Monday, December 25, 2023

A Holiday Break: The Wreath by Sigrid Undset

Books are always the best holiday gift for me. The only thing I like better than the anticipation of reading a long sought after title is the fondness that comes with remembering the discovery of an unexpected treasure.

As I look back on all the books I've profiled here in 2023, the one I'd most like to revisit is The Wreath by Sigrid Undset, which I blogged about only earlier this month

Here's how that post began:

This is the first of the three volumes in Undset’s Nobel prize winning novel, Kristin Lavransdatter. I’m not sure how I stumbled into Undset or her work -- I think I might have come across a reference in some biographical information I was reading about Willa Cather -- but however I came across it, I’m really glad I did. In the introduction that accompanied my volume of The Wreath, Tiina Nunnally provides this summary that speaks well to Undset’s power and ability.

Undset’s love of nature so permeated her world view that it became synonymous with the truth she sought to portray in her novels, the truth that her mother had enjoined her to write about. In a speech given during the 1940s she explained what she meant by a “true novel”:

“We often see the word “novel” defined as the opposite of “facts.” And of course those kinds of novels do exist. But even those types of novels do not necessarily have to be the opposite of “truth.” Facts may be true, but they are not truths -- just as wooden crates or fence posts or doors or furniture are not “wood” in the same way that a forest is, since it consists of the living and growing material from which these things are made. … The true novel, if you understand what I mean by that term, must also make use of facts, but above all it must be concerned with the truth that lies behind them -- the wild mountains that are the source of the “tame” cobblestones of the pavement or the artistically hewn stones in a work of sculpture; the living forest which provides timber for the sawmills and pulp for the billions of tons of paper which we use and misuse. Then these facts will be of secondary importance to the author … they are not original; they originate from something else.”

Sigrid Undset had a remarkable ability to see beyond the “facts,” to portray the lives of her characters in realistic fashion and yet with great psychological insight. She herself said that “to be a writer is to be able to live lives that are not one’s own.” In Kristin Lavransdatter, the meticulously researched details of medieval life provide a rich backdrop for the narrative. But for modern readers, the power of the novel lies not so much in the authenticity of detail as in the author’s deep understanding of the passions and torments of the human heart.

There is a lot to like here -- especially in the idea that novels (and Sigrid Undset novels, to be precise) contain truth even though they are, of course, made-up stories about made-up people. And not just any old truth, but deep psychological truths about the passions and torments of the human heart, truths that have the power to speak out across centuries and cultures.

As you enjoy your holiday break, I hope you find some time to curl up with a good book. I know I will.

+ + +

This post was written by Eric Lanke, an association executive, blogger and author. For more information, visit www.ericlanke.blogspot.com, follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.

Monday, December 18, 2023

Marcus Aurelius and His Times

This may be one of the few books I stole. I remember I was staying in a hotel, had been upgraded to a one-bedroom suite, and several books were placed in a decorative fashion in the parlor. Books placed there more for their non-descript color and appearance than for what information they contained. Books no one would ever actually read. Books like the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

I think I had just read something else that had mentioned Marcus Aurelius -- the Roman emperor and philosopher whose philosophy seems to pass in and out of fashion as modern readers and business executives discover and rediscover him -- and my interest was probably peaked. Without guilt, when I left that hotel, the decorative copy of Meditations of Marcus Aurelius was in my luggage and no longer on its dusty shelf.

At least that’s what the outer binding said. On the inside I discovered that the book was more. It’s actually a curated edition, published by the “Classics Club,” including several works. Its actual title page says:

MARCUS AURELIUS
AND HIS TIMES

The Transition from Paganism to Christianity

Comprising

Marcus Aurelius: Meditations
Lucian: Hermotimus ~ Icaromenippus
Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho ~ First Apology
Walter Pater: Marius the Epicurean (Selections)

With an Introduction by Irwin Edman

Grand. I know next to nothing about all of that so I thought this might be a good introduction to the subject -- how the Roman Stoics slowly (or quickly?) morphed into the early Christian theorists? But I really only found myself dogearing two of the sections.

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

The meditations are helpfully organized into numbered paragraphs, each of which seems to contain a particular philosophical or rhetorical point. It was therefore pretty easy to circle those that carried some kind of meaningful message for me.

Part III, No. 10: Cast away then all other things, hold only to these few truths; bear in mind also that every man lives only in the present, which is an indivisible point, and that all the rest of his life is either past or uncertain. Short then is the time which any man lives; and short too the longest posthumous fame, and even this is handed on by a succession of poor human beings, who will very soon die, and who know not even themselves, much less one who died long ago.

This is Stoicism in its purest form -- life is short, and no one will remember you when you’re gone, so you’d better get focused on what really matters in this life and not what you or others think is coming next. And the way to figure that out? To figure out what really matters in this life? 

Part III, No. 12: If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word which you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man able to prevent this.

Reason and fidelity to it in all things. Seek to understand the world around you, and live harmoniously with it through the on-going application of your reasonable faculty of mind.

Part III, No. 14: No longer wander at random. You shall not live to read your own memoirs, or the acts of the ancient Romans and Greeks, or the selections from books which you were reserving for your old age. Hasten then to the goal which you have before you. Throw away vain hopes and come to your own aid, while yet you may, if you care at all for yourself.

After all, no one is going to do it for you. And the world will offer you plenty of distractions.

Part V, No. 28: Are you irritated with one whose arm-pits smell? Are you angry with one whose mouth has a foul odor? What good will your anger do you? He has this mouth, he has these arm-pits. Such emanations must come from such things. “But the man has reason,” you will say, “and he could, if he took pains, discover wherein he offends.” I wish you well of your discovery. Now you too have reason; by your rational faculty, stir up his rational faculty; show him his fault, admonish him. For if he listens, you will cure him, and have no need of anger -- you are not a ranter or a whore.

In all things: accept, then act, then accept again. There is no other way. It is key not to get swept up in the circus that surrounds us.

Part VII, No. 3: A piece of pageantry, a stage play, flocking sheep and herding cows, exercise with spears, bones cast to puppies, crusts tossed into fishponds, the laboring of ants over their burdens, the running about of frightened little mice, puppets dancing on strings -- all are the same. Your duty in the midst of such things is to show good humor and not a proud air; and to understand that a man is worth just as much as the things about which he busies himself.

Distractions exist -- as do difficulties. The point is not to question them -- to get wrapped up in debating them and battling them. The point is to accept -- even and especially the natural -- and to keep focused on your own reason and harmony.

Part VIII, No. 50: A cucumber is bitter -- throw it away. There are briars in the path -- turn aside from them. This is enough. Do not add, “And why were such things put into the world?” For you will be ridiculed by a man who is acquainted with nature, and you would be ridiculed by a carpenter and a shoemaker if you found fault because you found shavings and cuttings in their workshop from the things which they make. And yet they have places where they can throw these shavings and cuttings, but nature has no external space; now the wondrous part of her art is that though she has circumscribed herself, everything within her which appears to decay and grow old and be useless she changes into herself, and again makes new things from these very same, so that she requires neither substance from without, nor wants a place into which she may cast that which decays. She is content then with her own space, and her own matter and her own art.

This struck me as one of those big ideas. The detritus of creation cannot be hidden by the Creator -- but it is no less necessary and real as the scraps of the carpenter. Nature has leftover bits. Accept them -- and perhaps discard them -- in the same way you would the scraps of shoe leather and rubber soles.

The First Apology of Justin Martyr

It’s amazing to me how little has changed in the arguments of Christian theorists over the literal centuries that they have been making them.

18. Reflect on the end of the kings who came before you, how they died the death common to all men. If that meant only a cessation of consciousness, it would be a boon to the wicked. But since consciousness survives in all who have ever lived, and for some an eternal punishment is laid up, see that you refuse not to be convinced, and believe that what we say here is true.

Souls exist (i.e., consciousness survives death). Asserted. And the proof?

Even your necromancy, and the divinations you practice with immaculate children, and your evokings of departed souls, and of those whom the magi call Dreamsenders and Familiars, and other performances of excerpts in such matters show you that after death souls are in a state of sensation. There are men seized and wrenched about by spirits of the dead, whom we call demoniacs or madman; there are what you consider the oracles of Amphilochus, Dodona, and Pytho, and others.

Because madmen exist. People who jump around as if possessed by demons or dead souls. They prove that souls are real.

That’s one. Here’s another (sort of).

31. … But in the books of their prophets we find Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin, growing up to man’s estate, healing every disease and every sickness, raising the dead, being hated, unrecognized, crucified, dying, rising again, and ascending into heaven, being and being called the Son of God. We find it also predicted that apostles would be sent by Him into every nation to proclaim these tidings, and that among the Gentiles more than among the Jews men would believe on Him. He was predicted first 5,000 years before He appeared and again 3,000 years before, then 2,000, then 1,000, and again 800: for as the generations succeeded one another, prophet after prophet arose.

32-38. (Justin quotes at length passages from the Psalms and the prophets of the Old Testament that seem to predict Christ’s coming, his birth, and his sufferings.)

Unfortunately, some of the essential arguments have been edited out of this particular version I’m reading. It would have been nice to see the prophecies the editor cut out to better determine if they are specific enough to be valid or impressive. Also, even if the prophecies are specific, prophecy itself does not prove that made-up stories are true.

But perhaps the prophecies cited are not as powerful as Justin would want us to believe.

52. Since then we can show that all that has already happened was predicted by the prophets before it occurred, we must believe too that the other things they predicted, that have not yet come to pass, will certainly happen. And as the things already past took place as foretold without anyone realizing it, so shall future things, even though unrecognized and disbelieved, still come to pass.

Because things foretold happened without anyone realizing them? They were unrecognized and disbelieved, therefore they happened? Evidently, even the prophecies that no one recognizes as true are also somehow true.

But what’s more interesting is how far modern Christians have strayed from some of the philosophical underpinnings of their own faith.

12. More than all other men indeed we are your helpers and allies in promoting peace, seeing we hold it impossible for either the wicked or the covetous of the conspirator or the virtuous man to escape the notice of God, and are sure that each man goes to everlasting punishment or to salvation according to the merit of his deeds. And if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even in little things, knowing he would go to an everlasting punishment of fire; but he would do his utmost to govern himself and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape punishment. 

Works not faith! 

14. … So we, since our conversion by the Word, keep away from demons, and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son. We who once enjoyed the pleasures of lust now embrace chastity. We who once resorted to magical arts, now dedicate ourselves to the good and unbegotten God. We who prized above all else the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into the common stock, and share with everyone in need.

Communism!

+ + +

This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.




Monday, December 11, 2023

God, Please Save Me by Sister Mary Rose McGeady

This post was originally published on a now-retired blog that I maintained from roughly 2005 to 2013. As a result, there may be some references that seem out of date. 

+ + + 

A little book about Covenant House, a shelter for runaway teens. I read it because it was there.

+ + +

This post appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.

Monday, December 4, 2023

The Wreath by Sigrid Undset

This is the first of the three volumes in Undset’s Nobel prize winning novel, Kristin Lavransdatter. I’m not sure how I stumbled into Undset or her work -- I think I might have come across a reference in some biographical information I was reading about Willa Cather -- but however I came across it, I’m really glad I did. In the introduction that accompanied my volume of The Wreath, Tiina Nunnally provides this summary that speaks well to Undset’s power and ability.

Undset’s love of nature so permeated her world view that it became synonymous with the truth she sought to portray in her novels, the truth that her mother had enjoined her to write about. In a speech given during the 1940s she explained what she meant by a “true novel”:

“We often see the word “novel” defined as the opposite of “facts.” And of course those kinds of novels do exist. But even those types of novels do not necessarily have to be the opposite of “truth.” Facts may be true, but they are not truths -- just as wooden crates or fence posts or doors or furniture are not “wood” in the same way that a forest is, since it consists of the living and growing material from which these things are made. … The true novel, if you understand what I mean by that term, must also make use of facts, but above all it must be concerned with the truth that lies behind them -- the wild mountains that are the source of the “tame” cobblestones of the pavement or the artistically hewn stones in a work of sculpture; the living forest which provides timber for the sawmills and pulp for the billions of tons of paper which we use and misuse. Then these facts will be of secondary importance to the author … they are not original; they originate from something else.”

Sigrid Undset had a remarkable ability to see beyond the “facts,” to portray the lives of her characters in realistic fashion and yet with great psychological insight. She herself said that “to be a writer is to be able to live lives that are not one’s own.” In Kristin Lavransdatter, the meticulously researched details of medieval life provide a rich backdrop for the narrative. But for modern readers, the power of the novel lies not so much in the authenticity of detail as in the author’s deep understanding of the passions and torments of the human heart.

There is a lot to like here -- especially in the idea that novels (and Sigrid Undset novels, to be precise) contain truth even though they are, of course, made-up stories about made-up people. And not just any old truth, but deep psychological truths about the passions and torments of the human heart, truths that have the power to speak out across centuries and cultures.

She Beckoned To Me With A Wreath of Gold

And that’s just what we find in The Wreath. It takes place in Norway in the 1300s, but its opening part is almost magical in its ability to both stay rooted in that world and to root young Kristin Lavransdattar in our hearts. Here, she has wandered away from her traveling party, following a horse named Guldsvein and a group of other horses out into the wider countryside and away from the protective oversight of her father, Lavrans, and his people.

All around grew such a profusion of the finest pink tufts of flowers called valerian; they were much redder and more beautiful here next to the mountain stream than back home near the river. Then Kristin picked some blossoms and carefully bound them together with blades of grass until she had the loveliest, pinkest, and most tightly woven wreath. The child pressed it down on her hair and ran over to the pool to see how she looked, now that she was adorned like a grown-up maiden about to go off to a dance.

It is the titular wreath -- in actuality and in allegory -- representing innocence, and worn in her culture by virgins of noble birth. And, at the moment she dons it, and begins to admire and imagine herself…

She bent over the water and saw her own dark image rise up from the depths and become clearer as it came closer. Then she saw in the mirror of the stream that someone was standing among the birches on the other side and leaning towards her. Abruptly she straightened up into a kneeling position and looked across the water. At first she thought she saw only the rock face and the trees clustered at its base. But suddenly she discerned a face among the leaves -- there was a woman over there, with a pale face and flowing, flaxen hair. Her big light-gray eyes and her flaring, pale-pink nostrils reminded Kristin of Guldsvein’s. She was wearing something shiny and leaf-green, and branches and twigs hid her figure up to her full breasts, which were covered with brooches and gleaming necklaces.

Kristin stared at the vision. Then the woman raised her hand and showed her a wreath of golden flowers and beckoned to her with it.

A second wreath of flowers, not pink but gold, in the hands of this strange woman of the wilderness, beckoning to the pure and innocent girl.

Behind her, Kristin heard Guldsvein whinny loudly with fear. She turned her head. The stallion reared up, gave a resounding shriek, and then whirled around and set off up the hillside, making the ground thunder. The other horses followed. They rushed straight up the scree, so that rocks plummeted down with a crash, and branches and roots snapped and cracked.

Then Kristin screamed as loud as she could. “Father!” she shrieked. “Father!” She sprang to her feet and ran up the slope after the horses, not daring to look back over her shoulder. She clambered up the scree, tripped on the hem of her dress, and slid down, then climbed up again, scrabbling onward with bleeding hands, crawling on scraped and bruised knees, calling to Guldsvein in between her shouts to her father -- while the sweat poured out of her whole body, running like water into her eyes, and her heart pounded as if it would hammer a hole through her chest; sobs of terror rose in her throat.

“Oh, Father, Father!”

She is terrified -- terrified of something she doesn’t but which Guldsvein instinctively understands to be dangerous -- and her instinct is to return to the protection of her father, the man who rules their small community and her life.

Then she heard his voice somewhere above her. She saw him coming in great leaps down the slope of the scree -- the bright, sunwhite scree. Alpine birches and aspens stood motionless along the slope, their leaves glittering with little glints of silver. The mountain meadow was so quiet and so bright, but her father came bounding toward her, calling her name, and Kristin sank down, realizing that she was now saved.

“Sancta Maria!” Lavrans knelt down next to his daughter and pulled her to him. He was pale and there was a strange look to his mouth that frightened Kristin even more; not until she saw his face did she realize the extent of her peril.

“Child, child…” He lifted up her bloody hands, looked at them, noticed the wreath on her bare head, and touched it. “What’s this? How did you get here, little Kristin?”

“I followed Guldsvein,” she sobbed against his chest. “I was so afraid because you were all asleep, but then Guldsvein came. And then there was someone who waved to me from down by the stream…”

“Who waved? Was it a man?”

“No, it was a woman. She beckoned to me with a wreath of gold -- I think it was a dwarf maiden, Father.”

A dwarf maiden. A mythic creature of her folklore. Something she has been taught to fear. What else, who else could it have been?

“Jesus Christus,” said Lavrans softly, making the sign of the cross over the child and himself.

He helped her up the slope until they came to the grassy hillside; then he lifted her up and carried her. She clung to his neck and sobbed; she couldn’t stop, no matter how much he hushed her.

Soon they reached the men and Isrid, who clasped her hands together when she heard what had happened.

“Oh, that must have been the elf maiden -- I tell you, she must have wanted to lure this pretty child into the mountain.”

“Be quiet,” said Lavrans harshly. “We shouldn’t have talked about such things the way we did here in the forest. You never know who’s under the stones, listening to every word.”

He pulled out the golden chain with the reliquary cross from inside his shirt and hung it around Kristin’s neck, placing it against her bare skin.

“All of you must guard your tongues well,” he told them. “For Ragnfrid must never hear that the child was exposed to such danger.”

Ragnfrid is Lavrans’s wife and Kristin’s mother and, like Lavrans, she would know the kind of danger that Kristin was actually in, and it had nothing to do with dwarves or elf maidens. The woman Kristin saw was Aashild Gautesdatter, whom Wikipedia describes as “a wise woman skilled in magic and the healing arts.” Allegorically, she is Mother Nature, someone free to follow her own will, and she will become one of the poles -- opposite the structured role demanded by Kristin’s father and faith -- that will shape the rest of Kristin’s story in The Wreath.

Her Inheritance of Health and Beauty and Love

Kristin Lavransdatter -- Lavrans’s daughter, named so in the convention of her place and time -- will come to question the cross that Lavrans protectively places around her young neck, question it and the world it is supposed to represent. Not because she wants to do evil, but because, like Aashild Gautesdatter, she feels an inner truth that seems to speak with more force than the convoluted myths that frame the path set out for her. Here, she is speaking with a monk visiting her village, Brother Edvin, who is busy painting religious pictures for their church.

In another painting the Virgin Mary sat with the Christ child on her knee. He had put one hand up under his mother’s chin, and he was holding an apple in the other. With them stood Saint Sunniva and Saint Kristina. They were leaning gracefully from the hips, their faces a lovely pink and white, and they had golden hair and wore golden crowns.

Brother Edin gripped his right wrist with his left hand as he painted leaves and roses in their crowns.

“It seems to me that the dragon is awfully small,” said Kristin, looking at the image of the saint who was her namesake. “It doesn’t look as if it could swallow up the maiden.”

“And it couldn’t, either,” said Brother Edvin. “It was no bigger than that. Dragons and all other creatures that serve the Devil only seem big as long as we harbor fear within ourselves. But if a person seeks God with such earnestness and desire that he enters into His power, then the power of the Devil at once suffers such a great defeat that his instruments become small and impotent. Dragons and evil spirits shrink until they are no bigger than goblins and cats and crows. As you can see, the whole mountain that Saint Sunniva was trapped inside is so small that it will fit on the skirt of her cloak.”

“But weren’t they inside the caves?” asked Kristin. “Saint Sunniva and the Selje men? Isn’t that true?”

Kristin is trying to understand the myths that she has been taught in their literal form -- that Saint Kristina was actually swallowed by a dragon, and that Saint Sunniva and an entourage of men were found buried in a mountain cave. And how does Brother Edvin respond to this rational examination?

The monk squinted at her and smiled again.

“It’s both true and not true. It seemed to be true for the people who found the holy bodies. And it seemed true to Sunniva and the Selje men, because they were humble and believed that the world is stronger than all sinful people. They did not imagine that they might be stronger than the world because they did not love it. But if they had only known, they could have taken all the mountains and flung them out into the sea like tiny pebbles. No one and nothing can harm us, child, except what we fear and love.”

“But what if a person doesn’t fear and love God?” asked Kristin in horror.

The monk put his hand on her golden hair, gently tilted her head back, and looked into her face. His eyes were blue and open wide.

“There is no one, Kristin, who does not love and fear God. But it’s because our hearts are divided between love for God and fear of the Devil, and love for this world and this flesh, that we are miserable in life and death. For if a man knew no yearning for God and God’s being, then he would thrive in Hell, and we alone would not understand that he had found his heart’s desire. Then the fire would not burn him if he did not long for coolness, and he would not feel the pain of the serpent’s bite if he did not long for peace.”

Kristin looked up into his face; she understood nothing of what he said.

With riddles. Brother Edvin responds with mysteries and riddles that defy rational examination.

Brother Edvin continued, “It was because of God’s mercy toward us that He saw how our hearts were split, and He came down to live among us, in order to taste, in fleshly form, the temptations of the Devil when he entices us with power and glory, and the menace of the world when it offers us blows and contempt and the wounds of sharp nails in our hands and feet. In this manner He showed us the way and allowed us to see His love.”

The monk looked down into the child’s strained and somber face. Then he laughed a little and said in an entirely different tone of voice, “Do you know who was the first one to realize that Our Lord had allowed Himself to be born? It was the rooster. He saw the star and then he said -- and all the animals could speak Latin back then -- he cried, ‘Christus natus est!’”

Brother Edvin crowed out the last words, sounding so much like a rooster that Kristin ended up howling with laughter. And it felt so good to laugh, because all the strange things that he had just been talking about had settled upon her like a burden of solemnity.

You can see Kristin trying to square the circle of the nonsense that Edvin offers her, but even Edvin realizes that it is hopeless and has to revert to the silliest stories he tells the youngest children to help them believe.

But Kristin is not a young child. She is growing into a young woman and she is wrestling with the emotions and passions that are beginning to manifest within her heart. She doesn’t want the life that has been prescribed for her -- prescribed by her parents and most of all by her father -- to wed as they bid or to enter the convent and take her vows of chastity. At one point her younger sister, Ulvhild, who has been crippled by a childhood accident, falls and hurts herself, and in her love and sympathy for her sister Kristin has a moment of clarity.

She placed Ulvhild on the bed which the sisters had shared ever since Kristin had grown too old to sleep with her parents. Then she took off her own shoes and lay down next to the little one. She lay there and listened for the bell long after it had stopped ringing and the child was asleep.

It had occurred to her, as the bell began to peal, while she sat with Ulvhild’s little bloodied face in her hands that perhaps this was an omen for her. If she would take her sister’s place -- if she would promise herself to the service of God and the Virgin Mary -- then maybe God would grant the child renewed vigor and good health. 

Kristin remembered Brother Edvin saying that these days parents offered to God only the crippled and lame children or those for whom they could not arrange good marriages. She knew her parents were pious people, and yet she had never heard them say anything except that she would marry. But when they realized that Ulvhild would be ill all her days, they at once proposed that she should enter a convent.

But Kristin didn’t want to do it; she resisted the idea that God would perform a miracle for Ulvhild if she became a nun. She clung to Sira Eirik’s words that so few miracles occurred nowadays. And yet she had the feeling this evening that it was as Brother Edvin had said -- that if someone had enough faith, then he could indeed work miracles. But she did not want that kind of faith; she did not love God and His Mother and the saints in that way. She would never love them in that way. She loved the world and longed for the world.

Kristin pressed her lips to Ulvhild’s soft, silky hair. The child slept soundly, but the elder sister sat up, restless, and then lay down again. Her heart was bleeding with sorrow and shame, but she knew that she could not believe in miracles because she was unwilling to give up her inheritance of health and beauty and love.

It is a momentous decision, choosing the world and its pleasures over fidelity to God, and by cultural extension, her community, family, and father.

The Hideous Deformity of Sin

In the middle section of the novel the plot unfolds along these lines. I’ll let Wikipedia provide the summary:

Despite being betrothed to a neighboring landowner's son, Simon Darre, Kristin falls in love with Erlend Nikulaussøn, from the estate of Husaby in Trøndelag. Erlend has been excommunicated by the Catholic Church for openly cohabitating with Eline, the wife of a prominent judge; Eline left her elderly husband to live with Erlend, flouting both religious and social law. They have had two children together, Orm and Margret, who have no legal rights since they were born of an adulterous relationship.

Erlend and Kristin begin a passionate romance which is sealed with Erlend's seduction of Kristin and their eventual complicity in Eline's death, both grievous sins in the eyes of Church and State. Lavrans forbids their relationship, but after three years of Kristin's defiance and the death of Ulvhild, he no longer has the strength to oppose Kristin. He consents to her marriage to Erlend. Erlend and Kristin are formally betrothed, but she becomes pregnant before the wedding.

The final part of the novel is aptly titled Lavrans Bjorgulfson, after Kristin’s father, since in it we largely see Kristin from his perspective. It is a perspective, as described above, that is beaten down and nostalgic for the things that were and might have been.

Married off -- that was what had happened to him, practically unconsulted. Friends … he had many, and he had none. War … it had been a joy, but there was no more war; his armor was hanging up in the loft, seldom used. He had become a farmer. But he had had daughters; everything he had done in his life became dear to him because he had done it to provide for those tender young lives that he held in his hands. He remembered Kristin’s tiny two-year-old body on his shoulder, her flaxen soft hair against his cheek. Her little hands holding on to his belt while she pressed her hard, round forehead against his shoulder blades when he went riding with her sitting behind him on the horse.

And now she had those ardent eyes, and she had won the man she wanted. She was sitting up there in the dim light, leaning against the silk pillows of the bed. In the glow of the candle she was all golden -- golden crown and golden shift and golden hair spread over her naked golden arms. Her eyes were no longer shy.

The father moaned with shame.

It is very much like Kristin cannot grow up in Lavrans’s eyes -- she cannot become a woman with her own life and her own desires -- because doing so threatens the world he has constructed, or which, more accurately and more painfully, has been constructed even for him. Undset does masterful work in showing us both perspectives, the willful daughter and the troubled father, and sometimes even more masterfully twists them into the willful father and troubled daughter.

She and Erlend knelt together during the wedding mass, but it was all like a hallucination: the candles, the paintings, the shining vessels, the priests dressed in linen albs and long chasubles. All those people who had known her in the past seemed like dream images as they stood there filling the church in their familiar festive garb. But Herr Bjorn was leaning against a pillar and looking at them with his dead eyes, and she thought that the other dead one must have come back with him, in his arms.

Herr Bjorn is the deceased husband of Aashild Gautesdatter, who is Erlend’s aunt and who is widely believed to have poisoned her late husband. It is with her guidance that Erlend and Kristin similarly calculate the death of Eline so that they can marry.

She tried to look up at the painting of Saint Olav -- he stood there, pink and white and handsome, leaning on his axe, treading his own sinful human form underfoot -- but Herr Bjorn drew her eyes. And next to him she saw Eline Ormsdatter’s dead countenance; she was looking at them with indifference. They had trampled over her in order to get here, and she did not begrudge them that.

She had risen up and cast off all the stones that Kristin had striven so hard to place over the dead. Erlend’s squandered youth, his honor and well-being, the good graces of his friends, the health of his soul -- the dead woman shook them all off. “He wanted me and I wanted him, you wanted him and he wanted you,” said Eline. “I had to pay, and he must pay, and you must pay when your time comes. When the sin is consummated it will give birth to death.”

The dead are mocking Kristin in this scene -- her own conscience manifesting them so that they can serve that purpose.

Kristin felt that she was kneeling with Erlend on a cold stone. He knelt with the red, singed patches on his pale face. She knelt beneath the heavy bridal crown and felt the crushing, oppressive weight in her womb -- the burden of the sin she was carrying. She had played and romped with her sin, measuring it out as if in a child’s game. Holy Virgin -- soon it would be time for it to lie fully formed before her, looking at her with living eyes, revealing to her the brands of her sin, the hideous deformity of sin, striking hatefully with misshapen hands at his mother’s breast. After she had borne her child, after she had seen the marks of sin on him and loved him the way she had loved her sin, then the game would be played to the end.

Kristin thought: What if she screamed now so that her voice pierced through the song and the deep, droning male voices and reverberated out over the crowd? Would she then be rid of Eline’s face? Would life appear in the dead man’s eyes? But she clenched her teeth together.

Holy King Olav, I call to you. Among all those in Heaven, I beg you for help, for I know that you loved God’s righteousness above all else. I beseech you to protect the innocent one who is in my womb. Turn God’s anger away from the innocent, turn it toward me. Amen, in the precious name of the Lord.

“My children are innocent,” said Eline, “yet there is no room for them in a land where Christian people live. Your child was conceived out of wedlock just as my children were. You can no more demand justice for your child in the land you have strayed from than I could demand it for mine.”

Holy Olav, I beg for mercy nevertheless, I beg for compassion for my son. Take him under your protection, then I will carry him to your church in my bare feet. I will bring my golden crown to you and place it on your altar, if you will help me. Amen.

Her face was as rigid as stone, she was trying so hard to keep herself calm, but her body trembled and shuddered as she knelt there and was married to Erlend.

There are no right answers here. Indeed, there is almost a kind of capriciousness about what is sin and what is sanctified in this world, and that tension is on full display here as Kristin wrestles with her conscience and the ghosts of lives past and those yet to come. In these final scenes of the novel, again simply the first part of a longer work, one has to wonder if it is the capriciousness itself that will in the end destroy her.

+ + +

This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.




Monday, November 27, 2023

Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck

This post was originally published on a now-retired blog that I maintained from roughly 2005 to 2013. As a result, there may be some references that seem out of date. 

+ + + 

I like Steinbeck’s prose a lot.

I also liked the few pages in which he described his drive through Wisconsin.

He’s good at capturing natural speech on the page and at making simple things mean so much more.

The redwoods in the Northwest also stand out, as well as his wrestling with the south and its racial baggage. To end the problem, more than the whites have to change the way they treat the blacks. The blacks also have to change the way they treat the whites. And will any of that ever really happen before the whites and blacks meld together and become something new?

+ + +

This post appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.

Monday, November 20, 2023

The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright

Here’s one of my pet peeves. This book is called The Looming Tower. Why is it called The Looming Tower? What does The Looming Tower refer to? Maybe, the book called The Looming Tower will tell me?

On pages 394-5, referencing a videotaped speech given by Osama bin Laden to the young men in his movement:

He urged them to become martyrs, to give up their promising lives for the greater glory that awaited them. “Look, we have found ourselves in the mouth of the lion for over twenty years now,” he said, “thanks to the mercy and favor of God: the Russian Scud missiles hunted us for over ten years, and the American Cruise missiles have hunted us for another ten years. The believer knows that the hour of death can be neither hastened nor postponed.” Then he quoted a passage from the fourth sura of the Quran, which he repeated three times in the speech -- an obvious signal to the hijackers who were on their way: “Wherever you are, death will find you, even in the looming tower.”

That’s it. As far as I can tell, it is the only reference to The Looming Tower in all 550 pages of The Looming Tower. Okay. It’s from a speech videotaped by Osama bin Laden. A reference to a passage in the Quran. And (maybe) a reference to the twin towers of the World Trade Center. 

Maybe because when I do some Googling (and God help you if you want to Google “Why is it called The Looming Tower?” or “What does The Looming Tower refer to?” and not get a thousand responses saying that The Looming Tower is either a book written by Lawrence Wright or a TV mini-series produced by Hulu) I get several different translations for that particular verse in the Quran, including “massive towers,” “lofty towers,” “towers of lofty construction,” and “strong forts.”

Was bin Laden speaking English in his videotaped speech? I would assume not. So was he even saying “the looming tower”? Maybe Wright should have named his book The Strong Fort?

But that’s just a pet peeve of mine. The book itself is an absorbing read and, evidently, the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, telling the story of how Al-Qaeda and 9/11 came to be, and many of the bureaucratic snafus that kept America from stopping it.

My three big takeaways that I scribbled on the last page:

1. The key role money played. Osama bin Laden was a billionaire, owner of a giant construction company that was in good with the Saudi royal family and helped build all kinds of infrastructure in the Middle East. It was this money that made Al-Qaeda possible, as it allowed bin Laden to give his followers “jobs” in his movement. He paid them to be warriors and martyrs. When he stopped paying them, they tended to quit.

2. Osama bin Laden was actually crazy. He was certainly believed to be by many of the people who encountered him.

3. The CIA and the FBI would not play together. The CIA held back a lot of information that the FBI could have acted on because their culture defined information as power, and the people in charge of the CIA were unwilling to cede such power to another agency. 

+ + +

This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.




Monday, November 13, 2023

Fart Proudly by Benjamin Franklin

This post was originally published on a now-retired blog that I maintained from roughly 2005 to 2013. As a result, there may be some references that seem out of date. 

+ + + 

This is a collection of writings by Benjamin Franklin.

I think my parents bought me this book a long time ago, as I said to my wife, in their good-hearted but sometimes uninspired way of trying to understand the things that matter to me.

The book itself was a difficult read, with a lot of material written in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way with little or no background as to what was being poked fun of.

The best item was probably something Franklin had written to instruct the British Empire on how to lose its colonies, in which he listed as instructions all the things they had already done to alienate the Americans.

The editor also had a libertarian slant that was fairly obvious in both his introduction and a final essay that he authored himself and in which he has Franklin espouse his own view about modern America.

+ + +

This post appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.

Monday, November 6, 2023

Art and Artist by Otto Rank

I had high hopes for this one. I stumbled across references to it in The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker, and believed it to be a psychological treatise on one of my favorite subjects -- the cultural tensions that artists must transcend if they are to create art, and the damage that transcendence does to their cultural identity. It is partly that, but it is mostly something else, a dissection of the creative urge and how and why it arose in ancient cultures.

Artists Must Use Art to Create Art

For my purposes, Chapter One, “Creative Urge and Personality Development,” lays out some of the essential tensions. Here, Rank is talking about the task he has set before himself in writing this book.

Of course, for such an undertaking, which tackles the problem of art primarily from the psychological end, a different starting-point is required from that which is called for in a study of art from the stylistic or cultural-historical angle. Even if by art we understand, not the part played by the creator in the psychological sense, but the product, the work, or even the content of all art -- at least for the particular period -- we can for the time being sum up the relation of the artist to his art as follows: the artist, as a definite creative individual, uses the art-form that he finds ready to his hand in order to express a something personal; the personal must therefore be somehow connected with the prevailing artistic or cultural ideology, since otherwise he could not make use of them, but it must also differ, since otherwise he would not need to use them in order to produce something of his own. While this aspect brings us again to the dualism in the artist, there is, as we know already, a similar dualism at the bottom of the cultural ideology, as one of the manifestations of which the style of the age must be regarded. But the general ideology of the culture, which determines its religion, morals, and society as well as its art, is again only the expression of the human types of the age, and of this the artist and the creative personality generally is the most definite crystallization. The circular argument here is only apparent, for we may not disregard the creative process, which presents itself as an essential factor between the ideology of the art, the style, and the creative personality, the artist. We must admit, however, that we know almost nothing of this process in the artist, since here, more than anywhere, the hopes held out by modern psychology have proved delusive.

This is setting us up from some of the ‘snake eating its own tail’ analysis that awaits us, namely, the artist uses the culturally-defined understanding of art in his society to produce his art which, although an attempt to say something personal, can only be expressed in the common language of his society’s guiding ideology. If true, if artists must use art to create art, then from whence does art come? From the artist? Or from the ideology?

Artists Must Transcend Art to Create Art

We don’t start exploring a possible answer to that question until Chapter Twelve, aptly titled “The Artist’s Fight With Art,” because it argues that the artist must transcend existing ideology in order to attain his true artistic fulfillment and, in doing so, create new ideologies for others.

Thus the great collective ideologies of art, which we call styles, also show us the conflict between a new-born ideology (religious, national, or individual -- that is, of genius) and an old one -- ending in defeat of the latter -- as the principle of development. This struggle of world-views, which is represented microcosmically by the conflict of the artist against art, is undoubtedly powerfully forwarded by the strong artistic individualities and leads to the triumph of a new style. But the beginning of the movement is cultural and not individual, collective and not personal -- only, through his inner conflict, the artist gains the courage, the vigour, and the foresight to grasp the impending change of attitude before others do so, to feel it more intensely, and to shape it formally. But he must do something more than gradually liberate himself from the earlier ideologies that he has hitherto taken as his pattern; in the course of his life (generally at its climax) he must undergo a much harder conflict and achieve a much more fateful emancipation: he must escape as well from the ruling ideology of the present, which he has himself strengthened by his own growth and development, if his individuality is not to be wholly smothered by it.

This may be the appropriate place to remind ourselves that Rank argues that art is the expression of something personal -- of an idea.

Almost all students of the art of primitive peoples get the unanimous impression that, as the first historian of primitive art, Franz Kugler, put it as early as 1842, “the intention of primitive art was far less towards the imitation of nature than towards the representation of particular ideas.” More than fifty years later so great an authority as Leo Frobenius says the same of African art: “We cannot say that there was any direct extrovert effort at the attainment of some perfection of form. All the objects of art come only out of the need to give plastic expression to ideas.”

Art is not the form. Art is the idea that the artist is trying to express through the form. And in trying to emancipate the idea from the ruling ideology, he can only briefly succeed, before the emancipation itself becomes a new ruling ideology. 

The first stage in the growth of an artist is that which we have described as his “nomination” and which marks the subordination of the individual to one of the prevailing art-ideologies, this usually showing itself in the choice of some recognized master as the ideal pattern. In doing so, he becomes the representative of an ideology, and at first his individuality vanishes, until, later, at the height of his achievement, he strives once more to liberate his personality, now a mature personality, from the bonds of an ideology which he himself accepted and helped to form.

This emergence of the true artist, of the idea from the ideology, is a painful one. Not only because the artist has helped construct the ideology, but because he is widely recognized as an artist because of that construction. When he tries to transcend it, he will no longer be revered by the followers of the ideology. He will be vilified by them. 

Artists Must Create

So why? Why does the artist do this? Why not remain an artisan, producing forms accepted by the ideology?

For we have seen that the basic conflict of the creative personality is that between his desire to live a natural life in an ordinary sense and the need to produce ideologically -- which corresponds socially to that between individuality and collectivity and biologically to that between the ego and the genus. Whereas the average man largely subordinates himself, both socially and biologically, to the collective, and the neurotic shuts himself deliberately off from both, the productive type finds a middle way, which is expressed in ideological experience and personal creativity. But since the artist must live as a human being and yet feels compelled to make this transitory life eternal in an intransient work, a compromise is set up between ideologized life and an individualized creativity -- a balance which is difficult, impermanent, and in all circumstances painful, since creation tends to experience, and experience again cries out for artistic form.

Because he must create. He wants to live, and he does not want to die. And in creating art, he is able to accomplish both -- feeling life at its pulsating, creative best, and leaving behind immortal ideas, either as flashes of misunderstood brilliance, or as permanent additions to the ruling ideology.

But there are trade-offs here, dangerous ones, and artists throughout history have generally managed those trade-offs in one of two ways.

In this sense the general problem of the artist -- not only in its psychological, but in its human aspect -- is contained in the two notions of deprivation and renunciation. The psychological point of view, as it culminates in psycho-analysis, always emphasizes only the deprivation, from which artists seem to suffer most in themselves; the philosophical view, to which a few artists like Goethe or Ibsen attained at the height of their achievement, emphasizes renunciation. But the two aspects are complementary, like outer and inner, society and ego, collectivity and individuality. The great artist and great work are only born from the reconciliation of the two -- the victory of a philosophy of renunciation over an ideology of deprivation.

It is another snake eating its own tail. How will the artist resolve this tension? This tension that he himself has helped create but first mastering and then being constrained by the ideological form of his own art? He must not deprive himself of ordinary life. But he must also renounce it in order to create something both within and beyond the frame of his art. 

From this point of view discussions about life and creativity, the conflict of various modes of life and ideas of creativity, seem superficial. An artist who feels that he is driven into creating by an external deprivation and who is then again obstructed by a longing for life can rise above these conflicts to a renunciant view of life which recognizes that it is not only impossible but perilous to live out life to the full and can, willingly and affirmatively, accept the limitations that appear in the form of moral conventions and artistic standards, not merely as such, but as protective measures against a premature and complete exhaustion of the individual. This means the end of all doubt as to whether he is to dedicate his whole life to art or send art to perdition and simply live; also of the question whether he is to live a Bohemian life in accordance with his ideology or live an ordinary life in despite of his art; and in the end his creativity is not only made richer and deeper by this renunciatory attitude, but is freed from the need to justify one of the other mode of life -- in other words, from the need for compensation.

In this analysis, Charles Strickland, the protagonist of Maugham’s The Moon and Sixpence, who abandons all to pursue his art, is NOT a great artist. That distinction belongs to those who create works that bend the ideology, but remain human while doing it.

+ + +

This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.




Monday, October 30, 2023

I Will Bear Witness, Volume 1 by Victor Klemperer

This post was originally published on a now-retired blog that I maintained from roughly 2005 to 2013. As a result, there may be some references that seem out of date. 

+ + + 

This is an actual diary of a Jewish man named Victor Klemperer who survived the Holocaust. It was interesting from a historical point of view, but a little tedious at times as it obviously focused on a lot of day-to-day details and relationships of this man’s life.

In fact, one of the most interesting things about the book is that when the Nazis come to power in 1933 and the early years, Victor purposely avoids commenting on the political events of the day, trusting the newspapers to record them, and focusing instead on his own struggles to keep his position as a professor of French literature and write his books of literary criticism.

As the years progress, however, and the Nazis tighten their grip, his diary inevitably focuses more and more on the political and social atrocities that are being committed. He does this, of course, because they begin to affect him personally, but also because it’s clear by the end of the book that he can no longer trust what the newspapers say. As he cites, after all, how many times can the Russian Army be annihilated?

Volume 2 is somewhere on my “to-read” shelf. It’ll be interesting to see what my reaction is to that and when I get to it.

+ + +

This post appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.

Monday, October 23, 2023

Far From the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy

Thomas Hardy wants you to slow down.

The sky was clear -- remarkably clear -- and the twinkling of all the stars seemed to be but throbs of one body, timed by a common pulse.  The North Star was directly in the wind’s eye, and since evening the Bear had swung round it outwardly to the east, till he was now at a right angle with the meridian. A difference of colour in the stars -- oftener read of than seen in England -- was really perceptible here. The sovereign brilliancy of Sirius pierced the eye with a steely glitter, the star called Capella was yellow, Aldebaran and Betelgueux shone with a fiery red.

To persons standing alone on a hill during a clear midnight such as this, the roll of the world eastward is almost a palpable movement. The sensation may be caused by the panoramic glide of the stars past earthly objects, which is perceptible in a few minutes of stillness, or by the better outlook upon space that a hill affords, or by the wind, or by the solitude; but whatever be its origin the impression of riding along is vivid and abiding. The poetry of motion is a phrase much in use, and to enjoy the epic form of that gratification it is necessary to stand on a hill at a small hour of the night, and, having first expanded with a sense of difference from the mass of civilized mankind, who are dreamwrapt and disregardful of all such proceedings at this time, long and quietly watch your stately progress through the stars. After such a nocturnal reconnoitre it is hard to get back to earth, and to believe that the consciousness of such majestic speeding is derived from a tiny human frame.

Slow down and pay attention to the glacial and global forces that surround you, be they among the stars in the heavens above or among small and simple folk in a particular patch of earth in southwestern England.

To-day the large side doors were thrown open towards the sun to admit a bountiful light to the immediate spot of the shearers’ operations, which was the wood threshing-floor in the centre, formed of thick oak, black with age and polished by the beating of flails for many generations, till it had grown as slippery and as rich in hue as the stateroom floors of an Elizabethan mansion. Here the shearers knelt, the sun slanting in upon their bleached shirts, tanned arms, and the polished shears they flourished, causing these to bristle with a thousand rays strong enough to blind a weak-eyed man. Beneath them a captive sheep lay panting, quickening its pants as misgiving merged in terror, till it quivered like to hot landscape outside.

This picture of to-day in its frame of four hundred years ago did not produce that marked contrast between ancient and modern which is implied by the contrast of date. In comparison with cities, Weatherbury was immutable. The citizen’s ‘Then’ is the rustic’s ‘Now’. In London, twenty or thirty years ago are old times; in Paris ten years, or five; in Weatherbury three or four score years were included in the mere present, and nothing less than a century set a mark on its face or tone. Five decades hardly modified the cut of a gaiter, the embroidery of a smock-frock, by the breadth of a hair. Ten generations failed to alter the turn of a single phrase. In these Wessex nooks the busy outsider’s ancient times are only old; his old times are still new; his present is futurity.

He wants this so much that we wrote six novels about this place -- Far From the Madding Crowd but one -- this place where nothing changes except, perhaps, the hearts of the people forced to find some semblance of their own purpose against such an ancient and antagonist backdrop. 

And in that regard, pay heed to the lesson Hardy offers in the opening pages of a young sheep dog called George’s son who, in its youthful exuberance, drove his master’s flock over a precipice where they fell to their deaths.

George’s son had done his work so thoroughly that he was considered too good a workman to live, and was, in fact, taken and tragically shot at twelve o’clock that same day -- another instance of the untoward fate which so often attends dogs and other philosophers who follow out a train of reasoning to its logical conclusion and attempt perfectly consistent conduct in a world made up so largely of compromise.

It’s dangerous here, in these places far from the madding crowd, exposed at the sharpest corners, as George’s son couldn’t understand, to the compromises life -- and the human heart that pumps and sustains it -- must always make with its environment if it is to survive.

+ + +

This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.




Monday, October 16, 2023

Why is Sex Fun? by Jared Diamond

This post was originally published on a now-retired blog that I maintained from roughly 2005 to 2013. As a result, there may be some references that seem out of date. 

+ + + 

Why do I get so frustrated with arguments based on the idea that the way animals act or the way our ancient ancestors acted dictates the way 21st century humans act?

Why do I get so frustrated with supposedly scientific documents that keep referring to the common ancestors of humans and apes as apes?

Why is it that I get so frustrated with pamphlets that try to use evolution to explain everything?

I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to answer these questions, but this book sure made me ask them all again. Biological evolution is not enough to explain everything in society, so now we have to deal with ideas like cultural and social evolution. It’s not just physical traits that are naturally selected, but customs and relationships as well. I suppose it all makes some level of sense, but when is someone going to recognize that the need to pass on our genes isn’t what drives most of modern society?

+ + +

This post appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.

Monday, October 9, 2023

The Age of Jackson by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

One of the essential questions in American democracy is who gets to vote and why. And The Age of Jackson, among other things, is a history of how that country wrestled with and tried to best answer that question in its first hundred years.

The theme begins with no less a potentate than Alexander Hamilton.

To his conviction of the essential wisdom of the wealthy classes, he added a deep skepticism as to the capacity of the masses for self-government. “All communities,” he told the men gathered in Philadelphia to ponder a constitution for the thirteen states, “divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people. … The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” The formula for government was simple. “Give, therefore, to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and, as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.”

Schlesinger describes a Hamilton who first tries to enshrine this permanent share of the government for the moneyed-class in the Constitution itself, but who, failing that, turns to a different strategy.

Then, as Secretary of the Treasury, he saw his chance and proposed a financial program which not only was a statesmanlike solution of pressing financial difficulties, but was brilliantly designed to give the business community its enduring stake in the government. He offered as immediate bait the assumption of the state debts and the funding system. He projected, as the keystone of a durable alliance, the Bank of the United States -- a profit-making institution to be privately owned and to enjoy special access to the public funds -- which, as he had earlier observed, would link “the interest of the State in an intimate connection with those of the rich individuals belonging to it.” 

The Bank of the United States. For any history in which Andrew Jackson is to figure prominently, it is important to establish the Bank of the United States, which will become Jackson’s nemesis as he seeks to expand the vote for his own political purposes. But here it is set first as the place where the representatives of American industry -- the capitalists -- will exercise their power and influence over the United States government.

And, forty years later, when Andrew Jackson vetoes the bill that would provide it with a new charter, and especially in the message Jackson pens to accompany his veto, these lines are explicitly drawn.

Its main emphasis fell, first, on the case against the Bank as unconstitutional, and then on the political argument that the Bank represented too great a centralization of power under private control. … The distinction between “the humble members of society” and “the rich and powerful” drew quick reactions from both classes. The common man through the land responded enthusiastically to his leader’s appeal. … But men who believed that the political power of the business community should increase with its wealth were deeply alarmed. When Jackson said, “It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the Government,” did he mean that the common man had the same rights as the rich and wellborn to control of the state? The Bank of the United States, according to the plan of Hamilton, would serve as the indispensable make-weight for property against the sway of numbers. Did not the veto message attack the very premises of Federalism, rejecting its axioms, destroying its keystone and rallying the groups in society bent on its annihilation?

Yes. That is generally how it was seen.

…it was becoming a battle between antagonistic philosophies of government: one declaring … that property should control the state; the other denying that property had a superior claim to governmental privileges and benefits.

Marxism Before Marx

One thing to always remember is that this battle -- between property and people, between capital and labor, between rich and poor -- is older than time itself.

Late in 1833 Samuel Clesson Allen rejected overtures to become the National Republican nominee for Governor with an able statement of his grounds for backing Jackson:

“There are two great classes in the community founded in the relation they respectively bear to the subject of its wealth. The one is the producer, and the other the accumulator. The whole products are divided between them. Has not one an interest to retain as much as it can, and the other an interest to get as much as it can? … The administration of every government, whether it is seen or not, will be guided and controlled by one or the other of these interests. … It is in the nature of things that government will always adapt its policy, be the theory of its constitution what it may, to the interests and aims of the predominating class. … I ask if labor has ever had a predominating influence in any government? … I should be glad to see an experiment of one administration, of which the interests of this class should be the guiding star. … I am encouraged in my hopes of an economical reform by the course which the President has taken in regard to the United States Bank. … What government in these days has been able to stand against the power of associated wealth? It is the real dynasty of modern states.”

The New England Association promptly endorsed Allen’s letter, and a few days later a committee of Charlestown Workingmen invited him to be their candidate for Governor.

It’s like Marxism before Marx -- manifest in something they called the Workingmen’s Party, or “Working-Menism.” What we today might call “Democratic Socialism.”

And it was Andrew Jackson and his political supporters and successors that were its standard bearers; advancing the interests and winning the support of the “workingmen” in their politics, in their legislation, and in their use of executive power.

In the meantime [President Martin] Van Buren performed by executive order the second great service of his administration. On March 31 he declared that no person should labor more than ten hours a day on federal public works, and that this should go into effect without a reduction of wages. This measure was an unmistakable declaration that the people’s government would act on behalf of the people as freely as in the past the capitalists’ government had acted on behalf of the capitalists. The Whigs promptly cried that Van Buren was infringing on the right to work and demanded that pay be reduced correspondingly. Said Horace Greely, the great alleged friend of labor: “We do not regard this measure as promising any great benefit.” The length of a day’s labor should be left to “mutual agreement. … What have Governments and Presidents to do with it?”

Sound familiar? This is the story, told again and again throughout American history. Capital versus labor. Conservatism versus populism. Tyranny of the elites versus tyranny of the masses. Can it be a coincidence that I just finished watching a restored version of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, in which the central message is “the mediator between Head and Hands must be the Heart”? Who is the Heart in America’s story? We know who the Head and the Hands are, but who is the Heart?

The Increasing Flabbiness of Conservative Thought

To those accustomed to regard the vocabulary of Federalism as absolutely descriptive of society, its disappearance meant the end of a world. Old-school conservatives exchanged lamentations, looked darkly into the future and sank into ever blacker gloom. “I think that our experiment of self government approaches to a total failure,” observed William Sullivan of Massachusetts. “My opinion is,” said Chancellor Kent, “that the admission of universal suffrage and a licentious press are incompatible with government and security to property, and that the government and character of this country are going to ruin.” In 1837 Kent, drinking the waters of Saratoga in company with gentlemen of like mind, reported that all the talk was on the “sad hopes of self-governing democracies.” “We are going to destruction,” he summed it up with a kind of mournful relish, “--all checks and balances and institutions in this country are threatened with destruction from the ascendancy of the democracy of numbers and radicalism and the horrible doctrine and influence of Jacksonism.”

When the United States started as a country, there were two political parties: the Federalist and the Republicans, sometimes called the Democratic Republicans, to distinguish it from the party that would be started later with Abraham Lincoln at the helm.

Here, in the 1830s, the Federalist party is dying, its core tenet, conservatism for the protection of private property, falling out of favor with the rising populism stoked by Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Republicans, now, pretty much called the Democrats.

The same year the aged conservative publicist Noah Webster set forth a plan to halt the disintegration and reconstruct society according to Federalist principles. While the American people, he said, were not divided into orders, like the nobility and commoners of Britain, “the distinction of rich and poor does exist, and must always exist; no human power or device can prevent it.” Would it not be sensible, then, to recognize this distinction in the structure of government? After all, “the man who has half a million of dollars in property … has a much higher interest in government, than the man who has little or no property.” Let us therefore end the popular election of Presidents, for the “great mass of people are and always must be very incompetent judges.” Let us destroy the theory that the rich exploit the poor, and that corporations are “aristocratic in their tendency”; these are among the “most pernicious doctrines that ever cursed a nation.” Let us divide the electorate into two classes, “the qualifications of one of which shall be superior age, and the possession of a certain amount of property,” and let each class choose one house of Congress. Thus the supremacy of property may be assured, and America yet saved from democracy.

This proposal was the last gasp of Federalism. The mere act of stating such a program, after eight years of General Jackson, showed how unreal Federalism had become. No politician could espouse such ideas. No populace would submit to them. Not only were they dead, but the corpses were fatal to the touch.

It is startling to read those words. And although the Federalist party did cease to exist, those words did not, since we still hear them today, said by the same kind of people and for the same reasons. For out of the ashes of the Federalist party came the Whigs, and then out of their ashes came the Republicans, and then, now, out of their ashes are coming the Trumpers.

But in that journey, the core message had to be tempered with populist rhetoric in order to find success with each new generation.

In place of the class-conflict doctrines of Federalism, conservatism began to dwell on various theories of the identity of class interests. “Never was an error more pernicious,” exclaimed Dr. Robert Hare, the eminent Philadelphia scientist, “than that of supposing that any separation could be practicable between the interests of the rich and the working classes. However selfish may be the disposition of the wealthy, they cannot benefit themselves without serving the labourer.” (The moral was plain enough: “If the labouring classes are desirous of having the prosperity of the country restored, they must sanction all measures tending to reinstate our commercial credit, without which the wealthy will be impoverished.”)

It sounds like the birth of trickle-down economics. If the poor wants the prosperity of “the country” restored, “the country” has to give more of its money to the wealthy. But this period of rhetorical subterfuge was not just the birth of that Big Lie.

Not only were the interests of the classes identical, but there were, come to think of it, no classes at all in America. … [And,] If there were no class distinctions, then there were two possibilities: everyone might be a workingman, or everyone might be a capitalist. The conservatives adopted both theories. Edward Everett unabashedly told a hard-handed audience from Charlestown in 1830 that he was a workingman as well as they; and the New-England Magazine exploded angrily at those who got up the cry of workeyism, “as if, forsooth, every man in New-England did not work.”

But the other view was in the long run more popular. As Edward Everett remarked in 1838, the paths of wealth are open to all; “the wheel of fortune is in constant operation, and the poor in one generation furnish the rich of the next.” “Every American laborer,” wrote Calvin Colton, “can stand up proudly, and say, I AM THE AMERICAN CAPITALIST, which is not a metaphor but literal truth.” And the conclusion? “The blow aimed at the moneyed capitalist strikes over on the head of the laborer, and is sure to hurt the latter more than the former.”

Yes. Protect the rich, because you, too, might be rich one day. As I continued to read this section, it began to seem very much like every populist argument in favor of property that we wrestle with today was hatched by the Whigs in the 1830s as they tried to resurrect conservatism in the trappings of liberty and freedom.

Conservatism was not content simply with pressing conciliatory alternatives to Democratic theories of class conflict. It went on the offensive itself, and when the radicals charged that conservatives favored the rule of an aristocracy, the conservatives began to answer that the Democrats favored the rule of a despot. The issue, they said, was not class tyranny but executive tyranny. The basic conflict was not between exploiters and exploited, but between the governors and the governed. The main threat to liberty came, not from a propertied class, but from a bureaucratic class. The people should rise and rebuke the pretensions, not of wealth, but of government.

Yes. Do you want some faceless bureaucrat making your health care decisions for you?

From Federalist days, furthermore, the traditional conservative position had been to distrust the legislative and aggrandize the executive. Alexander Hamilton had favored a President chosen for life; it was John Taylor of Caroline [a Democratic Republican] who set forth the arguments against executive despotism. But the actualities of the eighteen-thirties were simply that the Democrats possessed the executive; and it looked very much as if the greatest potentialities for democratic action might continue to reside in the executive rather than in the legislative. Accordingly conservatism abandoned its historic position and emerged as the champion of congressional prerogative -- a role it has tended to play ever since.

Well, I guess that depends on just who that faceless bureaucrat is. Because in the false rhetoric of this conservatism, it was not executive power, per se, that was the threat to liberty, it was the Democrats, wherever they happened to sit in the government.

It was the beginning of the intellectual bankruptcy of the conservative movement -- and it started in the 1830s, not, as the readers of Rick Perlstein may think, in the 1960s.

The metamorphosis of conservatism revived it politically but ruined it intellectually. The Federalists had thought about society in an intelligent and hard-boiled way. Their ideas had considerable relevance to the conflicts and tensions of the life around them. But the Whigs, in scuttling Federalism, replaced it by a social philosophy founded, not on ideas, but on subterfuges and sentimentalities. As Henry Adams observed, “Of all the parties that have existed in the United States, the famous Whig party was the most feeble in ideas.”

Federalism and Whiggery represented the same interests in society, the same aspirations for power, the same essential economic policies; but Federalism spoke of these interests, aspirations and policies in a tone of candor, Whiggery, of evasion. The vocabulary of Federalism had something to do with actualities; it was useful as a scheme of analysis; it aided one’s understanding of society. The vocabulary of Whiggery had nothing to do with actualities; it was useful mainly as a disguise; its object was to promote confusion rather than comprehension. Both intended to serve the business class, but the revolution in political values forced the Whigs to talk as if they intended primarily to serve the common man.

But all of this made sense to the Whigs (and to their successors in the Republican and Trumper parties) because they believed themselves to be protecting the constitution, and by extension, the country as it was originally designed and enshrined. As they saw it, they were lying in the service of truth -- a kind of growing secret truth that only they possessed and which could no longer be discussed in mixed company.

The dilemma of those who tried to maintain their private convictions and live an intellectual double life was exhibited in the case of Calvin Colton. The close friend and official biographer of Henry Clay, a Whig pamphleteer and general party handy man, Colton was a Yale graduate who left a successful career in the ministry for an even more successful career as editor and propagandist. The series of political tracts he wrote under the name of Junius present the most complete and forceful statement of all the new Whig positions -- pastoralism, class harmony, the struggle against executive despotism, the essential democracy of the Whig party. Yet, they were very far from expressing Colton’s secret views. Evidently unable to rest in silence, but unwilling to jeopardize his party, he published anonymously in London in 1839 a book called A Voice from America to England and signed By an American Gentleman.

A Voice from America was a frank, thoughtful and intelligent book. American Society, Colton argued, had manifested two opposite tendencies, “one towards the lowest level of democracy, and the other towards a spiritual supremacy.” The Constitution was “framed by men who foresaw the tendency of the public mind towards democracy, and who purposely constructed this instrument to arrest the downward progress.” Since 1788 “the great struggle in America, and that on which the fate of the Republic is suspended, is between the Constitution and the Democracy.” On one side is a conservative party which desires “a return of the people to the good sense which characterized the framers,” on the other a radical party “which threatens a dissolution and overthrow of the republic.” The advantage in this struggle lay with the radicals because of their resort to opportunistic and demagogic tactics.

There it is. We should rule -- and the Constitution is the very instrument of that rule. Those who oppose it, who wish to extend the suffrage to those we should be ruling, are the radicals, who are seeking to overthrow the republic.

I’ve gone on at great length in this section on really just one chapter in this book, titled “The Whig Counterreformation,” because it is just so damn prescient for the times we now find ourselves living in. Schlesinger ends this remarkable chapter like this:

The widening chasm between private belief and public profession took all seriousness out of Whiggery as a social philosophy, turning it into a miscellaneous collection of stock political appeals, consistent only in a steady but muted enmity to change. It may be argued, of course, that the intellectual collapse of conservatism was unimportant, since the first criterion of a political creed is its success and not its profundity. Yet it may be speculated whether the repeated failure of conservatism in this country to govern effectively may not be related to the increasing flabbiness of conservative thought. Individuals might continue thinking in Federalist terms, reserving the Whig phrases for public consumption; but such a thoroughly Machiavellian position is difficult to sustain. When a party starts out by deceiving the people, it is likely to finish by deceiving itself.

Welcome to the 2020s. Conservatism, bereft of its intellectual foundation, cannot govern effectively, because after a century or more of speaking in falsehoods, it has come to deny essential elements of reality.

The Growing Ineffectiveness of Private Conscience

Another thought-provoking chapter is the one called “Jacksonian Democracy and Industrialism,” as it also describes the birth of another perennial dilemma of the nation and its understanding of liberty: the corporation.

Economic life before the corporation, at least according to the prevalent conceptions, was more or less controlled by a feeling of mutual responsibility among the persons concerned. Economic relationships were generally personal -- between master and workman laboring together in the same shop, between buyer and seller living together in the same village. The very character of this relation produced some restraints on the tendency of the master to exploit the workman, or of the seller to cheat the buyer. Reciprocal confidence was necessarily the keynote of a system so much dominated by personal relations. Business and private affairs were governed by much the same ethical code.

A feeling of mutual responsibility. Mark that. Business and private affairs governed by the same ethical code.

But industrialism brought the growing depersonalization of economic life. With the increase in size of the labor force, the master was further and further removed from his workmen, till the head of a factory could have only the most tenuous community of feeling with his men. With the development of manufacturing and improved means of distribution, the seller lost all contact with the buyer, and feelings of responsibility to the consumer inevitably diminished. The expansion of investment tended to bring on absentee ownership, with the divorce of ownership and management; and the rise of cities enfeebled the paternal sentiments with which many capitalists had regarded their workers in towns and villages. Slowly the vital economic relationships were becoming impersonal, passing out of the control of a personal moral code. Slowly private morality and business morality grew apart. Slowly the commercial community developed a collection of devices and ceremonials which enabled businessmen to set aside the ethic which ruled their private life and personal relations.

And among these devices? These devices that allowed businessmen to separate personal and business ethics?

Of the devices the most dramatic and generally intelligible was the corporation. For a people still yearning for an economy dominated by individual responsibility, still under the spell of the Jeffersonian dream, the corporation had one outstanding characteristic: its moral irresponsibility. “Corporations have neither bodies to be kicked, nor souls to be damned,” went a favorite aphorism. Beyond good and evil, insensible to argument or appeal, they symbolized the mounting independence of the new economy from the restraints and scruples of personal life.

One thing worth noting is that among those who tout and promote personal responsibility as a cure-all for the lethargy and moral degradation of our age, the corporation, and its utter lack of personal responsibility, is seldom the target of their attacks. Curious. 

“As directors of a company,” wrote William M. Gogue, “men will sanction actions of which they would scorn to be guilty in their private capacity. A crime which would press heavily on the conscience of one man, becomes quite endurable when divided among many.” Even businessmen could not deny the accusation. “Corporations will do what individuals would not dare to do,” exclaimed Peter C. Brooks, the wealthiest man in Boston. “--Where the dishonesty is the work of all the Members, every one can say with Macbeth in the murder of Banquo ‘thou canst not say I did it.’” It is difficult to exaggerate the frequency with which the corporation was condemned as a technique for the stilling of conscience. “These artificial creatures,” said a committee of the Massachusetts legislature, “...unlike individual employers, are not chastened and restrained in their dealing with the laborers, by human sympathy and direct personal responsibility to conscience and to the bar of public opinion.”

I find it an interesting take on that old libertarian canard about the power of the government to do what is illegal for the individual. Why doesn’t the same libertarian logic apply to the corporation? Why is it permissible for the corporation to what restrains by law or morality the individual?

In 1840 Amos Kendall urged the inculcation of the belief that “there is but one code of morals for private and public affairs.” His very concern was a confession that two codes existed. The new economy had burst the bonds of the old personal morality, and the consequences were fundamental for the whole Jeffersonian tradition.

As long as individual responsibility existed in the economic system, as long as a single code more or less governed business and personal life, the Jeffersonians were right, and that government was best which governed least. But these were the moral characteristics of a society of small freeholds, as Jefferson well understood. When the economy became too complex to admit of much personal responsibility, when ownership became attenuated and liability limited and diffused, when impersonality began to dominate the system and produce irresponsibility, when, in short, economic life began to throw off the control of personal scruple, then government had to extend its function in order to preserve the ties which hold society together. The history of government intervention is thus a history of the growing ineffectiveness of private conscience as a means of social control. With private conscience powerless, the only alternative to tyranny or anarchy was the growth of the public conscience, and the natural expression of the public conscience was the democratic government.

This is the larger point. Individual liberty only works in a society where people are responsible to one another. When that responsibility is removed, as it was through the invention of the corporation, there is the tendency for the individual liberty of the corporation to morph into tyranny. In that world, there must be restraints on corporate liberty, and if those restraints can’t be effected by individuals, then it has to be by their government. 

But why are those most passionately devoted to individual liberty also most passionately opposed to government restraint? Many, probably, fail to see this point, or perhaps see it but still want to have it both ways. 

+ + +

This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.