I'm reading an essay by Rusking "Sesame and Lillies" . He uses the word "smatch" in a way
I do not understand.

" We may intrude
ten minutes’ talk on a cabinet minister, answered probably with
words worse than silence, being deceptive; or snatch, once or
twice in our lives, the privilege of throwing a bouquet in the path
of a Princess, or arresting the kind glance of a Queen. "

Comments, please.

Ruskin has a very fine reputation, but this sentence strikes me as objectionable
smbbery.
"An ordinarily clever and
sensible seaman will be able to make his way ashore at most
ports; yet he has only to speak a sentence of any language to be
known for an illiterate person: so also the accent, or turn of
expression of a single sentence, will at once mark a scholar.
And this is so strongly felt, so conclusively admitted by
educated persons, that a false accent or a mistaken syllable is
enough, in the parliament of any civilized nation, to assign to a
man a certain degree of inferior standing forever."

Again, comments,please.

I don't see the difficulty Dr. Bill. My dictionary's first definition for snatch is "grasp quickly, eagerly, or unexpectedly."

A rare privilege is something to be grasped eagerly, is it not? Sure, it's a metaphorical grasping rather than a literal, physical one, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Bingley

As for the Ruskin quote, it was a pretty widespread opinion in his day, and I don't know enough about him to say whether he shared it or was just reporting the common belief. But similar attitudes persist among prescriptivist grammarians with their contempt for what they condemn as illiteracies etc., although they wouldn't express it in quite the same way.

Bingley

Dear Bingley: After reading your post about "snatch", I re-read the quote, and discovered
I had mistaken the semi-colon for a comma. Makes a big difference.

In reply to:

---

or a mistaken syllable

---

That's enough to make a mute out of a cowardly soul.