Some Family News

 

 

                                                                             Dr. Katherine E. Fleming

 

            Trumpeting public pride in one’s children, though a sacred parental right, can be ghastly bad form, and so far as this blog goes, I try to limit myself to one such transgression per decade per child.  Even with three dynamic offspring, this stingy policy keeps the self-advertisement to a tolerable level.  The last time I exercised my self-authorized privilege with regard to our daughter Katherine was in 2010 when she was awarded a fancy prize at the Sorbonne.  That was more than twelve years ago, so I feel permitted to mention that she is just at the moment in Los Angeles for consultations.  The trustees of the J. Paul Getty Trust, having concluded an exhaustive intergalactic search process, have just announced her appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer of their well-heeled cultural and educational institutions. 

 

                                                            The Getty Center Campus  (gull’s eye view)

            J. Paul Getty was a twentieth-century oil tycoon who died in 1976.  He amassed a vast fortune.  In the days when a million dollars was still a significant amount of money, he was a billionaire.  But the American attitude toward people of great wealth is hopelessly ambiguous.  Being as rich as Midas often invites the Midas curse.  Really rich people are eminently otherable.  Getty was often said to be the richest man in America, and a license to despise the richest man in America will always be a part of our national birthright. “Let me tell you about the very rich,” says the narrator of an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story barely distinguishable from the author.  “They are different from you and me.”  Hemingway’s sensible answer, unfortunately apocryphal, was “Yes, they have more money.”  I know little enough about the historical Getty.  My first conscious memory of hearing his name is musical, a reference in a satirical song sung by a left-wing folk singer. “John Paul Getty is just plain folks/The UN charter is a cruel hoax/How do I know? /I read it in the Daily News”.  The satirical object here was not the billionaire but the then right-wing popular newspaper, the New York Daily News, which in that epoch was roughly analogous to today’s Fox Network.  Getty was not just plain folks, to be sure, but he didn’t light cigars with hundred-dollar bills either.  Sensational displays of conspicuous consumption are more characteristic of the wannabe superrich than of the real deals.  He was frugal enough to haggle with his grandson’s Mafia kidnappers even after they had sent him a morsel of the kid’s severed ear. When it came to wine, women, and song, he appears to have concentrated on the middle term, and in a big way.  But he also loved works of art, was active and informed in putting together one of the world’s great private collections, and visionary in establishing a trust with a huge potential for advancing the study, understanding, and creation of art in a world-wide context.  I have a keen sense of appreciation for cultural philanthropists.  Henry Clay Frick and J. P. Morgan are often catalogued among the robber barons, but when I’m looking at the Holbein portraits in the Frick Collection or examining a medieval manuscript in the Morgan Library I want to classify them as friends of humanity.  As so often, Shakespeare says it best: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

            The Getty’s activities are distributed among four divisions, each with its own director, under the leadership of the President of the Trust.  The one that most people know about is the Getty Museum, magnificently set into a coastal hill in Los Angeles and stunning alike in the architecture of its buildings and in the opulence of its collections.  In fact there are two museums.  But the Getty also runs a unique atelier to preserve fragile and vulnerable works of art and to train the skilled professionals who conserve them, administers an important program of research grants and fellowships, and maintains an academic research institute supported by a huge library devoted to art and architectural history with a broad approach to visual culture. I have personal experience of only two of these.  I visited the Getty Museum a few years ago.  Thirty years earlier I had failed in an application to gain one of their fellowships to research a book on Franciscan painting.  So I know they have a great museum and high standards.

            That this unique cultural institution of international consequence would seek out and cajole our daughter to be its leader naturally warrants our parental pride. The Board of Trustees must include some very persuasive folks.  It is one thing to get a job one has applied for and quite another to be lured away from a job in which one is fully engaged.  Being a successful seeker doubtless demonstrates force of character and initiative, but being sought after out of the blue is even better and can capture the imagination in a uniquely persuasive fashion.  So we are proud of Katy’s having been searched out, but even prouder of her spunk and energy in taking on the challenge.  Moving from being the Provost of a huge, sprawling university to the presidency of a very different kind of institution will not be just the same old same old in a different place.  My response, less as a father than as a humanist scholar in a culture where by and large the humanities are undervalued, is a humanist’s response.  The humanities are devoted to the study of things created by human skill and imagination.  Some of these are material and physical.  All are what Collingwood called “artefacts of human intellection”—the results of men and women thinking.  And the diversity of human thought has been in the past, and continues to be today, most remarkable.  One of the first books to expand my appreciation of the humanistic dimensions of art history was Ernst Gombrich’s Art and Illusion (1960).  Aided by a Saul Steinberg cartoon, he makes the claim that no one could possibly credit that human beings have changed as much through history as their artistic representations might suggest.  Viewing an object, like reading a book, always invites interpretation or “judgement,” as it was called in the neo-classical period.   Are there sound humanistic canons of judgement?  Are there objective standards at all?  Another famous theorist of the visual arts, Heinrich Wölfflin, says “People have at all times seen what they want to see.”  Never has this startling idea seemed more challenging than in the present cultural moment.  Museums and libraries are therefore not merely the indispensable repositories and protectors of the of the artifacts of human thought, but also the arenas in which they are tested and contested.  Hence the educational function of such an institution at the Getty is obvious.  Indeed, one of its earlier presidents called it a “university”.

            The tendency of the elderly to wax valedictory is probably a natural one.  Certainly we are very aware these days of narrowing horizons and lengthening shadows.  That is even without the discouragement of world event.  How wonderful it is, then, to see ever arising on the horizon a new and improved generation in whom one can discern the continuity of one’s own best values while appreciating and indeed marveling at the new, independent, and daring nature of their expression.  Although they are our superior successors, they still have a few things to learn.  For example, too few of them are readers of Tennyson.  The old order changeth , yielding place to new, And God fulfils himself in many ways, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

 

 

-o-

 

 

 Happy Palm Sunday 

James Ensor: Christ’s Entry into Brussels in 1889 (detail)

Getty Museum of Art

 

 

 

 

         

Jacques Louis David

            Our latest adventure was a trip to the big city to visit the Jacques Louis David show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  We had been invited by old and dear friends, who also took us to lunch and rescued us from problems of elder telephone incompetence in arranging a Lyft afterwards.  I am slowly inuring myself to being the little old lady who needs a boy scout to help me cross the street.  We feel lucky there are so many about.  Boy scouts, I mean, not streets.  Our friend Susan also invoked her special privilege as a museum docent to get a significantly reduced price on the magnificent show catalogue, Jacques Louis David, Radical Draftsman.  In theory I am in a phase of library reduction, but…

 

            David was born in 1748 and died in 1825.  The “radical” of the catalogue title can be taken in a double sense.  David the classicist spent years in Italy searching for the roots of his art in the monuments of ancient Rome.  More obviously the word refers to his radical politics during the Revolution, in which he was active both as committed republican and anti-royalist, and as an artist.  The “Draftsman” part points to the central originality of this particular exhibition, which focuses on the literally thousands of drawings he prepared, either to record antique Roman monuments he admired and studied or in making preliminary sketches for possible paintings.  In a preliminary essays the exhibition’s curator, Perrin Stein, and Philippe Bordes, a leading David scholar and the former director of the Museum of the French Revolution, explain the previously insufficiently appreciated importance of the practice of sketched copies and preliminary drawing for the painters of the period.

 

            The evaluation of museum exhibitions, like the subjects and artefacts to which they are devoted, is to a large extent a matter of personal taste and cultural metabolism.   For me “Jacques Louis David: Radical Draftsman” (which is open until the middle of May) gets an “A” rating—for at least two reasons.  The first is its educational clarity.  Any intelligent viewing of a work of art will teach you something, but the context in which objects in museums are presented makes an enormous difference.  There is in this exhibition a very clear and illuminating focus on draftsmanship, especially with regard to the postures of the human body, and most especially with human bodies in relationship.  David kept many notebooks from his years of Italian apprenticeship in which the viewer can find evidence of the artist’s experiments and self-corrections.  Of course, many of his sketched copies and imaginative drawings, including some obviously intended for contingent and experimental purposes, give the appearance of free-standing works of art.

 

"Death of Socrates

            So the exhibition has a very evident “through line”:  the usually invisible preparatory work behind the great work of a great artist.  You may be familiar with several of David’s famous paintings displayed in the exhibit, and two are perhaps especially relevant to the painter’s use of classical themes for political purpose. These are “The Death of Socrates,” an historical allegory in which Enlightenment rationality suffers at the hands of tyrannical power, and “The Tennis Court Oath.” The latter refers not to one of the expletives with which so many amateur athletes are familiar, but a cast-of-thousands canvas commemorating in highly imaginative fashion an important revolutionary event of June 1789.

 

"Tennis Court Oath"

            The second great virtue of the exhibition from my point of view is its manageable size.  I find something uniquely exhausting about the mode of perambulation required of exhibition-viewers.  This may well be simply a personal liability.  It long antedates my use of a cane.  There is also a definite limit to the volume of visual data I can intelligently accommodate.  Seldom straying too far from their well-defined themes, the curators have laid out a wonderfully coherent and instructive itinerary in a few generously sized rooms.  It may get crowded with real spring weather and the hoped-for further improvement in the Covid situation, but things were perfectly manageable the day we were there.

 

            The tempestuous period of the French Revolution commanded David’s serious engagement in radical politics, as evidenced in his civic life as well as in his art.  He was a delegate to the National Assembly, and in the wake of the fall of Robespierre his Jacobin sympathies and associations led to his brief imprisonment on two occasions.  Like a number of the former revolutionary radicals, he made his peace with Napoleon with surprising ease.  It was David who painted what is probably history’s most famous “great man on horseback” canvas.  The reactionary restoration of the Bourbon monarchy in 1814, forced upon France after Waterloo, precipitated the artist’s exile in Brussels during the last years of his life. Wherever he was, David remained true to his craft.  Some of his most extraordinary small portraits were made in prison. 

 

 

            People sometimes ask me, usually somewhat indirectly, why I write a blog essay each week.  It is a perfectly good question for which there is no simple answer.  It is certainly not because I feel particularly qualified to write about many of the topics I choose, though in an obvious way I do find the project consistent with my long career as a teacher.  As the name of the blog implies, there is a symbiotic relationship between teaching and learning.  In writing many of my little essays I often learn things I did not previously consciously know, especially about myself.  I had an important moment of self-realization during this visit to the Met.  I have never known much about the French classical painter Jacques Louis David, but I remember very distinctly my first introduction to him.  A lot of my scholarly work has centered on visual culture, and I now realize that it all began in my sophomore year at Sewanee when I took my one and only art survey course.  I had never heard of Jacques David or Théodore Géricault, both introduced to me in a single lecture.  And I noted that in speaking of the former one did not say DAYvud with its Sunday School pronunciation, but Frenchified dahVEED—the same word, yet different, one of those little distinctions or finesses which, when multiplied a thousand times, constitute the veneer of a liberal education whether it cover finely-grained oak or particle board.  It came back to me in a flash that the teacher was a Frenchman named Alain de Leiris, a really nice guy of whom I had not thought in years.  I realize now that this man was a research scholar temporarily lodged in a liberal arts college with many fine teachers but few actively publishing scholars.  Whatever had become of him?  A tiny bit of internet research, which included reading obituaries of his widow, very recently deceased at age ninety-five, provided the quick answer.  I did not find his own death notice, but he seems to have had a long and distinguished career at the University of Maryland, his specialty being nineteenth-century French painters, especially Manet.  But the best rewards of education are not material, and therefore, one hopes, not entirely mortal.  Perhaps I may even now, however tardily,  record my gratitude for a fine teacher?

Under a Cloud

           

            There is a natural tendency, exacerbated by the commercial requirements of journalism, to inflate the importance of current events.  Each day, after all, must have its headlines.  Sound history, on the other hand, demands retrospection.  Another way of saying this is encapsulated in Francis Bacon’s well-known saw that “Truth is the daughter of time…”  Nonetheless it would appear obvious that the Russian assault on Ukraine is a major world event with long-term repercussions that, however unpredictable at present, are likely to be of historical significance.  Nonetheless this will probably be the last essay I shall devote to it.  I wish I could say that is because the violence seems headed toward some kind of satisfactory termination, but it does not.  I simply have no unique or authoritative ideas.  The press is full of more expert opinion than one can read and far too much amateur emoting than one wants to read.

 

            We keep hearing that since the end of the last global war we have been living in a “rules-based world”.  How this differs from any other period in history is not clear.  After all, the Law of the Jungle is a rule of sorts.  Perhaps Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is slightly more subtle than that, but not much more.  The “rule” he has violated—that big fish do not have license to gobble up any smaller fish of their fancy—would seem to be a fundamental requirement for world peace.  But here it is in conflict with another unstated rule that must be honored to preserve the peace: the rule that one must not provoke big fish.  The big fish, of course, are those armed with atomic bombs.

 

            This is a subject on which it is far easier to bloviate as an olympian critic than to suggest any practical course of action.  When I say God help those world leaders, and especially our own, who have the awful responsibility of responding to Putin’s aggression, it is in a truly prayerful sense, not one of condescension.  But it cannot be wrong to ask questions about our national defense policies when their coherence or current relevance becomes questionable.  Our policy with regard to nuclear weapons has been a defensive one, based on the idea of deterrence.  Postulated when the “nuclear club” was much more exclusive than it is today, it rather sardonically adopted the acronym MAD, standing for “Mutually Assured Destruction.”  Practically speaking, the policy enshrined our belief that not even the evil men in the Kremlin, capable of perfidies yet unknown in world annals, would be so crazy as to launch an attack guaranteed to lead to their retaliatory destruction.  The MAD regime makes it possible for nuclear states to adopt an official or tacit “No First Strike” position, and that offers some psychological comfort.  But it offers no absolute moral guidance.   Quite apart from the fact that the nuclear club long ago abandoned exclusivity, with each increase in its membership actually diminishing rather than expanding security, there are problems with the policy’s intellectual no less than its moral coherence.  It is essentially the policy many of us deride we hear it from the NRA: the only force that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

            The policy adopted by the Biden administration, and presumably shared by all of our EU allies, is that we cannot honor Zelensky’s repeated pleas for the establishment of a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine because that would make Putin really mad, mad enough perhaps to….you know what.  So we—meaning those world forces trying to support Ukraine and repel Russian aggression—cannot use one of the most effective military means of doing so.  Thus Putin’s unused nukes are to him highly useful, while ours are useless to us.  President Biden has not, however, completely ruled out any direct confrontation with Russian forces by NATO.  The special circumstance Biden correctly cites is that Ukraine is not a NATO member, and that we are therefore under no treaty obligation to come to its defense.  That is indeed a significant fact, not a mere Jesuitical distinction.  I suppose it means “But if you start in on Latvia, Putin, you’re in big trouble.”  Not that the crushing economic sanctions are only small trouble.

 

            But one of the dictionary definitions of appeasement is “to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions, usually at the sacrifice of principles.”  Putin was already able to gobble up a few choice pieces of the old USSR real estate, including the Ukrainian Crimea, without much serious complaint.  Dictators have shown a tendency to pay more attention to what their adversaries actually do than to what they say.   They note when  “red lines” consistently fade away into pale chalk marks.  One of Stalin’s favorite ripostes, when timorous subordinates hesitantly suggested that this or that policy might arouse complicating reactions by governments “in the West”  was “They will swallow the whole thing!”  The extraordinary thing about it was that he was almost always right.  It’s pretty clear that Putin in a slightly different metaphorical sense wants to swallow the whole of Ukraine.  Should our policy be one of peace at any price?  If not, what is our price limit?  After all the second World War was avoidable.  Many maniacs have headed large armies over the course of the centuries, but none has been so maniacal, to the best of my knowledge, as to insist on achieving through the expenditure of large sums from the national treasury and large casualties in their military forces what they could get by simply demanding it.  If the Western powers had been prepared to accede to all of Hitler’s demands and all of the expansionist ambitions of the Japanese Empire, there need have been no war.

 

            History both leads and misleads.  Thoughts of the Second War come naturally to me because my earliest memories are from those years, and the world in which I grew to adulthood was darkened by its shadow—the so-called Cold War.  The “problem” of Russia has thus been a constant of life.  The collapse of the Soviet Union would appear in the long run to have changed the world less than one would have expected.  We speak of the “lessons of history,” but the lessons are sometimes opaque.  In our changed, inter-wired world Mastercard may prove to be mightier that Migs.  That remains to be seen.  And will our own weary, waning, and increasingly incoherent country be able to refresh itself in what Lincoln once, in another difficult time, called “a new birth of freedom”?

 

 

                       

Patriotism

 

 

 

            A term commonly used in the Soviet Union for World War II was the “great patriotic war”.  Stalin, with his back to the wall, found that most of his subjects were far more enthusiastic about fighting for Mother Russia than for international Socialism.  For strategic reasons he even relaxed for a period his hostility to the Orthodox Church, which had continued through violent persecutions to be a source of Russian national identity.  No good deed goes unpunished.  Now Vladimir Putin, a Russian nationalist and super-patriot who hobnobs with the Patriarch and probably has never in his life talked about the international proletarian revolution, is getting a dose of his own medicine.  It turns out that Ukrainians really love their country too.  What is the source of all true patriotism?  Surely it is the love of locality, locality invested with a transcendent ethical as well as sentimental value.  One of the first poems ever to thrill me is by Sir Walter Scott: “Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land!  Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,  As home his footsteps he hath turn’d, From wandering on a foreign strand!”  This was all about some place I didn’t recognize called Caledonia, wherever that was.  Not long afterward our teacher introduced us to the once-famous short story “The Man Without a Country” by Edward Everett Hale.  (He was the nephew of the guy who gave an endless harangue at the Gettysburg battlefield dedication for whom Lincoln was supposed to serve as the warm-up band.)  The story is the patriotic tear-jerker of all time.

 

            I am thinking about the nature and various meanings of patriotism not merely on account of current world events, but because of two personal cultural encounters of the week, one with Jan Yoors and the other with Franz Schubert.  This is probably an equation with at least one unknown.  Yoors (1922-1977) is hardly a household name, but one of my favorite fellow Flemings.  Born in Antwerp, he made his adult career in New York as artist, tapestry maker, photographer, and author before dying too young.  At the age of 12, in 1934, with the blessings of his pre-hippie artistic parents, he joined a band of Rom “travelers” (gypsies) passing through Flanders with whom he mainly lived for several years in their wanderings.  He entered fully into their cultural cocoon.  He learned their cryptic language.  Fully accepted, he went native.  In 1967 he published a fascinating book (The Gypsies) in which he recounts his youthful experiences.  I feared I had lost this book, but just discovered it with great relief while cleaning up a closet, and I immediately reread its opening chapters.  Young Yoors was not merely setting off on a strange adventure.  Official Nazi racial policy toward the Roma was similar to that toward Jews and had similarly horrifying results.  He would soon be heading toward the maelstrom, and he wrote about that in a second book.  He loved his adoptive family and recognized their many virtues.  But he was utterly clear-sighted about their cultural habits—including petty thievery, confidence trickery, and mendacity—that so often brought down upon them the hostility of conventional society.  They were a people utterly without patriotism for they had no geographical patria, a tribe of eternal wanderers.  Their “identity” resided in cultural factors unrelated to any concept of locality.  The murderous Nazi policy was primarily based in bunkum racial theory, but their notorious want of “Germanness” was also a factor.

 

            A couple of days after this rereading we were at a concert featuring the pianist Mitsuo Uchida and the tenor Mark Padmore performing songs by Beethoven and Franz Schubert.  The Schubert was the complete “Swan Song” series, which I had never before heard in full.  The words of the first seven poems of this work were written by Ludwig Rellstab, apparently an important figure in the world of early nineteenth-century German music but previously unknown to me.  Rellstab wrote them with Beethoven in mind, but they were later passed on to Schubert.  One of them is called “In der Ferne” (“Far Away”), about a disappointed lover trying to flee his sorrow.  In its English translation by Richard Wigmore it goes like this: “Woe to those who flee, who journey forth into the world, who travel through strange lands, forgetting their native land,  spurning their mother’s home, forsaking their friends:  alas, no blessing follows them on their way!  The yearning heart, the tearful eye, endless longing….”  In this song the language dealing with the exile is more censorious than consoling.  The issue is by no means one merely of temperament, homebodies versus rolling stones.  It is fraught with moral significance.

 

                                                                    Jan Yoors and adoptive family
 

            Curiously, perhaps, the issues raised here in a secular and political context—what might be called an ethical interpretation of residential locality--have their parallels in the medieval religious culture I have spent many years studying. The issue was the question of Christian “perfection,” the ideal of the monastic life.  The theory of asceticism was that in voluntarily denying the common desires of human nature—material comfort, sexual gratification, free agency—the monks and nuns freed themselves to be available for higher or more “perfect” spiritual experience.  Their models were biblical, but susceptible of ambiguous interpretation.  One great image of “religious” life was the Hebrew Exodus.  But is the Exodus story one of hard, dangerous, and protracted travel or one of establishing a glorious settled kingdom in a Promised Land?  What might be called the political Zionism of Exodus and the Hebrew history books has its metaphoric or spiritual parallels everywhere in the prophets.  The relationship between the literal and the figural remains an issue in Jewish theology to this day.  In the early Christian writings in Greek there is a definite spiritualization of pilgrimage and homelessness.  “Let us go forth therefore unto [Christ] without the camp, bearing his reproach.  For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.”  That is a mystical and millenarian idea that has its secular, political analogue in the Dust Bowl ballad of Woodie Guthrie, “I Ain’t Got No Home in This World Any More.”  Remember why the English words travel and travail are kissing kin.  In actual fact the “open road” of pilgrimage could be the same ordeal it is for refugees today.

 

            The legendary lives of the earliest monks, the so-called Desert Fathers, are epics of peregrination and dismal squats in desert places, caves, and the abandoned lairs of wild animals.  This is plain living and high thinking at the possibly fanatical level.  The fantastic biographies of the “wandering saints,” most especially Athanasius’s super-best-seller Life of Saint Anthony, fired the imaginations of thousands of religious idealists, but could provide no viable model for actual mass asceticism.  Mass asceticism required considerable material organization and support, kitchens and dormitories, arable land and endowments.   The great Victorian historian W. E. H. Lecky, author of The History of European Morals (1869), expressing the nationalist sentiments of his time and place, has the following choice remarks about St. Anthony.  “A hideous, sordid, and emaciated maniac, without knowledge, without patriotism, without natural affection, passing his life in a long routine of useless and atrocious self-torture, and quailing before the ghastly phantoms of his delirious brain, had become the ideal of the nations which had known the writings of Plato and Cicero and the lives of Socrates or Cato.”

 

            As early as the fifth century Augustine was denouncing circumcellions, or religious wanderers.  The prologue to the Benedictine Rule, by far the most influential ascetic legislation of the Western Church, attacked so-called gyrovagi—those who “wander around in circles”—the idea of the circum and the gyro being essentially identical.  A not bad translation of the strange word gyrovagus might be gypsy.  Monasticism in the Benedictine tradition was based in residence in a fixed locality, “stability of place”.  Indeed, metaphorically the monastery was often called a “prison”.  In the later Middle Ages a parallel controversy arose around the new orders of mendicant friars, especially the Franciscans.  One of the early tensions within that order was between those who claimed strict “evangelical” poverty—those who thought they could own literally no property, especially fixed domiciles—and others more accommodating of the old Benedictine idea.  The refusal of mendicants to stay in one place is a wide-spread trope of the abundant anti-clerical literary satire of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.  Like the wandering lover in the Schubert Lieder, and like the gypsies, the religious wanderers, having no earthly patria, lacked also patriotism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reporting the War

 

                                                          The "famine child" memorial in the Ukrainian capital
 

            Some world events, such as the violence now happening in Ukraine, are of such gravity as to seem to demand our total attention.  That at least is how I feel as I sit down to write my weekly essay.  It would be nearly irreverent to talk about anything else.  At the same time, I am keenly aware that I cannot possibly have anything useful to say.  Most people want to see themselves as original thinkers; but when it comes to fast paced and rapidly changing events in distant parts of the world of which we are ignorant, what possibly useful independent thoughts can we claim?  It does seem obvious on the face of it that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is terrible, unjustified, murderous.  Furthermore, given the nature of the governance system in Russia, it seems justifiable to place most of the blame for the crime—if not all of it—on Russia’s despotic leader, Vladimir Putin.  At least, that has emerged as the “Western” and especially the American consensus.  This view is held with such confidence that the authorities of the Metropolitan Opera feel justified in suspending a Russian opera star who, though she in fact condemned his war, was unwilling to submit to the compelled speech act of a plenary denunciation of Putin.  “‘It is a great artistic loss for the Met and for opera,’ Met General Manager Peter Gelb said in a statement Thursday. ‘Anna [Netrebko] is one of the greatest singers in Met history, but with Putin killing innocent victims in Ukraine, there was no way forward’.”  One possible way forward might be for Mr. Gelb to read Max Eastman’s Artists in Uniform: A Study of Literature and Bureaucratism (New York: Knopf, 1934), a classic account of the dismal effects of compulsory Soviet “correct thought” as imposed on the artistic life of a large nation. We do not need cultural commissars in this country, nor can we defend democratic values in Ukraine by trashing of the Bill of Rights in the Lincoln Center.  I witnessed a more appropriate initiative by the musical establishment on Sunday afternoon at another concert of the Princeton Symphony Orchestra.  Before proceeding to the second half of the concert, which was Stravinsky’s “Firebird Suite,” the maestro invited the audience to stand for the playing of a short and unfamiliar piece not listed on the program: the Ukrainian national anthem, a noble composition that was greeted by the audience with enthusiasm.

 

            But one battle at a time.  The horrors of Putin’s war are real enough, even if everything we (or at least I) know of them has come from news reports of varying authority.  For me that means principally the extensive coverage to be found each day in the New York Times, and the (partially) eye-witness accounts on offer each evening in lengthy segments of the PBS News Hour.  Such “mainstream” news outlets have many small tributaries in social media platforms.  Indeed presentation of the news has over recent years itself surreptitiously become part of the news, and there is frequent reference in it to the importance and debatable import of an avalanche of private cell phone photographs and Tiktok and cell phone videos in which the virtual world is now buried.  There is good news and bad news in the technological developments that allow anyone on the spot with a phone to be a reporter.  You often have to take it on faith that the the photograph of the bombed-out building you see was actually taken in Ukraine rather than in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

            Western nations will not send their troops to fight in the hot war of bombs and bullets, but they have a chance of winning the information war.  Truth is still war’s first casualty.  According to reports many Russians, perhaps even most of them, have been so successfully disinformed by their government clique that they believe there is no “war” in Ukraine, only a police action to mop up “Nazis”.  But Mr. Putin’s efforts at obfuscation have been considerably frustrated already by the clever tactic of American intelligence agencies, which have been publicly predicting with awesome accuracy the actual course of his aggression.  And it appears that the energetic coverage offered by the Times is in part an unadvertised act of reparation for a nearly century-old journalistic crime of its own.

 

            As I discovered when I was writing about the Ukrainian whistleblower Viktor Kravchenko in The Anti-Communist Manifestos, the Soviet history of Ukraine is among the most tragic in an anthology of national tragedies.  Having spent the later 1920s concentrating mainly on the hammer, Stalin was by the early 1930s ready to turn his full attention to the sickle.  He set out on a disastrous program of agricultural collectivization.  Ukraine, the “bread-basket of the Soviet Union,” got his special attention.  He was particularly determined to rid the land of the kulaks, the successful and mildly entrepreneurial smallholders who were the backbone of the region’s comparative agricultural prosperity.  In the Soviet leaders’ Marxist view, and in their rhetoric, these family farmers were a “class” of exploiters and “parasites”, roughly equivalent to the American Robber Barons.  Stalin, as ever, was prepared to use extreme measures.  The Russian cities needed grain, and Ukrainian peasants had some.  Armed Communist gangs were sent through the villages to confiscate it.  Very often they plundered any personal and household movables they could carry as well.   In 1932 and 1933, in what Ukrainians call the Holodomor (roughly “Terror Famine”) millions died.  The precise number is disputed, as is also the question of the precise degree to which the famine was chiefly the result of conscious punitive policy as opposed to gross bureaucratic incompetence.  Both were certainly involved.  Some have questioned the view of the anti-Communist historian Robert Conquest in his book Harvest of Sorrow that it was an intentional genocide specifically directed against Ukrainian identity, but that is in effect a political quibble.  The Ukrainian famine was a horrendous disaster of huge dimensions largely engineered by a regime at war against its own people.  But what did Times readers know of it?  The answer is: nothing.  They did know about the production numbers claimed by the Politburo for the Five Year Plan.  They did know all about the Long Beach earthquake of 1933, in which more than a hundred people lost their lives.

 

            The Times’s long-serving bureau chief in Moscow—their man on the spot virtually since the revolution—was an Anglo-American fellow-traveler named Walter Duranty.  His attitude toward the inevitable episodes of unpleasantness characteristic of police states was summed up in a pithy saw: you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.  The omelet, of course, was the utopian socialism even then being cooked up by the Red Czar.  Duranty was one of the most famous foreign correspondents in Russia, probably the most famous.  His journalistic practice was summed up in one of his book titles: I Write As I Please.  For my research I had to read not merely his books but several about him, one of which is a very funny contemporary novel (Winter in Moscow, 1934) by Malcolm Muggeridge.  More straight-forward is S. J. Taylor’s Stalin’s Apologist: Walter Duranty: The New York Times’s Man in Moscow, though I might argue with the subtitle.  “Stalin’s Man at the New York Times” might be more accurate.

 

            I am not an advocate for the periodic attempts to strip Duranty of his Pulitzer Prize posthumously.  If you believe as I do that facing up to history does not require erasing it, various forms of currently fashionable iconoclasm have little appeal.   And having led in the creation of a nuclear world, America must be wary of that world’s constraints.  But there is a difference between a no-fly zone and a no-lie zone.  The Western press has a great opportunity, and I think also a responsibility to demonstrate the effectiveness of the power of truth-telling and free expression in the course of world affairs.  So far it seems to be doing an excellent job, with the Times leading the way.  Let the pen be mightier than the sword.

 

Betsey Stockton

 

 

            This week’s essay, inspired by a current book* but making no claim to be an adequate review of it, concerns two remarkable American teachers born about a century and a half apart into very different social realities, but sisters united in their signal contributions to the education of young people in the town where I live.  The subject of the book is Elizabeth (Betsey) Stockton (ca 1798-1865), the apparently mixed-race daughter of an African-American slave and an unknown Anglo father, the newborn being by the law of the day the chattel property of the mother’s owner, who was Robert Stockton, a prominent Princeton citizen and a cousin of a signer of the Declaration of Independence.  The biographer is Constance Escher, recently retired from a long career as a teacher of history in the Princeton public schools.  Connie Escher is personal friend of ours of long standing, and the mother of a close childhood friend of our own youngest child.

                                                    Constance Escher (photo: Town Topics)
 

            Nobody was lucky to be born a slave, but some few born slaves had better luck than others.  Betsey Stockton was sent to the household of Ashbel Green, a Presbyterian divine and later President of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University).  He and his family recognized the youngster’s remarkable abilities and fostered her secular education and her religious interests, which were pronounced.  She became a kind of surrogate daughter and sibling in the family, but her labor could still be commodified and rented out, as it commonly had been also for ostensibly free indentured servants.  It was necessary that de facto manumission become de jure for her to undertake her life’s work as a missionary and teacher.  Stockton’s long, varied, and fruitful career—better described as a vibrant religious vocation, as the animating force of her life was the love of Christ—is the subject of Escher’s book.  The historian has sifted judiciously through a large body of primary materials, some only fragmentary and suggestive, but others of amplitude.  Among the latter are substantial contemporary journals kept by Betsey Stockton and her Princeton missionary colleague Charles Stewart.  Any contemporary reader of nineteenth-century domestic documents—such as the letters written by ordinary soldiers featured in Ken Burns’s Civil War series--is likely to be amazed by the excellence of the writing.  Stockton’s prose is fresh, uncluttered, clear, to the point.  Since the same can be said of Constance Escher’s, her book offers as much delight as it does instruction.  I encourage you to seek out a copy of it and read it.  This essay is not a proper account of it, merely tangential ideas it encouraged.

 

            Female life expectancy in America at the time of Stockton’s birth was perhaps forty-five years.  She lived to be about seventy, and crowded into that time half a century of missionary ministry and teaching in Hawaii, Canada, and her hometown of Princeton.  Perhaps some readers will be disappointed that the liberation she was most interested in was spiritual liberation.  Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?  Chattel slavery, a grotesque social manifestation of the “body of death,” does not make a prominent appearance in her recorded thought.  But she lived and worked among black and white abolitionists and ministered to people of color in disparate parts of the world.  The degree of social liberation she had experienced she found in education, and it was that gift she spent her life imparting to others.  Yet there are several moments in her story where racial issues are raised.  There is one very telling passage in the book that both Joan and I found particularly striking.

 

            Among its other attractions, Stockton’s story can claim a place in the literature of American seafaring, resonating for me especially with Dana’s Two Years Before the Mast (1840) and Melville’s Moby Dick (1851).  In November 1823 Stockton, together with her white spiritual brother and sister Charles and Harriet Tiffany Stewart, sailed from New Haven bound for the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) on a grueling five-month voyage involving the “double” crossing of the African cape.  Betsey Stockton’s account of the terrifying storm-tossed seas of Cape Horn is reminiscent of that of Camões in the Lusiads.   The Portuguese poet objectified his fears in the invented mythological giant Adamastor;  Stockton located hers in her own timorous heart, a gloomily Presbyterian “bottomless sink of sin.”  But there was plenty to fear in the material world.  The harrowing fate of the whaler Essex, which had been sunk by an irate whale in 1820, was still in the news.  (This was usually called the “Essex disaster”; but perhaps whales just did not like being shot at with harpoons?)  Six or seven weeks out, approaching the west coast of Africa, the missionaries' vessel happened upon and conversed with a Portuguese slaver.  Stewart, an ordained Christian minister obligated by the Law of Charity, practically exploded in his Journal: “Surely, if anything on earth calls for the righteous judgment of God, it is the prosecution of the slave trade; and sooner or later, the retribution of a just avenger must fall on those who thus make the heavens to echo the moanings of the bereaved, and the rich earth with the tears and blood of the enslaved.”  That was written three years after the Missouri Compromise and thirty-five before John Brown’s prophecy of 1859: "I...am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done."  Betsey Stockton died on October 25, 1865, and was buried in Cooperstown NY, next to her beloved spiritual sister Harriet Stewart.  One reasonably hopes that she had read in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural eight months earlier the equally prophetic words: “Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-men’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether’.” 

 

            The constant here, sadly, is the spilling of blood.  That is the world’s way.  It was not, however, Betsey Stockton’s way.  For her and her intimate companions the blood once shed long ago and far away was forever sufficient.  Her weapon was literacy.  If swords could be beaten into plowshares, why not pen nibs as well?  On this day, Ash Wednesday, a day on which we are invited to ponder the deep sinks of our own imperfections as fellow human beings are terrified, injured, and killed in wickedness by other fellow human beings, that is perhaps a thought worth pondering.  In any event, it is one brought to my mind by the extraordinary story in Escher’s engaging book.

 

  

 

* Constance K. Escher, She Calls Herself Betsey Stockton: The Illustrated Odyssey of a Princeton Slave (Eugene OR: Resource Publications/Wipf and Stock, 2022), pp. 197.

[ISBN pb 978-1-7252-7544-7; hb 978-1-7252-7545-4]