Cosmopolitan (pronounced koz-muh-pol-i-tn)
(1) One
free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; an
internationalist.
(2) One
with the characteristics of a cosmopolite.
(3) A cocktail
made with vodka, cranberry juice, an orange-flavored liqueur, and lime juice.
(4) Sophisticated,
urbane, worldly.
(5) Of
plants and animals, wildly distributed species.
(6) The vanessa cardui butterfly.
(7) A moth of species Leucania loreyi.
1828: An adoption in Modern English, borrowed from the French cosmopolite (citizen of the world),
ultimately derived from the Ancient Greek kosmopolitēs
(κοσμοπολίτης), the construct being kósmos (κόσμος) (world) + politēs
(πολίτης) (citizen); word being modeled
on metropolitan. The US magazine Cosmopolitan was first published in
1886.
An aspect of Soviet Cold War policy under comrade Stalin
The phrase rootless cosmopolitans was coined in the nineteenth century by Vissarion Belinsky (1811-1848), a Russian literary critic much concerned about Western influences on both Russian literature and society. He applied it to writers he felt “…lacked Russian national character” but as a pejorative euphemism, it’s now an anti-Semitic slur and one most associated with domestic policy in the Soviet Union (USSR) between 1946 and Stalin's death in 1953. Comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) liked the phrase and applied it to the Jews, a race of which he was always suspicious because he thought their lack of a homeland made them “mystical, intangible and other-worldly”. Not a biological racist like Hitler and other rabid anti-Semites, Stalin’s enemies were those he perceived a threat; Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), Grigory Zinoviev (1883–1936) and Lev Kamenev (1883–1936) were disposed of not because they were Jewish but because Stalin thought they might threaten his hold on power although the point has been made that while it wasn’t because he was Jewish that Trotsky was murdered, many Jews would come to suffer because Stalin associated them with Trotsky.
It was the same with institutions. He found disturbing the activities of Moscow’s Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC) and did not approve them being accepted by Western governments as representing the USSR. Further, he feared the JAC’s connections with foreign powers might create a conduit for infiltration by Western influences; well Stalin knew the consequences of people being given ideas; the campaign of 1946-1953 was thus more analogous with the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) opposition to the Falun Gong rather than the pogroms of Tsarist times. Authoritarian administrations don’t like independent organisations; politics needs to be monolithic and control absolute. In a speech in Moscow in 1946, he described certain Jewish writers and intellectuals, as “rootless cosmopolitans” accusing them of a lack of patriotism, questioning their allegiance to the USSR. This theme festered but it was the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, fostering as it did an increased self consciousness among Soviet Jews, combined with the Cold War which turned Stalin into a murderous anti-Semite.
Ten years after: rootless cosmopolitan comrade Trotsky (left) talking to comrade Stalin (right), Moscow, 1930 (left) and Mexican police showing the ice axe used by an assassin (sent by Stalin) to murder Trotsky, Mexico, 1940.
Before the formation of the state of Israel, Stalin's anti-Semitism was more a Russian mannerism than any sort of obsession. For years after assuming absolute power in the USSR, he expressed no disquiet at the preponderance of Jews in the foreign ministry and it was only in 1939, needing a temporary diplomatic accommodation with Nazi Germany, that he acted. Having replaced the Jewish Foreign Commissar, Maxim Litvinov (1876–1951; People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union 1930–1939) with Vyacheslav Molotov (1890-1986; USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs 1939-1949 & 1953-1956), he ordered him to purge the diplomatic corps of Jews, his memorable phrase being "clean out the synagogue". Concerned the presence of Jews might be an obstacle to rapprochement with Hitler, Stalin had the purge effected with his usual efficiency: many were transferred to less conspicuous roles and others were arrested or shot.
Negotiations began in the summer of 1939, concluding with German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945) leading a delegation to Moscow to meet with Molotov and Stalin. It proved a remarkably friendly conference of political gangsters and agreement was soon reached, the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (usually called the Nazi-Soviet Pact or Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) being signed on 23 August. The pact contained also a notorious secret protocol by which the two dictators agreed to a carve-up of Poland consequent upon the impending Nazi invasion and the line dividing Poland between the two was almost identical to the Curzon Line, a demarcation between the new Polish Republic created in the aftermath of World War I (1914-1918) and the emergent Soviet Union which had been proposed by Lord Curzon (1859–1925; UK foreign secretary 1919-1924). At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, during the difficult negotiations over Polish borders, Molotov habitually referred to "the Curzon Line" and the UK Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden (1897–1977; thrice UK foreign secretary & prime minister 1955-1957), in a not untypically bitchy barb, observed it was more common practice to call it the “Molotov-Ribbentrop line”. "Call it whatever you like" replied Stalin, "we still think it's fair and just". Comrade Stalin rarely much cared to conceal the nature of the regime he crafted in his own image. Whatever the motives of Stalin, rootless cosmopolitans has joined the code of dog-whistle politics, a part of the core demonology to label the Jews a malign race, a phrase in the tradition of "Christ killers", "Rothschild-Capitalists and Untermenschen (the sub-humans). Despite that, there are always optimists, Jewish writer Vincent Brook (b 1946), suggesting the term could convey the positive, a suggestion the Jews possess an “adaptability and empathy for others”. It’s not a view widely shared and rootless cosmopolitan remains an anti-Semitic trope although it's not unknown for Jews to use it ironically.
In August 1942, Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) got to enjoy the rare pleasure of a well lubricated supper in comrade Stalin's private apartment in the Kremlin and also there was comrade Molotov. By the time the third bottle had been uncorked, the occasion had progressed to the exchange of anecdotes and in the spirit of the occasion, Churchill asked Molotov if it was true he’d delayed his return from a visit to the US so he could spend a night on the town in Manhattan. Molotov’s expression became even more dour than usual but Stalin explained things by saying: “It was not to New York he went. He went to Chicago, where the other gangsters live.” More than one astute observer of the human condition has concluded more can be learned about a man from his humor than his more profound pronouncements but there was much also to be learned when comrade Stalin was being candid. At the Yalta Conference, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, US president 1933-1945) asked Stalin: “Who is the chap with the pince-nez?”. “That’s Beria” [Lavrentiy Beria (1899–1953; head of the Soviet secret police 1938-1946)], Stalin replied, “He’s our Himmler [the Nazi Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945)], and he’s not bad either.”
The Cosmopolitan was based on the "Cosmopolitan 1934" cocktail, a mix from inter-war New York which included gin, Cointreau & and lemon juice, raspberry syrup lending the trademark pink hue. The modern Cosmopolitan was also concocted in New York and seems to have appeared first in the Mid-1980s although it was appearances in the HBO (Home Box Office) television series Sex and the City (1998-2004) which made it as emblematic of a certain turn-of-the-millennium New York lifestyle as Manolo Blahnik’s stilettos but, the implications of that connotation aside, the enticing pink drink survived to remain a staple of cocktail lists. Cosmopolitans can be made individually or as a batch to be poured from a pitcher; just multiply the ingredient count by however many are to be served.
Ingredients
2 oz (¼ cup) vodka (or citrus vodka according to taste)
½ ounce (1 tablespoon) triple sec, Cointreau (or Grand Marnier)
¾ oz (1½ tablespoons) cranberry juice
¼-½ ounce (1 ½-3 teaspoons) fresh lime juice
One 2-inch (50 mm) orange peel/twist
Instructions
(1) Add vodka, Cointreau, cranberry juice, and lime juice to a cocktail shaker filled with ice.
(2) Shake until well chilled.
(3) Strain into a chilled cocktail glass (classically a coupé or Martini glass).
(4) An orange or lemon twist is the traditional garnish.
Notes
(1) As a general principle, the higher the quality of the vodka, the better the Cosmopolitan, the lower priced sprits tending to taste rather more abrasive which for certain purposes can be good but doesn’t suit a “Cosmo”.
(2) The choice of unsweetened or sweetened cranberry juice (the latter sold sometimes as “cranberry juice cocktail”) is a matter of taste and if using the unsweetened most will prefer if a small splash of sugar syrup (or agave) is added because tartness isn’t associated with a Cosmopolitan.
(3) There is however a variant which is sometimes mixed deliberately to be tart. That’s the “White Cosmo”, made by using white cranberry juice.
(4) Of the orange liqueur: Most mixologists recommend Cointreau but preference is wholly subjective and Cointreau & Grand Marnier variously are used, the consensus being Cointreau (a type of Triple Sec) is smoother, stronger and more complex. Grand Marnier is also a type of Triple Sec, one combined with Cognac so the taste is richer, nutty and caramelized which some prefer.
(5) Of the lime juice: It really is worth the effort to cut and squeeze a fresh lime. Packaged lime juice will work but something of the bite of the citrus always is lost in the processing, packaging, storage and transporting the stuff endures.
(6) Art of the orange peel: The use of the term “garnish” of suggests something which is merely decorative: visual bling and ultimately superfluous but because cocktails are designed to be sipped, as one lingers over ones’s Cosmopolitan, from the peel will come a faint orange aroma, adding to the experience as the fumes of a cognac enhance things; spirits and cocktails are “breathed in” as well as swallowed.
(7) Science of the orange peel: When peeling orange, do it over glass so the oil spurting (viewed close-up under high-magnification, it really is more spurt than spray) from the pores in the skin ends up in the drink. For the ultimate effect, rub the rim of the glass with the peel, down a half-inch on the outside so lips can enjoy the sensation.
The Glossies
Lindsay Lohan, Cosmopolitan, various international editions: April, May & June, 2006.
Cosmopolitan Magazine was launched in 1886 as a family journal of fashion, household décor, cooking, and other domestic interests. It survived in a crowded market but its publisher did not and within two years Cosmopolitan was taken over by another which added book reviews and serialized fiction to the content. This attracted the specialist house founded by John Brisben Walker (1847-1931), which assumed control in 1889, expanding its circulation twenty-fold to become one of America’s most popular literary magazines. The Hurst Corporation acquired the title in 1905, briefly adding yellow-journalism before settling on a format focused on short fiction, celebrities and public affairs. The formula proved an enduring success, circulation reaching two million by 1940 and this was maintained until a decline began in the mid 1950s, general-interest magazines being squeezed out by specialist titles and the time-consuming steamroller of television.
It was the appointment in 1965 of Helen Gurley Brown (1922–2012) as editor which signalled Cosmopolitan’s shift to a magazine focused exclusively on an emerging and growing demographic with high disposable income: the young white women of the baby boom. In what proved a perfect conjunction, a target market with (1) economic independence, (2) social freedom, (3) an embryonic feminist awareness and (4) the birth control pill, the magazine thrived, surviving even the rush of imitators its success spawned. Gurley Brown had in 1962 published the best seller advice manual, Sex and the Single Girl and Cosmopolitan essentially, for decades, reproduced variations on the theme in a monthly, glossy package; clearly, there was a gap in the market. The approach was a success but there was criticism. Conservatives disliked the choices in photography and the ideas young women were receiving. Feminists were divided, some approved but others thought the themes regressive, a retreat from the overtly political agenda of the early movement into something too focused on fun and fashion, reducing women yet again to objects seeking male approbation.
In a sense, Sex and the Single Girl was a product of pharmacological determinism, published as it was some two tears after the first oral contraceptive pill (still famously known as “the pill”) was approved for prescription use in the US by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Without women gaining some degree of autonomous control over their fertility, the premise of the book would have been absurd because as well as arguing the importance of them being financially independent of men, she advocated pre-marital sex, if need be with multiple partners. Women with their own money was an idea subversive enough but the notion of unrestrained promiscuity upset the priests and politicians even more and although in the era a number of books (including Rachel Carson’s (1907–1964) Silent Spring (1962), Anthony Burgess’s (1917–1993) A Clockwork Orange (1962), William S. Burroughs’ (1914-1997) Naked Lunch (1962), Edward Albee’s (1928–2016) Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1962), Betty Friedan’s (1921–2006) The Feminine Mystique (1963) and James Baldwin’s (1924–1987) Another Country (1963)) appeared which appalled many in the conservative establishment, there was something about S&theSG which seemed especially threatening. The protests of course made it a succès de scandale (from the French and literally “success from scandal”) which is the literary or artistic term encapsulating the dictum Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) followed when dealing with the press: “Let them abuse us and let them damn us but let them say something about us”, a variant of Oscar Wilde’s (1854–1900): “It doesn’t matter what people are saying about you as long as they’re saying something”. Goebbels truly was evil but his point was well made because S&theSG sold by the million and spent more than a year on the New York Times best seller list.
Still published in many international editions, Cosmopolitan Australia was one casualty of market forces, closed after a final printing in December 2018. However, surprising many, Katarina Kroslakova (b 1978) in April 2024 announced her publishing house KK Press, in collaboration with New York-based Hearst Magazines International, would resume production of Cosmopolitan Australia as a bi-monthly and the first edition of the re-launched version was released in August, 2024. Other than appearing in six issues per year rather than the traditional twelve, the format remained much the same, echoing Elle Australia which re-appeared on newsstands in March, ending a four-year hiatus. Both revivals would as recently as 2023 have surprised industry analysts because the conventional, post-Covid wisdom was there existed in this segment few niches for time consuming and expensive titles in glossy print.
Ms Kroslakova clearly saw a viable business model and was quoted as saying print magazines are “the new social media” which was an interesting way of putting it but she explained the appeal by adding: “We need that 15 minutes to drop everything and actually have something tangible and beautiful in our hands to consume. If we can present content which is multi-layered and deep and has authenticity and connection with the reader – that’s a really excellent starting point.” She may have a point because in an age where screen-based content is intrinsically impermanent, the tactile pleasure of the traditional glossy may have genuine appeal, at least for an older readership who can remember the way things used to be done, something perhaps hinted at by her “15 minutes” reference, now regarded by many media analysts as a long-term connection given the apparent shortening of attention spans and after all, bound glossy pages are just another technology. The revival of the print editions of Elle and Cosmopolitan will be an interesting experiment in a difficult economic environment which may get worse before it gets better. Whether the novelty will attract enough of the "affluent readers" (what used to be called the A1, A2 & B1 demographic) to convince advertisers that it's a place to run their copy will likely decide the viability of the venture and while it's not impossible that will happen, Cosmopolitan is a couple of rungs down the ladder from the "prestige" titles (Vogue the classic mainstream example) which have maintained an advertising base. Cosmopolitan Australia offers a variety of subscription offers, the lowest unit cost available with a two-year, print + digital bundle (12 issues for Aus$105).
Lindsay Lohan on the cover of Cleo: March 2005 (left) and May 2009 (right).
Published in Australia between 1972-2016, Cleo was a monthly magazine targeted broadly at the demographic buying Cosmopolitan. It was for decades successful and although there was some overlap in readership (and certainly advertising content), there was a perception there existed as distinct species “Cleo women” and “Cosmo women”. Flicking through the glossy pages, husbands and boyfriends might have struggled to see much thematic variation although it’s likely they looked only at the pictures. In the same vein, other than the paint, actual Cleo & Cosmo readers mostly probably wouldn’t have noticed much difference between Ford & Chevrolet V8s so it’s really a matter of where one’s interests lie (just because something is sexist stereotyping doesn’t mean it’s not true). Had the men bothered to read the editorial content, they wouldn’t have needed training in textual deconstruction to detect both titles made much use of “cosmospeak”, a sub-dialect of English coined to describe the jargon, copy style and buzzwords characteristic of post 1950s Cosmopolitan magazine which contributed much to the language of non-academic “lipstick feminism”. To summarize the market differentiation in women’s magazines, the industry joke was: “Cosmopolitan teaches you how to have an organism, Cleo teaches you how to fake an organism and the Women’s Weekly teaches you how to knit an organism”. As a footnote, when in 1983 the Women’s Weekly changed from a weekly to monthly format, quickly rejected was the idea the title might be changed to “Women’s Monthly”. In a charming coincidence, Helen Gurley Brown's mother was Cleo Fred (née Sisco; 1893–1980).
“Cleo” was a spunky two syllables but “Cosmopolitan” had a time-consuming five so almost universally it was used as “Cosmo”. In Italy, Cosmo is a male given name and a variant of Cosimo, from the third century saint Cosmas who, with his brother Damian, was martyred in Syria during one of the many crackdowns on Christianity. The name was from the Ancient Greek κόσμος (kósmos) (order, ordered universe), source of the now familiar “cosmos”. Cosmas and Damian were Arab physicians who converted to Christianity and while ostensibly they suffered martyrdom for their faith, there may have been a financial motive because the brothers practiced much “free medicine”, not charging the poor for their “cures” so their services were understandably popular and thus a threat to the business model of the politically well-connected medical establishment. The tension between medicine as some sort of social right and an industry run by corporations for profit has occasionally been suppressed but it’s never gone away, illustrated by the battles fought when the (literally) socialist post-war Labour government (1945-1951) established the UK’s NHS (National Health Service) and the (allegedly) socialist “Obamacare” (Affordable Care Act (ACA, 2010)) became law in the US. By the twenty-first century, the medical establishment could no longer arrange decapitations of cut-price competitors threatening the profit margins but the conflicts remain, witness the freelancing of Luigi Mangione (1998).
The Cars
In the US, the Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo) produced the Lincoln Cosmopolitan between 1949-1954 but only in its first season was it the “top-of-the-range” model, “designation demotion” something which would over the decades become popular in Detroit. Political legend has it Harry Truman (1884–1972; US president 1945-1953) personally selected Lincoln to supply the presidential car fleet as an act of revenge against General Motors (GM), the corporation having declined to provide him with cars to use during the 1948 election campaign. It’s assumed GM’s management was reading the polls and assumed they’d need only to wait to wait for a call from president elect Thomas Dewey (1902–1971) but as things turned out, Mr Dewey never progressed beyond president-presumptive so GM didn’t get the commission, the keys to Cadillacs not returning to the Oval Office until the administration of Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989). While it wouldn’t much have consoled the GM board, there was some of their technology in the Lincolns because, FoMoCo was compelled to buy heavy-duty Hydra-Matic transmissions from Cadillac, their own automatic gearbox not then ready for production.
The White House leased ten Lincoln Cosmopolitans which were modified by coach-builders who added features such as longer wheelbases and raised roof-lines. Nine were full-enclosed limousines while one was an armoured “parade convertible” (a “Cabriolet D” in the Mercedes-Benz naming system) which was an impressive 20-odd feet (6 metres) in length. The car used a large-displacement version (shared with Ford Trucks!) of the old Ford flathead V8 (first introduced in 1932) and, weighing a hefty 6,500 lb (2,900 kg), performance wasn’t sparkling but given its role was slowly to percolate along crowd-lined boulevards, it was “adequate”. In 1954, during the administration of Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US president 1953-1961), the parade convertible was fitted with a Plexiglas roof (a material the president would have been familiar with because it was used on some World War II (1939-1945) aircraft and in this form the Lincoln came to share the aircrafts’ nickname: “Bubbletop”. The “Bubbletop” Cosmopolitan remained in service in the White House fleet until 1967.
1968 Mazda Cosmo 110S (110S the export designation).
Although the Mazda corporation dates from 1920, it was another 40 years before it produced its first cars (one of the tiny 360 cm3 “kei cars” (a shortened form of kei-jidōsha, (軽自動車) (light vehicle)) so the appearance at the Tokyo Motor Show of the Cosmo Sport created quite an impression and that it was powered by a two-rotor Wankel rotary engine produced under licence from the German owners added to international interest. Over two series, series production lasted from 1967 until 1972 but the intricate design was labour intensive to build and being expensive, demand was limited so in five years fewer than 1,200 were sold. That makes it more of a rarity than a Mercedes-Benz 300 SL Gullwing (the W198, 1,400 of those built 1954-1957) and while Cosmo prices haven’t reached the level of the German car, it is a collectable and a number are now in museums and collections. Mazda continued to use the Cosmo name until 1996 and while none of the subsequent models were as intriguing as the original, some versions of the JC Series Eunos Cosmo (1990–1996) enjoy the distinction of being the world’s only production car fitted with a three-rotor Wankel engine (the triple rotor 1969 Mercedes-Benz C111 was a Wankel test-bed).
The Eunos Cosmo was not the only Mazda with a unique place in the troubled history of the Wankel engine, the Roadpacer (1975-1977) also a footnote. Most Holden fans, as one-eyed as any, don’t have especially fond memories of the HJ (1974-1976) range; usually, all they’ll say is its face-lifted replacement (the HX (1976-1977)), was worse. With its chassis not including the RTS (radial tuned suspension) which lent the successor HZ (1975-1980) such fine handling and with engines strangled by the crude plumbing used in the era to reduce emissions, driving the HJ or HX really wasn’t a rewarding experience (although the V8 versions retained some charm) so there might have been hope Mazda’s curious decision to use fit their smooth-running, two-rotor Wankel to the HJ Premier and sell it as their top-of-the range executive car might have transformed the thing. That it did but the peaky, high-revving rotary was wholly unsuited to the relatively large, heavy car. Despite producing less power and torque than even the anaemic 202 cubic inch (3.3 litre) Holden straight-six it replaced, so hard did it have to work to shift the weight that fuel consumption was worse even than when Holden fitted their hardly economical 308 cubic inch (5.0 litre) V8 for the home market. Available only in Japan and sold officially between 1975-1977, fewer than eight-hundred were built, the company able to off-load the last of the HXs only in early 1980. The only thing to which Mazda attached its name not mentioned in their corporate history, it's the skeleton in the Mazda closet and the company would prefer we forget the thing which it seems to think of as "our Edsel". The Roadpacer did though provide one other footnote, being the only car built by General Motors (GM) ever sold with a Wankel engine.
Cosmopolitan Writing
In literary theory “cosmopolitan writing” is that concerned with universal themes and issues (political, social and such) as well (in a kind of parallel stream of study) as the attitudes and language involved in any discourse on these themes and issues. In the post-war period, there were forces that popularized or even created some categories of cosmopolitan writing (migrants, refugees, indigenous peoples etc) and the process of decolonization saw the creation (or, in a sense, re-creation) of independent states that collectively came variously to be known (even if sometimes misleadingly) as the “Third World”, “Global South” or “Developing Economies”), a phenomenon which proved a fertile source of writers, especially novelists. Amusingly, a sub-set of this new breed migrated to the erstwhile imperial centres, apparently content to live among their former colonial oppressors while extolling the superiority of the cultures they’d chosen to abandon; critiques apparently easier to write when one can drink water from the tap and the electricity supply is reliable, both deficiencies in their native lands at least partially attributable to the former imperial rulers.
The Welsh radical historian of the Caribbean, Gordon Lewis (1919-1991), described these diasporae (the big influx of non-white peoples from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, the Far East & Latin America to the UK and North America) as “colonialism in reverse” although given the extent to which their novels became fashionable among critics and readers of the “book club” type, others preferred to suggest it was something like the “neo-colonizing” of London and New York publishing houses. In different places these multi-ethnic microcosms have produced distinctive forms of literature including the two-inch thick “block-busting epic” narratives documenting the African American experience and the particular (sometimes verging on the semi-affectionate) take on the legacy of the British Raj by those who emarginated from India or the Pakistans (East & West).
Also produced was a wealth of what sometimes were classed as “novels of Empire”, works of fiction set in a the colonial world (not only the Raj). For various reasons, not all remain canonical but examples include Rudyard Kipling’s (1865–1936) Kim (1901), Joseph Conrad’s (Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski, 1857–1924) Heart of Darkness (1902), E. M. Forster’s (1879–1970) A Passage to India (1924), Graham Greene’s (1904-1991) The Heart of the Matter (1948), Anthony Burgess’s (1917–1993) The Malayan Trilogy (1972) and Paul Scott’s (1920–1978) Raj tetralogy (The Jewel in the Crown (1966); The Day of the Scorpion (1968); The Towers of Silence (1971); A Division of the Spoils (1975)). Writers like Burgess and Greene were wordsmiths of rare skill and their works, even if dated, still effortlessly seduce but only partially represented the attitudes and way of life of the indigenous peoples whereas in his novels about his native Trinidad or A Bend in the River (1979 and set in a French-speaking Central African state) V. S. Naipaul (1932–2018) provided the sort of insight the English or Europeans authors never could. Both approaches were however genuinely within the rubric of cosmopolitan writing in that the term described literature which was an attempt to cross (or at least document) the boundaries and frontiers of nations and nationalism, the stress on the global nature of everyday life with depictions of individuals and societies used as devices to depict themes and concepts as globally representative.
Because the elements of fable, myth & parable tend to be cross-cultural, universal parallels & analogies are an identifiable feature of the school of cosmopolitan writing and those devices proved adaptable when the genre was adapted to the task of discussing the state and position of the immigrant in post-war and post-imperial Britain; despite having become a highly cosmopolitan place, this was for decades a neglected field despite the obvious attraction for novelists of the tales of immigrants and their difficulties in adjusting to an alien culture’; There were exceptions such as the works of Colin Maclnnes (1914-1976) of which City of Spades (1957) was the most notable. More celebrated (for reasons political as well as literary) was Sir Salman Rushdie’s (b 1947) The Satanic Verses (1988) which was a particular take on British (more specifically “English”) cosmopolitanism with a particular emphasis on the South Asian Muslim community. Because the text was deemed to have been a blasphemy (based on opprobrious remarks about the prophet Muhammad (circa 570-632)), a fatwa was issued by Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989), requiring that any Muslim so able should carry out a death sentence on the author. After the death of the Imam, the fatwa was said to have “expired” but that was historically and theologically dubious and the threat remained, Sir Salman seriously was injured in an attempted murder in 2022. That attack was of course a particular example of modern cosmopolitan life and that milieu may be compared with the world view(s) discussed in his earlier novels Midnight's Children (1981) and Shame (1983), the linking thread being the “in-between” state of the cosmopolitan, an individual endlessly in a state of “translation”, being of one culture yet existing in another and the rather clumsy term “transculturation” has been applied. For some time, Indian-born Sir Salman has divided his time between London and New York so readers and critics should make of that what they will.
Cosmopolitan writing certainly was not a thing just of the old British Empire and one upsurge in literary output in the vein came in the 1960s to be dubbed the Boom latinoamericano (Latin American Boom); that described the works of a cluster of young Latin American novelists whose books came to be published (in a variety of translations in Europe and the English-speaking world. The boom was most associated with Argentine Julio Cortázar (1914–1984), Mexican Carlos Fuentes (1928–2012), Peruvian Mario Vargas (1936–2025), Colombian Gabriel García Márquez (1927–2014) and Chilean-American Isabel Allende (b 1942); while clearly influenced by European and North American Modernism, they were also part of the Latin American Vanguardia movement and challenged the established conventions of the region’s literary traditions, the most significant contribution probably (and sometimes controversially) “magic realism”. Vargas was perhaps the exemplar of applying the various techniques to create social and political simulacra which have cosmopolitan significance. This was evident in La casa verde (The Green House, 1966) where the casa verde was a brothel (a motif about as global as things get) and Conversación en La Catedral (Conversation in The Cathedral, 1969), the symbolic location a sleazy bar called La Catedral; the irony may seem heavy-handed but the internal logic within the text was perfect. His Márquez's Cien años de soledad (One Hundred Years of Solitude, 1967) was a little more subtle, the mythical town of Macando being a global and cosmopolitan urban image of decay, corruption, poverty and isolation, the various misfortunes which befall it and its inhabitants represented by biblical analogies.
The archbishop and the abdication
Scottish Anglican prelate Cosmo Gordon Lang (First Baron Lang of Lambeth, 1864–1945; Archbishop of York 1908–1928 & Archbishop of Canterbury 1928–1942 was a clergyman with uncompromising views about much. This type was once common in pulpits and although those of his faction exist still in the the modern Church of England, fearing cancellation, they tend now to exchange views only behind closed doors. He’d probably be today almost forgotten were it not for an incendiary broadcast he made (as Archbishop of Canterbury and thus spiritual head of the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican community) on BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) Radio on 13 December, 1936, two days after the abdication of Edward VIII (1894–1972; King of the UK & Emperor of India, January-December 1936, subsequently Duke of Windsor). The address to the nation remains the most controversial public intervention made by a Church of England figure in the twentieth century, judged by many to be needlessly sanctimonious and distastefully personal, its political dimension the least objectionable aspect.
As a piece of text it did have a pleasingly medieval feel, opening with some memorable passages including: “From God he received a high and sacred trust. Yet by his own will he has abdicated” and “It is tragic that the sacred trust was not held with a firmer grip”. That set the tone although when he said: “There has been much sympathy with the king in his great personal difficulty, and I do not forget how deeply he has touched the hearts of millions with his warm interest in the homes and lives of his people” his large audience may have thought some Christian charity did lurk in the Archbishop’s soul but quickly he let that moment pass, returning to his theme: “The causes which led to the king's decision are fully known to the nation. But it has been made plain that the reigning sovereign of this country must be one whose private life and public conduct can be trusted to reflect the Christian ideal."
Unlike many modern Archbishops, there was no ambiguity about Lang so in his defense it can be argued he provided the Church with a moral clarity of greater certainty than anything which has in recent decades emanated from Lambeth Palace. So there was that but by the 1930s the mood of opinion-makers in the UK had shifted and Lang’s text was seen as morally judgmental and the idea Edward VIII had failed not so much as a constitutional monarch but in his divine duty seemed archaic, few in the country framing things as the king’s personal failure before God. What was clear was old Lang's point Edward’s relationship with a twice-divorced woman disqualified him morally and spiritually from being king which many critics within the church thought a bleak approach to a clergyman’s pastoral role. In a sermon from the pulpit to the faithful it might have gone down well but as a national address, the tone was misplaced. In self-imposed exile, privately Edward privately described the broadcast as “a vile and vindictive attack” and in his ghost-written memoirs (A King's Story (1951)), he accused the archbishop of “cruelty”.
Remembered also from the broadcast’s aftermath was a satirical verse printed in Punch by the novelist Gerald Bullett (1893–1958 (who published also under the pseudonym Sebastian Fox)). Bullet’s included the words “how full of cant you are!”, using “cant” in the sense of “to speak in a manner speak in a hypocritical or insincere), an allusion to Lang signing his documents : “Cosmo Cantuar” (Cantuar the abbreviation for Cantuarium (Latin for Canterbury)):
