the Johnson quote cited in Garson's entry and repeated by Joel above); =
> =3D
>> for all that entry suggests, there's no pejorative flavo(u)r whatsoever =
> =3D
>> adhering to the use of "condescend" and its nominalization.
>>
>> LH
>>
>>
>>
>> LH
>>>=3D20
>>> I agree with Garson, however, that the second part of the witty =3D
>> Johnson's observation does mesh with Dorothy Parker:=C2=A0 "but it might =
> not =3D
>> be so easy to discover who the lady=3DE2=3D80=3D99s inferiours were."
>>> Joel
>>> ________________________________
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org