+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books - over 15,000 to discuss (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Portrait For Posterity (/thread-4438.html)
Portrait For Posterity - Gene C - 11-29-2020 01:38 PM
by Benjamin Thomas, copyright 1947. I had some misgivings about this book. I didn't think it would be that interesting. It is, because Thomas is a good writer. Since it came highly recommended by friends here that had read it, and I had read three other books by the author, I purchased it. I think it's a good book even when I didn't know anything about many of the Lincoln biographers he discusses. Very informative.
This book looks at the writings of Josiah Holland, William Herndon, Ward Hill Lamon, Hay and Nicolay, Jesse Weik, Henry Whitney, Ida Tarbell, William Barton, Albert Beveridge, James Randall, and Carl Sandburg.
"This is the story behind Lincoln books, based on the correspondence of Lincoln biographers. These letters are personal, sometimes bitter, sometimes funny, sometimes gossipy, sometimes keen and penetrating. They were not written for us to read, but there is a reason why we should examine them.
None of us knows Lincoln first hand. Some of these people did: and the remainder knew him through long study. Our Lincoln comes to us through them.
For this reason it is important that we know what kind of people they were, what methods they used, what personal bias influenced their thought, whether they chose to tell us all they knew, whether they aspired to truth or camouflaged their subject with protective coloration.
Why were both Holland and Herndon, who took widely different views, incapable of giving us an accurate idea of Lincoln's religion? Why did Chauncey Black, Lamon's ghostwriter, make Lincoln's background so unattractive? Why did he wish to prolong the controversy over Lincoln's religion, and what did the men who knew Lincoln personally think about the merits of this controversy? Did Herndon ever give up the idea that Lincoln was illegitimate? What did Lincoln's friends think of the Ann Rutledge story; and of his revealing it?
How did the public react to the work of the various biographers? To what extent did they write to please the public? What did they say privately about each other?
Were they willing to admit mistakes, or did they have closed minds?
These are only a few of examples of the sort of questions their letters answer. In them they express their real feelings. And since most of them were colorful figures, their letters are colorful too. Behind the scenes they speculated, confided, argued ans sometimes schemed.
From these letters the theme of the book emerges as a struggle between two conflicting schools of thought regarding the way to write about Lincoln. One school would depict him as a national hero with all the attributes a national hero was supposed to have. The other school thought he should be represented as he was. At first, public opinion was solidly behind the first view. Gradually, it shifted. Now people want the facts. Yet even those who honestly tried to show Lincoln as he was, had a feeling of failure. There was something about the man the most probing technique could not always penetrate." (condensed from the book preface)
What I found interesting is Thomas will use much of what he learned in writing this book into his own biography of Lincoln, 5 years later. Several of us on the forum believe it is one of, if not the best, single volume biography of Lincoln.
Copies aren't that easy to find, but with patience and good luck, you can find one.
I purchased my copy from Books On the Square, in very good condition , for $18.
Copies are available on Amazon and ABE Books.
https://www.amazon.com/Portrait-Posterity-Lincoln-His-Biographers/dp/B001G6WN70/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=benjamin+thomas+portrait+for+posterity&qid=1606674282&sr=8-2
RE: Portrait For Posterity - Rob Wick - 11-29-2020 02:49 PM
Gene,
I completely agree with you that Thomas's book is well worth the effort. He did cause some eyebrows to be raised when he allowed Sandburg to read over his chapter before he published it, although Sandburg did not ask Thomas to change anything.
I personally have some criticisms of Thomas. In the opening essay for my (alleged) book on Tarbell's study of Lincoln, I wrote about Thomas's interpretation of Tarbell. This is very long, but I would like to share with everyone here what I have written so far.
Benjamin P. Thomas took the stage of Allegheny College’s Playshop Theater on a frigid February evening in 1948 full of warm enthusiasm. Although some in his audience might have felt otherwise, in Thomas’s mind he had not come to bury Ida M. Tarbell, but rather to praise her. Earlier in the day, Thomas spent time in her legacy, the school’s Lincoln Room, informally discussing with students the contributions Tarbell had made to the study of the 16th president. Before his 8:15 p.m. formal address, Thomas took time to be interviewed in the late afternoon by Meadville’s first radio station, WMGW, which had just started broadcasting the year before. The college newspaper The Campus assured its readers that Thomas would be “glad to answer questions about Ida Tarbell.”
Thomas’s formal speech further marked his attempt to classify Tarbell’s place in the pantheon of Lincoln biographers that he had begun in 1947 with the publication of Portrait for Posterity. In this he classified Tarbell as a transitory figure between those he termed as “idealists” and “realists.” While laudatory of Tarbell’s determination and desire to paint a full portrait of Lincoln, Thomas nonetheless found severe shortcomings in her work. Despite his obvious admiration for the woman whom Carl Sandburg once referred to (to Thomas, no less) as “that tall, keen gracious woman” Thomas was too much the cold, impartial scholar to leave his audience with only laudatory plaudits of his subject.
Thomas asked rhetorically if Tarbell was qualified to undertake the study of Lincoln. In doing so, however, he never defined exactly what qualifications were required, speaking only in generalities. “Did she have the patience and persistence required of one who does worthwhile research? Was there any reason to think she could understand or interpret Lincoln better than those who had actually known him? Could she draw meaning from things that were meaningless or unintelligible to them?” Then, with some hint of irony, Thomas asked whether Tarbell, even in her transitory position among Lincoln biographers, had anything in common with Lincoln, which had been the hallmark of the preceding reminiscent school of Lincoln biographers who had either known him or were contemporaries.
Thomas couldn’t resist alluding on several occasions to Tarbell’s sex. Noting that Tarbell was “a career woman in an age when such women were rare” Thomas found it mysterious how, as a student at Allegheny, Tarbell escaped marriage. He sighed that as a biographer Tarbell was “never able to suppress the womanly romanticism of her fervent feminine nature” noting that Tarbell had long defended the Ann Rutledge story, guided, perhaps by her “feminine intuition that it was true.” Thomas was pleased, however, that “her romanticism never tempted her into sickly sentimentality.”
While our modern ears might cringe at such blatant examples of paternalism and sexism, Tarbell likely would have looked past Thomas’s words and accepted his praise. After all, in her 86 years, she had heard much worse from men who made no pretense of being supportive.
Thomas’s most critical conclusion came from his inability to define her work as scholarship, as he understood the term. “Will Miss Tarbell take rank as one of the great Lincoln scholars of all time?” Thomas asked those present that evening. “I am afraid I must conclude that she will not.” In Thomas’s opinion, Tarbell lacked the “cold impartiality of the scholar” adding that Tarbell was “too warm, too human, too graciously impulsive to take permanent rank as a great scholar.”
Such a description wasn’t mean to denigrate Tarbell’s work, Thomas insisted. “Primarily Miss Tarbell was a popularizer and with the passing years her books are becoming outmoded.” Tarbell ranked high as an interpreter, which Thomas, defined, as “one who aids others to understanding. That was her role.” Tarbell’s femininity again was raising its head. After all, even Tarbell had noted that the main role of woman was to serve as an aid to understanding, for both children and adults. Noting that biographical understanding of Lincoln came only through the collective work of succeeding generations, Thomas added that as an interpreter of Lincoln her “work is incorporated in [Lincoln biography] for all time, not readily recognizable as hers perhaps, but there, nevertheless, helping to hold it together, contributing to its stability.”
Forget, for a moment, the audacity of Thomas’s question. As Michael Kammen has noted, one of the boldest features of the academic practitioners of American history is their “penchant for introspection.” From the first historical seminar in the mid-19th century to today, those who labored in what Paul Angle once referred to as “the graves of academe” have made it a point to constantly ask what exactly defines history and who is qualified to interpret it. Does an advanced degree provide a critic an intellectual or moral right to determine if another’s work can be considered scholarly? By what formal decree does this action come? It should say something that such intellectual naval-gazing rarely happens in the writings of non-academic historians. The often sought after but seemingly mythical “intelligent lay reader” does so even less, although one could make a case that when said reader spends money on popular histories instead of monographs, that too is a vote.
Although he shared an academic background, throughout his life Thomas was highly supportive of popularizers, even allowing Carl Sandburg the opportunity to read his chapter in Portrait for Posterity before it was published. Thomas wasn’t stuck in his ivory tower throwing literary lightning bolts at those he deemed unworthy of Clio’s attention. He sincerely admired Tarbell and her contribution to Lincoln historiography.
Yet, Thomas, like everyone before or after him, was a slave to his own times and his methodological approach to history and biography.
If Thomas’s analysis, cold and impartial as it was, had any flaws, it was that it was quite limited in that he failed to follow the path of Tarbell’s intellectual journey from beginning to end. Even in a short, seemingly laudatory, speech it would seem incumbent on a speaker who asks if Tarbell can be considered a scholar and passes judgement on her work to dig deeper into what drove an author toward a specific goal and how he or she arrived.
Tarbell’s early love of the natural sciences is mentioned but Thomas failed to correlate that with the emerging view at the turn of the 19th century that history was also a science. Tarbell’s association with the Chautauqua movement was highlighted, but Thomas didn’t explore how that movement corresponded with the teachings of the father of modern American historiography, Herbert Baxter Adams and his influence both personally and professionally on Tarbell. He mentioned in passing Tarbell’s appreciation of the French medievalist Charles Seignobos, but never explored in any detail just what she learned from her deep friendship with Seignobos or as a student studying historiography and biography at the Sorbonne or the College de France. Nowhere in his speech did he mention Tarbell’s early association with the American Historical Association and how academics and non-academics alike were welcomed into the preeminent historical organization of the country until the non-academics were marginalized to the point of being banned and forgotten. It is ironic given Thomas’s standing as a biographer of Lincoln that one gets a whiff of the academic historian’s disdain for biographical writers in his interpretation of Tarbell’s words.
Thomas’s definition of “scholar” obviously came from his own understanding of the term, based, as it was, on his own experience, beliefs and the time in which he lived. He erred, however, in his assumption that the definition of “scholar” and “scholarship,” at least as it applied to the historian, had been the same from the time Tarbell began her study of Lincoln to the time he spoke. Missing from his interpretative analysis of Tarbell was the possibility that in a different era she could have been, and in reality was, considered as much of a scholar as any biographer or historian, regardless of a lack of professional affiliation. Thomas failed to allow for the possibility that Tarbell had never abandoned the ideal of scholarship, but rather that ideal had been snatched from her due to the changing nature and development of American historiography.
Best
Rob
RE: Portrait For Posterity - RJNorton - 11-29-2020 07:59 PM
Wonderful posts, Gene and Rob. I am fortunate to own a copy that was published in 1947. It's still got the brownish jacket, and the cost then was $3.00.
RE: Portrait For Posterity - Amy L. - 12-02-2020 06:35 AM
I see this book is #147 on the 2015 "Essential Lincoln Book Shelf", from https://alincolnbookshop.com/
(Does anyone else use their lists to help sift through all the recommended reading?)
RE: Portrait For Posterity - Gene C - 12-02-2020 08:01 AM
I look through the bibliography and source notes of books I have enjoyed reading.
I also use the search engine of Amazon, Internet Archive and ABE Books to find and read reviews of an authors other books.
People on this forum are an excellent source. I've purchased several books (like this one) based upon the recommended of someone on the forum.
In addition, the source you have referred to is a good place to look.
RE: Portrait For Posterity - Rob Wick - 12-02-2020 03:22 PM
As of my last count I think I have all but three of the books on the list. One, the book by Adin Baber, I actually had to copy from a library because people wanted too much for it (if it could be found).
Best
Rob