UNIVERSITY SNOBS

The little word "snobs" is getting to be as much misused as "socialist" or "liberal", and probably due to the fact that it has become a regular buffet-epithet in word wrangles. It remains, then, to clear away superfluous and incorrect meaning; and also to exonerate this often maligned college from any notorious connection with the term.

"An immense percentage of Snobs," says Thackeray in the preface to his celebrated manual of snobbery, "is to be found in every rank of this mortal life. . . . There are relative and positive Snobs. I mean by positive, such persons as are Snobs everywhere, in all companies, from morning till night, from youth to the grave, being by Nature endowed with Snobbishness--and others who are Snobs only in certain circumstances and relations of life."

According to this categorization we are all snobs. There are, it is true, but few of the first type; the second type, however, is legion. Snobbery, after all, is mere inherency. Prejudice, the universal sin, is a species of snobbery. Excessive pride in a hobby--and who does not take pride in one--is another snobbery. Harvard is criticised by outsiders (who often know nothing about it) for being snobbish, and within its exclusive gates men call other men snobs. Irascible X accuses immaculate Y of being a snob and then snubs provincial Z who comes from another and smaller college. He is unduly gratified when Z in turn calls him a snob. Thackeray has made a special study of University snobs and speaks suavely of the whole order; those who "pride themselves in giving recherche little French dinners," the "dressy Snobs," the "sporting Snobs," the "philosophical Snobs, who are statesmen at the sporting-clubs," and many others. The rock-of-ages verdict, then, is that everyone is snobbish, and will be as long as such a thing as individualism exists. We are all of us tainted with the same sin:--where is he that can cast the first stone?