Readers of the New York Times will be familiar with Verlyn Klinkenborg, who contributes marvelous little essays to the editorial page. He lives on a small farm in upstate New York (“upstate” being a preposterously Gotham-centric term for the 97% of New York State that isn’t part of New York City or Long Island), and most of his pieces are evocative miniatures about rural life. I admire his writing very much; it is eloquent, graceful, and richly expressive.
Anyway, today Mr. Klinkenborg offered us a meditation on an old photo from Gettysburg that is believed to show Lincoln preparing for his famous address. But the point of Klinkenborg’s piece isn’t the great man himself:
Incredible as it is to see Lincoln there, a crowd swirling around him, blurred by their own motion, it’s every bit as surprising to see the whole scene that the camera captured in that moment. The camera has been positioned well away from the crowd, and there’s open ground just ahead of the lens. Deep in the crush of bodies, Lincoln is looking off into history, toward us in a sense. But out in this open ground, it’s a November day in Pennsylvania. A few men ”” including one in a broad white collar and a voluminous top hat ”” stare at the lens with a truly American candidness.
No, what has struck him is the way ordinariness surrounds even the most momentous events. He continues:
… Perhaps that’s what is so convincing about this photograph. At the edges of every crowd ”” even at moments of intense historical importance ”” there is an unknown someone being distracted by the world, uninterested in what’s happening behind his back. You can see it here. We feel the power of what Lincoln was saying more strongly than those who were present did ”” that is, we feel its ongoing power. But if you begin walking outward from where Lincoln stood, how far would you have to go before any trace of the extraordinary nature of that day had vanished into the ordinary? The evidence of this photograph suggests that you wouldn’t have to go far at all, a few hundred yards at most.
I, too am fascinated by the fact that what we know of history is almost nothing; by the thought of all the people, all the lives, that have been utterly effaced from memory, leaving not the slightest trace. (I’ve written about this before, here, and in particular here.)
But what came to mind as I read Klinkenborg’s essay today was an old piece written by the great American humorist Robert Benchley (a mention of whose name, by the way, to anyone under 30 will give you a splendid example of what being effaced by time is all about). In this item, called “Johnny-On-The-Spot”, Benchley remarks on his ability always to be the fellow grinning obliviously at the camera as history is taking place behind him. We read:
I have not seen an actual photograph of the shooting of the Austrian Archduke at Serajevo, but I would be willing to bet if one is in existence, that you could find, somewhere off in the right foreground, a man in a Serbian derby looking anxiously up the street for a trolley car. And probably right up in the foreground a youth smiling and waving into the camera.
I have little doubt that Mr. Klinkenborg is well acquainted with Benchley, but he may have forgotten about this little gem, which enriches my bookshelf as part of a collection called The Benchley Roundup (with wonderful drawings by Gluyas Williams, at least in the edition I have). But here’s the best news of all: thanks to Google, you can read the whole thing here.
10 Comments
My apologies for an off-topic post, but I am steamed enough to violate blogging protocol (such as it is, anyway).
As we now know, the “intelligent, principled, and consistent” Rudy Giuliani ran up tens of thousands of dollars in expenses to have trysts with Judith Nathan. He had these expenses obscured by having them billed to agencies like the Loft Board. Adultery, deceit, misuse of public funds. Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think that NYC taxpayers should be subsidizing Rudy’s love nest. (It’s fun to see the people who howled at Bill Clinton using Arkansas state troopers to abet his indiscretions finding a way to excuse Rudy for doing essentially the same thing).
However, here’s is what has me steamed: Rudy was quoted today saying “”I would not accuse any of my opponents of doing it,” he said. “But who knows, it could be on the Democratic side.”
Now is that disgusting, or what? Is there a shred of evidence to suggest that the story is a Democratic “hit job?” Sure, “it could be” from Democrats: but it also could be from Donna Hanover, the Boston Red Sox, the Flat Earth Society, the surviving members of Credence Clearwater Revival, or anybody else on the planet.
Let’s review: Giuliani is caught in what looks like a scandal — at minimum, there are legitimate questions which he ought to answer — yet he refuses to answer the questions by insinuating that somehow the story is a Democratic “hit job” and can be ignored. Could you imagine more weaselly behavior? Is this the kind of “principled” leadership and accountability that you want in a President?
Peter: are you kidding? At least you could have posted this as a comment on the Giuliani post of a few days ago; I would have responded there, once I had had time to determine whether this was the usual sort of trumped-up political persiflage that attend all campaigns, or something real.
We’ll see. If Giuliani is really not worthy of our endorsement, I’ll withdraw it. I certainly don’t wish to back a scoundrel. Let’s see how it plays out.
There is no shortage of similar material, I expect, for whatever candidate you are currently behind. Certainly if it’s Hillary Clinton, I could go to town.
Well, he only made the statement yesterday — and the underlying story broke two days ago — so it was out of sequence with the Giuliani post.
As for Hillary: despite everything the right wing has tried to pin on her — Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate — not much has stuck. She is not my ideal candidate, but in a race against Giuliani, it’s a no-brainer. You may dislike her, but your fellow New Yorkers re-elected her in a landslide victory with 67% of the vote in a state where statewide elective offices are split pretty much down the middle. Obviously her constituents approve her job as a Senator.
A “no-brainer”, huh? Well, if I had no brain, I’m sure I might vote for her.
Anyway. we’ll see. Still a year to go.
Well, we’ll see if she gets the Scarecrow’s vote from Wizard of Oz.
Here’s a different question:
Am I the only one who thinks (expects?) that in the 2008 election, some nutjob will assassinate a Presidential candidate?
Or: is it just because I vividly remember the JFK assassination, RFK, and MLK? Not to mention John Hinckley and Squeaky Fromme?
(I’m not asking for a pity party because I’m a baby boomer – hey, only two or three years older than our gracious host — just wondering…)
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3937555&page=1
Nice cheery thought, Pete. Good thing the Secret Service isn’t interested in philosophy of mind and stories about oysters.
This has to be the most digressive comment thread I’ve ever seen.
Digressive? Absolutely. Mea culpa maxima.
Prescient? I sure as Hell hope not. However I would lay even money that it happens.
Well, I’m certainly not going to take that bet and give you a motive. You’re in hot enough water already.
Nah, not me. I would make a piss-poor marksman or soldier. Crappy hand-to-eye coordination plus general LMF (lack of moral fiber). Even Tom Tancredo is safe from me, and he’s a big target.