← New Books Network
New Books Network
Arnoud S. Q. Visser, "On Pedantry: A Cultural History of the Know-it-All" (Princeton UP, 2025)
00:34:12
Loading summary
Transcript29 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [00:05]
B
I'm Caleb Zakrin and you're listening to the Princeton University Press Ideas podcast. Today I'm speaking with Arnaud Visser, professor of Textual Culture in the Renaissance at Utrecht University and Director of the Huizinga Institut, the Dutch national research school for Cultural History. We're discussing Arnaud's latest book on a cultural history of the know it all. Everyone knows the type. The grating, annoying intellectual who dumps their musings and opinions on anyone. There's a line between an interesting and thoughtful person and one who uses displays of knowledge as a weapon to bludgeon interlocutors to death. In Unpedantry, Arnaud explores the history of grammar police, know it alls and killjoys. Historians of ideas and philosophers often celebrate figures who elevate knowledge acquisition above all. But perhaps such irritating and pretentious intellects have done harm to building a broader culture of ideas. If intellectuals are arrogant, unappealing and overly pedantic, then how could we be surprised that people would embrace anti intellectualism to share with us 2,500 years of cultural history? I'm pleased today to get the chance to speak with Arnad Visser. Thanks for joining me today on the Princeton University Press Ideas podcast.
- [01:14]
A
Thank you very much for having me. Thank you.
- [01:16]
B
This is a really fun book and I think, you know, for a person like me, and I think for many of your readers, a sort of a great wake up call or at least a great reminder that sometimes, you know, loving knowledge and loving reading and loving books, loving ideas can in certain audiences make us sometimes a little unappealing. I like to think that I'm, you know, open minded enough or that I'm, I'm not just dumping knowledge on people, but sometimes I'm like, am I being a little bit pedantic? Am I being a little pretentious? And, and I think this book is, is a really, really valuable, really useful for that reason. And of course it's, it's fun and it's, it's entertaining as well. But before even jumping into the book, I was wondering if you just tell us a little about yourself, your background, how you became an academic.
- [02:00]
A
Well, thank you so much. It has been very therapeutic for myself as well to write the book. I've long been interested in hostility to intellectuals and intellectualism. Perhaps that already started when I was young and I sometimes heard people saying to me what expensive words you use, which I sort of took as a, as a compliment, only to find out a bit later that that probably expressed some. Some unease. I later went on to study classical languages, which was taught in a. In a department which was very philological. So a lot of attention to, well, texts. Precision. The notion of the error was extremely important and intimidating in that intellectual tradition. It taught me precision, but it also made me slightly daunted by this style of scholarship. And then I proceeded to study Neo Latin, the intellectual culture of the Renaissance, where many more texts were actually never studied, in contrast to the classics, and which was a bit more, in that sense, open to new ideas also, because it was very often in collaboration with cultural historians. So that's the sort of journey that I took. I'm now interested in history of ideas and the intellectual culture in early modern Europe in particular. And for this book, I try to broaden my scope a bit more by writing a diachronic book on the intellectual vice of pedantry. Right.
- [03:47]
B
You call it an intellectual vice, which I think is an interesting framing, in part because you start the book, the first part looks at ancient Greece, ancient Rome, where virtue and vice were such important categories that people thought with. And, um, I was wondering if you talk a little bit about some of the ideas just in this, this first part of the book. You, you, you know, you have some examples in a way, like, you know, Socrates is, was maybe one of the. The first people that could be accused of pedantry. There was also the sophists, of course, who maybe, you know, are aligned with that as well, kind of pseudo intellectual. Could you, could you talk about this? How, how the pedant first manifests in, in. In ancient Greece and Rome.
- [04:36]
A
Yeah, I call that section Pedens avant la lettre to indicate that the word pedantry itself didn't exist yet in antiquity, for instance, because it's a Renaissance invention. But it doesn't mean, of course, that the phenomenon may not have existed. And for me, pedantry is basically defined in a broad sense as well, the perception of an excessive use or display of learning. And that evokes irritation. And that irritation you can also see in the ancient world emerging from the way in which the sophists, for instance, use their knowledge, but also in the way in which Socrates was perceived to do the same thing. So that is what my first chapter explores, the irritation that intellectuals provoked in classical Athens, in particular in the fifth century before Christ. We know, of course, in the case of Socrates, that the irritation led to his execution. So there is a real danger in, well, creating this impression of being excessive in your use of knowledge. The paradoxical thing in the case of Socrates is of course, that he pretended not to know, but he was excellent at demonstrating the ignorance of the people he was talking to. At least this is all the perspective that we have, of course, through Plato. But we know that also before Plato, there were already comedies that satirized Socrates as an extremely annoying person. So there is more evidence than that.
- [06:27]
B
What I find interesting too about the argument is that, you know, it's not the sort of the claim that I think intellectuals will often level against sophists or people that just use rhetoric as a way to advance their ideas, even if they're. They don't care about fidelity to truth. People that might be engaged in some form of BSing. You know, Socrates, obviously some of many of his ideas or opinions are arguable, but, you know, was thought in a way too. He really was concerned with truth. He was really concerned with what was right. And to be a pedantic person, you can be the least BSer. You don't have to be a BSer to be a pedantic person. It's really just a way of being. And I think we know this type of person pretty well. And you talk a little bit about not just in Athens, but also in Rome as well, and then moving into this early Christian period. How did you see pedantry manifest there?
- [07:33]
A
So the idea is, each time that I look at irritation as a measure of the pedantry in each particular historical period that I investigate. And what you see in the chapter about the imposter philosophers is that after the criticism of the sophists, there is also a similar type of criticism that can be heard, and it's leveled against the philosophers themselves for being overly pretentious or for being hypocritical in their use of wisdom. In their case, that pretends to wisdom. Yeah, so that's the sort of main line of that chapter. So what I want to show is that this definition of pedantry shifts per cultural context and that there's not one fixed essence to pedantry, but it depends on how people perceive the use of knowledge in their own particular historical context. So the idea of what is excessive use or display of learning shifts over the centuries. That's, I think, what I want to trace.
- [08:57]
B
What was the origin of the term pedant in early modern Europe? How is it used? Obviously it's not originally an English word, but how is it used and what did it refer to?
- [09:10]
A
Yeah, it originates in 15th century Italian, where originally only means or neutrally means school teacher, teacher of Latin grammar. And it quickly gained a negative connotation because those people were associated with often a lack of skills, incompetence, scruffiness, irritability because of the way in which they taught. So they quickly gained a negative reputation. And then the. The notion of the patent as a dishonorable figure, as an irritating figure who was pretentious and annoying in his use of knowledge, developed more clearly in the 16th century when the patent became a stock character in Italian comedies, as the scruffy teacher was incompetent and therefore laughable. That is the origin of the patent in early modern Europe. And it contains this notion of teaching and excessive use and display of knowledge. Again, but that's at its core and that's where it started.
- [10:31]
B
This was also, you know, simultaneously occurring with the rise of humanism. Could you talk about how humanist pedants were perceived? Obviously, you mentioned their depiction. And in comedy, there are other examples too, that you point out where pedantic teachers or just pedantic people were ridiculed or made fun of for their fixation, sometimes on a classical or aristocratic knowledge. How did this converge with humanism?
- [11:04]
A
Yeah, I think that's very interesting because the 16th century is also the age in which the humanists really conquered the educational system and were also very confident in their agenda. And I think that confidence got a bit under the skin of those who actually paid them for their skills as teachers, because these humanists had the idea that education was also a way to ennoble yourself, to become a better person. So this idea of the nobility of the mind was an idea that could be, of course, very. Could be subversive to the idea of nobility, of birth. And what you see in these comedies in the 16th century is that the figure of the humanist pedant was satirized by those people in courts and academies, members of the aristocracy, who probably also had an axe to grind with overly pretentious and overly socially ambitious humanists.
- [12:21]
B
I think with pedantry as well. The know it all. They. They lack humility. I'm wondering the. The Christian perception, you know, Christianity valuing humility, how that was, you know, how that Christian perspective viewed pedantry.
- [12:38]
A
Yeah. This is, of course, intriguing to see the ambivalence of Christianity with regard to learning. On the one hand, the Christian church has been the keeper of knowledge and also of classical knowledge over the ages. And on the other hand, it is also the religion where things went wrong in paradise when the tree of knowledge, the apple of the tree of knowledge, the apple was eaten. So you see a very ambivalent attitude with regards to learning already in the early Church. I think in the context of the medieval age. I discuss in my chapter about the rise of scholasticism in the 12th century and the emergence of universities, you see that there is also a direct clash between academic theologians and the religious orders where the new techniques of using language and logic to make sense of the Bible and also to attain truth were regarded, were easily regarded by important representatives of the orders as a form of pride, as overly curious, a form of curiosity that was not to be tolerated. And then you have, for instance, somebody like the philosopher Abelard who can complain that logic has made him hated by the world. This idea that the quest for truth, this intellectual virtue, is actually the very thing that provokes the ire of those who find it excessive.
- [14:39]
B
I think the third part of this book is quite interesting because it really does bring us to the present age with the rise of democracy and this notion of certain forms of education, obviously democracy also an era where mass education becomes, becomes a thing. Many more people being taught to read, being educated like, like never before. But at the same time too, a backlash, at least in style, especially in America. You know, blue jean wearing Americans sort of resenting a certain style of educational display that is might not even have been a marker of pedantry, but might have just been a marker of a certain style of education. How did, how did that, how did the rise of democracy impact people's perception of aristocratic and classical education?
- [15:35]
A
Well, what I tried to explore in my chapter about 19th century America is how the idea of equality, even though that's a very problematic term in itself, of course, but still this idea that there was equality, how that set uneasily with the hierarchy of education. And you see, that becomes visible in the suspicion of people with a college education. And a lot of critique as well on the usefulness of college education. And they are quickly associated with a form of aristocracy that is the sort of easy association that is then made as an elitist, exclusive form of education that has little practical relevance. I think one of the founding fathers compared, for instance, the idea of learning Latin and Greek to Chinese foot binding. You compress your brain into the limited intellectual frame of Greek and Latin grammar, which made no sense whatsoever in the modern world. So that is an important tradition of critique to higher education. And with it come other forms of critique. For instance, religious reservations against higher learning and also more instrumentalist concerns. So you what's the use actually economic concerns? What is the use of having a college education? We need people with practical skills that sort of thing is what you, what you see in the this context.
- [17:39]
B
Right. I, I, I feel often that the criticisms tend to, tend to be a criticism of a kind of a fixation with things that are archaic, things that don't have a relevance in the, you know, today's world, but things that might have been markers of being, you know, quite intellectually engaged in the past. And it's interesting too because you also, you also do provide some counterpoints. You know, people that, you know, people like Frederick Douglass, for example, who really strive to become educated, especially given the fact that he was raised in a context and environment where there was just no access to education at all. He was literally an enslaved person who then freed himself. Could you talk about this sort of counter example as well in American culture?
- [18:31]
A
Yeah, because I think it is very intriguing to see that on the one hand there is the criticism, for instance, also in a political debate or a political election context between Jackson and Adams, John Quincy Adams, the Harvard professor, against the little educated Jackson about the spelling mistakes that Jackson makes. And this critique turns against the Adams party who see themselves accused as being dictionary men. That sort of concern is of little, of little value. And on the other hand, as you say, you see in the context, for instance of Douglas, the idea that education can actually be something that helps people to improve themselves, to make something of themselves and also to build leadership, that is very necessary.
- [19:36]
B
I want to talk a little bit about this, this notion of intellectualism, anti intellectualism, which has really become such an important debate. It's been a debate for a while, especially, you know, in the American context though obviously, you know, the, the debates around it which converge with debates around populism are a global phenomenon as well. But you talk about pedantry as a sort of a vice. It's an intellectual, it's a vice that is displayed sometimes by intellectuals mostly. And how do you think about it in terms of these various debates around populism and anti intellectualism? Do you think that it's important to really segment pedantry as something that's like. Well, maybe there is a point when people use critique, intellectuals, maybe if you, maybe that's the wrong word to use. And maybe they're going too far to critique all people that are just interested in learning things. But, but maybe there is a point that people are making. There is a, you know, a point about the dictionary man, even if you don't agree with, with, with all the arguments that, you know, someone like Jackson would have made in all the things he did, that there is a There, there is something to be said about how intellectuals are and behave.
- [20:52]
A
Yeah, well, I think the, the idea of, of palantry as an intellectual vice is not to suggest that there's a clear and stable codified sin. I think what makes it interesting is that it is used as a charge by people in specific cultural contexts. And it's about the perception of excesses in the use or display of learning. And it can materialize in three ways. There's language, there's behavior, and there's a type of knowledge. In the case of language, you can see that certain words, jargon for instance, or foreign languages, can work on people's nerves in terms of behavior. Correcting people, interrupting is the sort of behavior that is annoying. And in terms of type of knowledge, it's very interesting to see that that differs quite a bit over the ages. So there is a development, I think, in the use of pedantry and what counts as pedantry, but I think that in itself, that there is irritation, I think in itself is interesting and I think can also be helpful for those people who feel themselves prone to being accused of pedantry or feel themselves see themselves as intellectuals. That it's helpful to become aware of the impression that, that you make and that people don't always listen to your ideas, but also look at your conduct. So I think that is something that is a helpful lesson to take on board. And on the other hand, I think it's helpful for people who love to hate intellectuals who feel the urge, almost as if it is a, a pet peeve to be irritated by pedantic behavior, to become curious. What actually drives this irritation? Is this really as evil as corruption or cruelty? Because sometimes it almost looks like it provokes the same sort of aggressive response. So I think if you become more curious into what actually drives this irritation, that may also help us to, well, to understand perhaps a bit what is behind anti intellectual tendencies. And I think a historical perspective is in particular useful because it's very understandable and tempting of course, to be concerned with the current situation. But I think when we talk about anti intellectualism, there's also a risk of navel gazing. And I think looking at, at the historical trajectory can help us to understand a bit more clearly how we got here and can also make us realize that in many ways the way in which we talk, feel and think about these concepts about this phenomenon has a history. So not only the word pattern and the word sophistic, but also images of intellectuals as absentminded, scruffy, irritable, and all sorts of things have long histories and date often from periods that were very, very different from our current knowledge culture.
- [24:36]
B
Right. This book, in many ways, is sort of a showcase of the caricatures and the stereotypes of academic types. What I find interesting too is you also dig into the gendered component in it, where on the one hand, the pedantic person or the person accused of pedantry is seen as being almost like a mansplainer. There's kind of a masculine, I'm the father who knows what's right. Let me tell you what the truth is. And then on the other hand, too, a sort of, you know, effete intellectual who's who, I think there's a line in there, doesn't use the bottom half of half of their body, the egghead, as opposed to the more rugged man on the, you know, Andrew Jackson, someone like that. And I found that this idea very, very interesting as well. You know, how did this gendered component, this sort of gendered lens, help you understand and think about the topic as well?
- [25:36]
A
Yeah, in a way, pedantry is, if you look at the repertoire of arguments and tropes about patents, that offers a sort of index of masculinity. I mean, it has partly to do with the fact that the institutions for higher learning, of course, were long exclusively accessible to men, but also it's also because of the fact that what counts as proper use of knowledge is measured in terms of virtue, in terms of correct behavior. And the whole notion of virtue literally means masculinity, manliness, virtus. So that, I think, explains why the proper use or the improper use of knowledge is always measured in terms of manliness. And that can have, as you say, those three aspects. Hyper masculine, rude people, these scholars, for instance, in the 17th century salons of Paris, who were accused of not knowing how to talk elegantly in a refined language with ladies, that can also have the effect of being effeminate and all sorts of immorality that is associated with effeminacy in the context of the 16th century humanist parents, for instance, who were accused of being sodomites or even pedophiles because they were working in these homes or in these schools with these children, that sort of thing. And then, for instance, in Victorian times, there was also the idea of the dry intellectual debt from the waist down, as was said the dry as dust professor. But it was all measured in terms of this masculinity scale, you could say. Yeah. And still also in 20th century representations of intellectuals or professors, also when women are increasingly part of the representation of intellectuals. They are also measured in these terms. So female professors are then depicted as lacking in feminine quality and being sometimes also a bit masculine with a low voice or unelegant. So you can see that this is a very strong tradition that is still visible.
- [28:09]
B
So this book, of course, has been written for a more general audience as opposed to a scholarly audience. You. You, of course, still use scholarly sources, but the scope is quite wide ranging. And I was wondering, for you, taking on a topic like this, a subject like this in cultural history, how writing for a general audience helped you think about your presentation of the ideas, and especially taking on a topic like this, where there's something almost funny about writing a book about pedantry in a scholarly vein, but for a general audience. So I was wondering if you just talk about those tensions that you experienced while writing the book.
- [28:53]
A
Yeah. Well, this is, again, something I think that I found therapeutic, because I'm very much aware of the fact that in my daily work, I'm often interested in things and teaching things that may be quite obscure to a more general audience. But I found it a challenge for myself as well to broaden my scope and to try to make it understandable for people outside of my immediate area, especially when it deals with a topic that is about the relationship between intellectuals and their wider world. But it was challenging. And at times, I sometimes also had the feeling, is this not going too far? Am I not straying too far from my own competence? But I often compared the situation to that of teaching, where you also have to explain subjects that are not part of your own scholarly expertise to students. And that helped me also to visualize a bit how the situation rhetorically actually is when you try to write for a slightly broader audience. I deliberately tried to make it light, to keep it light, and also to use humor and irony where I could, because I thought that this wouldn't just make the book more appealing, but also because the subject deserves it, I think, because it is easily becoming something that is very contested or heavy. And there have been written books about the decline of culture already, many books. And I wanted to avoid the situation in which I was just confirming the view of those who were already in the intellectual community and to open it up beyond to a slightly wider readership, to make it slightly more accessible to also those people who may be a bit more skeptical about academia.
- [31:18]
B
Right. I think that the tone is actually one of the parts of it that. That is. That is important, because I think you're right. I think when we're too serious sometimes about the decline of education or the decline of culture that to a certain, at a certain point, you know, it's like, who, who are we saying this for? Who's. Who is. Who is. Who is a part of that debate about the decline of culture. And I think that sel awareness on some level is a really important part of, of actually getting people more interested and involved in, in culture. I think that, that so many people have had the experience of just checking out of certain debates because they're almost. They don't want to deal with the people that are guiding those debates. And if the people that are guiding the debates are, you know, not making a big stink about someone mispronouncing a word, miss, you know, missing a date by, you know, a month or two or, or something like that, then more people can actually engage. It's not. To say that it's not being accurate isn't important. It's, of course it's important. But yeah, the way that people go about trying to get people to be accurate, it's, I think, you know, being a bit more lighthearted about it all. Like, that's, that's a better intellectual experience.
- [32:37]
A
Yeah, no, absolutely, that's, that's at least what I, what I tried and aimed for. And I hope that will also make it easier for people to tolerate perhaps those bits that they find uncomfortable on either side. So both for those people who are concerned about anti intellectualism from the perspective of feeling threatened, which is very understandable, but also on the part of those people who are really annoyed by intellectual arrogance. Does that make sense?
- [33:12]
B
Absolutely. Yeah. Well, Arnaud, thank you so much for being guest on the Princeton University Press Ideas podcast. It was really fun to get the chance to speak about this book and I do recommend people check it out because we really just scratched the surface. And you do cover 2,500 years and it's a very fun and funny lens that I think our audience in particular will actually really connect with. So I do recommend that people go and check out the book book because it's highly readable and funny and has all the qualities that I think pedantic scholars writing their books should look to actually infuse into their works. So, Arnold, thank you so much for being a guest.
- [33:59]
A
Thank you. Thank you very much.