Perhaps he could best be described as a cultural historian.

Here he writes as a roving intellectual, cultural historian, anthropologist, literary critic and philosopher.

But you also wonder whether a cultural historian, as opposed to a critic at large, has a right to rely quite so heavily on his own preferences.

That invites the obvious rejoinder that he was not a cultural historian but a great and profoundly narcissistic writer, entirely devoid of the objectivity that cultural historians need.

He also enjoyed a reputation as a cultural historian.