Political right versus left
Posted: 27 November 2010 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2010-09-07

In a recent series of posts, the question has arisen as to the reliability of online etymological sources.  While not wishing to pour too much oil onto the proverbial fire, I do believe that it is always sensible to maintain a certain degree of skepticism and questioning with regard to any etymological resource.  In particular, there is a well-established tendency for an etymology, once it is “vouched” for by a particularly respected source (the OED, Littré, etc.) to be repeated unthinkingly in future etymological dictionaries, despite the fact that it may be seriously flawed.

A case in point:  the OED seems to be the ultimate source for the nearly universal knowledge among English speakers that political right and left derive from the traditional seating positions of the “Second” and “Third” Estates in the French National Assembly, the right being the position of “honor”. 

OED:  This use originated in the French National Assembly of 1789, in which the nobles as a body took the position of honour on the President’s right, and the Third Estate on his left.  The significance of these positions, which was at first merely ceremonial, soon became political.

[It is possible that this has been revised in the online OED to which I do not have access. But this would not change the point of my story, i.e., the influence that it had for many decades].

In many cases there is explicit reference to OED (e.g., Chambers Dictionary of Etymology), while in others it is only implicit: 

At the meeings of the Assemblée nationale constituante (called the National Constituent Assembly in English) in 1789, the nobles took the position of honor at the right hand of the president of the assembly, and the representatives of the commoners took their place on the left.

The fundamental problem is that, according to all of the evidence I have been able to find, the seating pattern in the National Assembly – as well as in the preceding États Généraux and succeeding Assemblée nationale constituante – was altogether different from that posited by the OED:  in particular, the nobles were placed not to the right but to the left!  Thus, from an 1817 volume of memoirs,

Lors des premières assemblées des états-généraux, les députés du clergé [First Estate] siégeoient à la droite du trône du roi, ceux de la noblesse à gauche, et ceux du tiers-état se trouvoient en face, entre la droite et la gauche.  Lors de la confusion des trois ordres en assemblée nationale, le clergé, sans prétendre s’arroger aucune préseance, continua à se placer à la droite, la noblesse à la gauche, le tiers se dispersa à droite et à gauche, et se trouva pêle-mêle avec les deux premiers ordres . . .

(In other words, the “ceremonial” position of the Third Estate (commoners) in the Estates-General was in the center, while the right was reserved for the clergy and the left for nobles.)

Similarly, from the “classic” account of the parliamentary history of the French Revolution by Philippe-Joseph Benjamin Buchez (1846)

Le clergé fut assis à la droite du trône; la noblesse à gauche; et le Tiers en face.

“The clergy was seated to the right of the throne; the nobility to the left; and the Third [Estate] in the center.”

There would thus appear to be no basis for asserting that the political sense of “right” and “left” has anything at all to do with the “ceremonial” seating pattern in the National Assembly (nor in that of the Estates-General or the Constituent Assembly.  So how did such association arise?

It seems that it was some months later, during a vote concerning the King’s veto powers in the renamed Constituent Assembly, that supporters of the King (who were by no means only nobles) and opponents (who were by no means all from the Third Estate) divided themselves in a right–left manner within the Assembly hall. 

From the same 1846 source:

Ce fut à la suite de cette séance [du 28 août] que l’assemblée se sépara définitivement en côté gauche et côté droit.  Tous les partisans du veto allèrent s’asseoir à droite du président; tous les antagonistes se groupèrent dans la partie opposée [gauche].  Cette séparation rendait plus facile le calcul des voix dans le vote par assis et levé, qui avait été conservé.

“It was following this session (of 28 August) that the Assembly separated itself definitively into a left side and a right side.  All of the supporters of the veto went to sit to the right of the president; all of the antagonists (opposition) grouped themselves in the opposite part [left].  This separation made it easier to count the votes by (those) sitting and standing, which has been conserved.”

The right/left association thus arose not because of a “ceremonial” seating pattern, but rather by “self-grouping” of two political blocs, which facilitated the counting of votes. 

By 1791 there is a written reference to the “left” – “right” political cleavage and this division became even more accentuated following the rise of the radical Jacobins, who took their seats on the left viewed from the podium at the front.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2010 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4599
Joined  2007-01-03

This doesn’t seem to be that big an error. People confused the ceremonial seating with the division of the body for voting. The OED entry for right, adj. and int., dated Sep 2010, reads:

Originally after French le côté droit the right-hand side (of the Assembly) (1792, with reference to the seating of nobles and high clergy to the right of the Chair, and the third estate and lower-status clergy to the left). The first division of this sort is commonly identified as taking place during the meeting of the French Estates General in 1789. It was then repeated in a vote in the constituent National Assembly on August 28, 1789.

The 1989 version was:

The use originates with the seating positions of the 1789 French National Assembly.

Not so much incorrect, as abbreviated to the point that it becomes confusing. (Perhaps due to the difference between print, with its sharply limited space, and online.)

The OED entry for centre, also dated 1989 but the etymology may be older, says:

This use originated in the French National Assembly of 1789, in which the nobles as a body took the position of honour on the President’s right, and the Third Estate sat on his left. The significance of these positions, which was at first merely ceremonial, soon became political.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2010 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2010-09-07
Dave Wilton - 27 November 2010 03:21 PM

This doesn’t seem to be that big an error. People confused the ceremonial seating with the division of the body for voting.

. . .

The OED entry for centre, also dated 1989 but the etymology may be older, says:

This use originated in the French National Assembly of 1789, in which the nobles as a body took the position of honour on the President’s right, and the Third Estate sat on his left. The significance of these positions, which was at first merely ceremonial, soon became political.

One of my principal points is that this is simply incorrect:  the “ceremonial” position of the nobles was not on the right but on the left, while that of the Third Estate was not on the left but in the center (the right being reserved for the clergy).  And this incorrect fact—which presumably goes back to the “original” NED—found its way into numerous dictionaries and other books.

I take note of the fact that the online (September 2010) OED has now offered a more “correct” explanation (whether this is a result of my letter to them of July 2009 on the subject, or independent “discovery” on their part, I am not in a position to say).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2010 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3411
Joined  2007-01-29

Yes, information from trusted sources tends to get repeated, and in the course of time sometimes has to be corrected.  This does not seem a particularly newsworthy point.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2010 04:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2010-09-07
languagehat - 27 November 2010 04:10 PM

Yes, information from trusted sources tends to get repeated, and in the course of time sometimes has to be corrected.  This does not seem a particularly newsworthy point.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that posts were supposed to be “newsworthy”.  But, not having seen the September 2010 OED online “correction” (which may or may not be related to my having pointed out their error to them), I did think that some might find it of interest that the commonly-held origin of “right” vs. “left” is historically inaccurate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2010 12:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  64
Joined  2010-11-02

Those seated on the righthand side of the president are seated on the lefthand side of the room. The OED says:

Originally after French le côté droit the right-hand side (of the Assembly) (1792, with reference to the seating of nobles and high clergy to the right of the Chair, and the third estate and lower-status clergy to the left).

That statement is dated Sept 2010 says Dave Wilton. Therefore the OED is still confused about the matter.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2010 01:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2010-09-07
ᴚǝǝƶɐʍɐɈ - 28 November 2010 12:31 AM

Those seated on the righthand side of the president are seated on the lefthand side of the room. The OED says:

Originally after French le côté droit the right-hand side (of the Assembly) (1792, with reference to the seating of nobles and high clergy to the right of the Chair, and the third estate and lower-status clergy to the left).

That statement is dated Sept 2010 says Dave Wilton. Therefore the OED is still confused about the matter.

There is certainly potential for confusion here.  But it is my understanding that all of the references, from the 19th century French sources to the original OED to the September 2010 OED (& to modern European parliaments) are looking at the room from the perspective of the King or President in the front.  So the OED now has it “right”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2010 02:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
RankRank
Total Posts:  64
Joined  2010-11-02

You quoted someone saying “The clergy was seated to the right of the throne...” The quote is not explicit as to which perspective “right” is coming from. If my aunt tells me she always sits on the lefthand side of the altar when she goes to church, it’d be totally unambiguous to me: it’d mean if I walked from the back of the church forward along the center aisle, I’d be looking toward my lefthand side to find her. I had assumed that in modern parliaments the “left side of the house” means the same as what me and my aunt mean it to be. I stand corrected on that. But might it be possible that some of the historical records have used the words “right” and “left” in the same way that me and my aunt would?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2010 04:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4599
Joined  2007-01-03

Originally after French le côté droit the right-hand side (of the Assembly) (1792, with reference to the seating of nobles and high clergy to the right of the Chair, and the third estate and lower-status clergy to the left).

That statement is dated Sept 2010 says Dave Wilton. Therefore the OED is still confused about the matter.

Nope. The 2010 reference is to 1792, when the seating was formally in the fashion described. The OED is absolutely correct here.

The essential elements of the story have always been correct. The term comes from the practice of the French legislature and dates to 1789. The error is only in whether the division for the first few years was a formal, ceremonial one, or simply a division of the house during votes.

Profile