AdamSmith

Comedìa and Truth adding a new technique of verisimilitude to his roster, Dante begins Inferno 21 with the tantalizing news that he omits information from his account of Hell, and that there is more to his possible world than he chooses to share: “altro parlando / che la mia comedìa cantar non cura” (talking of things my Comedy is not / concerned to sing [Inf. 21.1-2]) the rough “tavern humor” and plebeian lexicon adds to the narrative variatio and innovation of lower Hell here begins a play in four acts, which unfolds from Inferno 21 to Inferno 23: a small society comes into focus, with a complex and stratified social order this canto offers a major installment in the ongoing Virgilio narrative Malacoda’s “truthful lie” vs. Dante’s “lying truth” (the phrases are based on “ver c’ha faccia di menzogna” from Inf. 16.124) [1] The first tercet of Inferno 21 features the Commedia’s second and last use of the noun — “comedìa” — that gave the poem its title: Così di ponte in ponte, altro parlando che la mia comedìa cantar non cura, venimmo . . . (Inf. 21.1-3) We came along from one bridge to another, talking of things my Comedy is not concerned to sing . . . [2] In this tercet Dante lets us know that, although comedìa tells truth, it does not tell everything: it tells only what has been deemed necessary and important for its readers. Dante here lets us know that he has curated his account of his voyage, having omitted many things that he saw but chooses not to relate. [3] By claiming to omit some of what he saw, Dante adds to his text’s quotient of realism. He gives life to the text by casually insisting on the life outside the text. [4] This is one of the many remarkably effective subliminal techniques for garnering verisimilitude of which the Commedia is full. This particular technique, that of putting emphasis on what he is not going to tell us, goes back to Inferno 4, where Dante spells out the power of the poet to withhold information. After the pilgrim joins the bella scola of classical poets and is welcomed as “sixth among such wisdom” (Inf. 4.102), Dante tells us that the group of poets discussed many things, but he does not specify what they were; in fact, he actively omits that information. Rather, he concocts a rather aggressive formula to emphasize the value of such omission, saying that they spoke of matters of which it is as beautiful now to be silent as it was then beautiful to speak: “parlando cose che ’l tacere è bello, / sì com’ era ’l parlar colà dov’ era” (talking of things about which silence here / is just as seemly as our speech was there [Inf. 4.104-5]). [5] The two travelers have left behind the twisted forms of the diviners in the fourth bolgia. In the second tercet of Inferno 21 they pause at the top of the arched bridge to look down into the next “fessura” — cleft or ditch (4) — which is “mirabilmente oscura” (wonderfully dark [Inf. 21.6]). The reason for the darkness of the fifth bolgia will turn out to be that it is filled with boiling pitch of the sort used to mend ships. All this is explained by way of a famous and detailed comparison between the pitch that is prepared during the winter by the Venetians in their arsenal — “Quale ne l’arzanà de’ Viniziani” (As in the Venetian arsenal [Inf. 21.7]) — and the material prepared in the fifth bolgia, “not by fire, but by the art of God”: “non per foco, ma per divin’ arte” (Inf. 21.16). [6] The fifth bolgia of the ten bolge of the circle of fraud holds the barattieri, as specified in Inferno 21.41: “ogn’uom v’è barattier” (there, everyone’s a grafter). Baratteria is a medieval term no longer in use, which signifies fraud committed to obtain illicit gain to the detriment of one’s community; such fraud includes selling influence, taking bribes and kickbacks, and in general corrupting public office and civic life. There is an archaic use of “barratry” in English with a similar, but more localized meaning: fraud or gross negligence of a ship’s master or crew at the expense of its owners or users. For Dante, baratteria is the corruption of the state as simony is the corruption of the Church. Since the term “barratry” is well nigh meaningless in English, I will use the Italian or refer to graft or public corruption. [7] As a technical and legal matter, baratteria was the crime typically used in Dante’s day as the juridical pretext of those newly come to power for exiling their adversaries. As such it was leveled against Dante and other “Bianchi” (the White party, to which Dante belonged) when the “Neri” (the Blacks) came to power. See Inferno 6 and Inferno 10 for the struggles between the two factions and the ultimate wresting of power from the Bianchi by the Neri, resulting in Dante’s exile. It must have been particularly galling for one such as Dante, deeply committed to the study of ethics and to living an ethical life, to find himself formally accused of baratteria. [8] Baratteria is the corruption of civic governance, and the result is the corruption of the social order. Hence, inthe canti devoted to graft, Dante will create the contours of a small society that is deeply corrupted by mutual and absolute lack of trust. [9] The treatment of the fifth bolgia is unusually extended (perhaps, some have speculated, because of the autobiographical importance of baratteriaas the crime used to justify Dante’s exile). It embraces roughly two and one-third canti: canto 21, canto 22, and the first 57 verses of canto 23. In order to parse the drama’s linear unfolding, I have divided the drama into four narrative blocks or “acts”. If, on the other hand, we consider the narrative materia of this bolgia not as it unfolds in linear time, but structurally, we see that the fifth bolgia boasts two story-arcs, a primary story-arc that extends over the whole bolgia and a secondary story-arc that is inserted into the first: Inferno 21.4 – Inferno 23.57: the primary story-arc recounts what happens between Dante and Virgilio and the devils who are the guardians of this bolgia; this story-arc extends all the way from the beginning of Inferno 21 to Inferno 23.57. Inferno 22.31 – Inferno 22.151: the secondary story-arc is confined to canto 22 and is the story of what happens between a particular sinner and the devils who capture him; this story-arc begins in Inferno 22.31 and concludes at the end of the canto 22. [10] We saw this same narrative procedure of a briefer story-arc embedded within a longer one when Dante and Virgilio last encountered devils, at the gates of Dis (Inferno 8-9). There the encounter with Filippo Argenti (Inferno 8) is embedded within the story of the devils’ recalcitrance and unwillingness to open the gate. The opposition of the devils is dealt with by the arrival of the angelic messenger who sweeps everything out of his way. [11] I will present the events of this bolgiaas a “play in 4 acts” that unfolds over two and one-third canti. The drama involves both sinners and devils; the devils are the guardians of this bolgia, whose job it is to fork the sinners and stick them back under the boiling pitch whenever they try to come up for relief. A devil is described in verses 29-33, where we learn that he is black and fierce, with wings spread wide: “con l’ali aperte e sovra i piè leggero!” (His wings were open and his feet were lithe[Inf. 21.33]). [12] As the above description of a devil suggests, this is the bolgia that conforms most explicitly to the popular medieval conception of Hell. [13] Those of you who have read the Decameron can also think of the parallels between the story-line of these canti and the many novelle in which we see the theme of the “beffator beffato”: the trickster who is tricked in turn by someone even cleverer than he. The beffa or deceitful trick is a staple of the novella tradition: in Boccaccio’s hands it is a form of trickery and deceit that has an active and physical component, that is not simply verbal deceit. The beffa will play a major role in this bolgia, particularly in canto 22. [14] Everyone in this bolgia — including both grafter-prisoners and devil-guards — is tricky and deceitful, and everyone is trying to deceive everyone else. This is Dante’s representation of civic governance. [15] Military themes and lexicon are featured in Inferno 21 and 22. These themes have the effect of focusing on the state and its citizenry and the weighty responsibilities of those who govern, the very responsibilities that are abused by the grafters. The simile of the Venetian arsenal at the beginning of Inferno 21 emphasizes civic industry and collaboration. Likewise, the autobiographical reference to the battle of Caprona in Inferno 21.95 serves to remind us of Dante’s own civic engagement: as a citizen of Florence he was also perforce a member of the militia and had the responsibility to take part in battle, a responsibility that he fulfilled. Act 1. Inferno 21, verses 4-57 [16] After the introductory sequence describing the features of the fifth bolgia, Dante begins the action with the arrival of a devil. The first devil calls out to his fellow devils, “O Malebranche” (37), thus giving us for the first time an appellation for the diabolic denizens of this realm. We are in a place that, as we learned in Inferno 18, is “detto Malebolge” (called Malebolge [Inf. 18.1]); we recall that Malebolge means “evil ditches”. We now learn that the diabolic guradians of this evil ditch are the “Malebranche” (Inf. 21.37) or “evil claws”; we will learn further on that their leader is named “Malacoda” (Inf. 21.76) or “evil tail”. [17] The first unidentified devil carries an “anziano” (Inf. 21.38): a magistrate, holder of public office, the equivalent of prior in Florence. Through the reference to the local cult of “Santa Zita” (Inf. 21.38) it is stipulated that this magistrate is from Lucca. The focus on Lucca, a Tuscan city, highlights the theme of civic graft as part of the urban fabric in city-states like Lucca and Florence. [18] As mentioned above, this bolgia conforms to the popular conception of Hell. Along with its popular infernal iconography of devils armed with prongs and hooks, it also features popular diction and humor. Carrying the sinners by the ankles, slung over their shoulders in the way that butchers carry carcasses (34-36), the devils are compared to cooks who order their scullery-urchins to force the meat in the pot back down under the broth, so that it does not float: Non altrimenti i cuoci a’ lor vassalli fanno attuffare in mezzo la caldai la carne con li uncin, perché non galli. (Inf. 21.55-57) The demons did the same as any cook who has his urchins force the meat with hooks deep down into the pot, that it not float. [19] In the precision of “cuoci” and their “vassalli” we see an emblem of the stratified social order that emerges from these canti. If we begin to form in our minds the image of a huge kitchen in a castle, populated by cooks and scullery-urchins and enormous pots of boiling broth, that image will be in keeping with the sinner whom we meet in the next canto. The action of Inferno 22 revolves around a petty embezzler who lived on the seedy fringes of life in the castle of Thibaut II. [20] Dante will come back to this image of meat floating in a pot of boiling broth at the end of Inferno 21, where the sinners are called “li lessi dolenti” (the sorrowful boiled ones [Inf. 21.135]). The adjective lesso conjures boiled meat, as in the current usage “carne lessa” or meat that has been cooked in boiling water. Act 2. Inferno 21, verses 58-end, and Inferno 22, verses 1-30 [21] Now begin the interactions and negotiations between Dante, Virgilio, and a troop of devils bearing evocative names and led by Malacoda. For the first time in their journey together Virgilio orders Dante to hide. At the same time that he demonstrates concern, he attempts to be reassuring. He tells his charge not to fear, for he knows how to handle devils, having dealt with them on a previous occasion: e per nulla offension che mi sia fatta, non temer tu, ch’i’ ho le cose conte, perch’ altra volta fui a tal baratta. (Inf. 21.61-63) No matter what offense they offer me, don’t be afraid; I know how these things go— I’ve had to face such fracases before. [22] Virgilio’s reminder that he has been here before, intended to reassure, is not very reassuring when we consider the two possible referents for “altra volta” in verse 63. The phrase refers to the “other”, or previous, occasion on which Virgilio was faced with such a fracas. The “altra volta” can refer to the time, long before this journey, when Virgilio went to the pit of Hell conjured by the sorceress Erichtho (see Inferno 9), or it can refer to the time, within the parameters of this journey, when he attempted to negotiate with the devils at the gate of Dis (see Inferno 8 and 9). The first occasion is tainted because of its association with black magic and coercion by the forces of evil. The second occasion too is less than reassuring because Virgilio’s negotiations with the devils at the gate of Dis did not result in success. [23] We know that the pilgrim will not find a reminder of the events at the gate of Dis reassuring because he has already stated clearly, to Virgilio, that he knows his guide failed on that occasion. In Inferno 14 the pilgrim tellingly addresses his guide as “you who can defeat / all things except for those tenacious demons / who tried to block us at the entryway”: [24] Despite his previous failure, and despite the pilgrim’s obvious awareness of that failure, Virgilio remains touchingly confident in his abilities. And yet he is facing a greater challenge than the one he faced in Inferno 8-9. [25] At the gate of Dis Virgilio negotiates with devils who remain anonymous. They are truculent and defiant. They sing in only one key: that of resistance and opposition. Effectively, what they communicate is: “no, you may not pass, we are committed to blocking your passage”. [26] Malacoda, an individualized devil with a name and personality, has many more arrows in his quiver. Instead of being overtly truculent and overtly defiant, he is suavely charming and apparently helpful. In other words, Malacoda is a master of deceit. [27] With the addition of much more color and detail, and with a baroque and burlesque unfolding of diabolic names that correspond to varying diabolic personalities — Malacoda, Alichino, Calcabrina, Cagnazzo, Barbariccia, Libicocco, Draghignazzo, Ciriatto, Graffiacane, Farfarello, Rubicante —, the scene from Inferno 8 is now reprised and modulated, replayed not in the key of defiance but in the key of malice and deceit. [28] Virgilio explains to Malacoda that his mission as guide to someone — an unspecified someone, for Dante is still in hiding — through the infernal regions is willed by God. Malacoda replies with a resignation that is likely feigned but that immediately results in Virgilio summoning Dante from his hiding place. The suggestion is that Virgilio is too trusting in the power of reason. [29] The narrator compares the fear that he feels on coming forth from hiding to the fear of the conquered Pisan soldiers whom he personally saw exit the castle of Caprona after the battle of August 1289. A pact was struck at Caprona, whereby the Pisans, having surrendered, would be allowed to exit the castle with guarantee of safe-passage. Similarly, a pact has been struck here, in the fith bolgia, between Virgilio and Malacoda. But Dante-pilgrim fears that the pact cannot be trusted, and of course he is right. [30] Throughout this drawn-out encounter with devils, the pilgrim is not as trusting as his guide. The pilgrim resists Malacoda’s offer of an escort and continues to consider the devils hostile in verses 127-32. Virgilio is wrong when he states categorically toward the canto’s end (verses 133-5) that Dante has nothing to fear. Reasonable Virgilio is deceived by Malacoda’s reasonable demeanor. [31] Malacoda weaves truth with falsehood into a perfectly designed trap, giving instructions and information that seem straightforward and helpful to Virgilio but that his troops can decode as deceitful and hostile. We can parse Malacoda’s speech, labeling its sections true or false. In this way we can see how cleverly the devil weaves falsehoods with truths to create a fabric of deceit: Verses 106-8: “Più oltre andar per questo / iscoglio non si può, però che giace / tutto spezzato al fondo l’arco sesto” (You can go no farther / on this ridge, because the sixth bridge / lies smashed to bits at the bottom there) TRUE Verses 109-11: “E se l’andare avante pur vi piace, / andatevene su per questa grotta; / presso è un altro scoglio che via face” (Yet if you two still want to go ahead, / move up and walk along this rocky edge; / nearby, another ridge will form a path) FALSE Verses 112-14: “Ier, più oltre cinqu’ ore che quest’otta, / mille dugento con sessanta sei / anni compié che qui la via fu rotta” (Five hours from this hour yesterday, / one thousand and two hundred sixty-six / years passed since that roadway was shattered here) TRUE [32] More succinctly, Malacoda’s three declarations can be labeled thus: It is TRUE that the way forward is obstructed because the sixth bridge lies smashed to bits on the floor of Hell. It is FALSE that they will eventually find an unbroken bridge over the bolgia. It is TRUE that the shattering of the bridge occurred precisely 1266 years ago (plus one day minus five hours). [33] The falsehood of an intact bridge that the travelers will access further on is successfully packaged as truth, by being sandwiched between the truthful statements on either side of it. [34] In verses 115-26 Malacoda orders his troop to set out on a reconnaissance mission; they are to check on sinners who have exited the pitch and simultaneously to accompany the travelers to the next bridge. He concludes with a clear signal that the travelers are fair game, for they are to be kept safe until they arrive at the next intact crossing-point: “costor sian salvi infino a l’altro scheggio / che tutto intero va sovra le tane” (keep these two safe and sound till the next ridge / that rises without break across the dens [Inf. 21.125-26]). [35] However, there is no bridge that crosses over the next bolgia intact — “tutto intero” (all whole [Inf. 21.126]) — since all the bridges over the sixth bolgia were shattered at the same time. Hence Malacoda’s instruction to his fellow-devils to guide Dante and Virgilio and to keep them safe until (“infino a”) they reach the next intact bridge is a covert instruction to attack them. Malacoda’s safe-passage is a fraud. [36] Malacoda correctly informs the travelers that the broken bridge was shattered 1266 years ago (plus one day minus five hours), in other words, he correctly informs them that the bridge fell during the earthquake that accompanied Christ’s Crucifixion. However, he omits the information that at that time all the bridges over the sixth bolgia crumbled and fell in ruins to the floor of Hell. There is thus no intact bridge over the sixth bolgia. [37] The devil embeds his lie about the bridges over the sixth bolgia of Malebolge into his truthful account of the earthquake that accompanied the Crucifixion. The larger truth to which he attaches his falsehood makes his lie compelling and assures the success of his deceit. Malacoda’s account is so truthful, so “historical,” that he dates Dante’s journey by telling us the precise number of years that have passed since Christ harrowed Hell and so caused the infernal “ruine” to be formed (for the ruine, see Inferno 12): Ier, più oltre cinqu’ore che quest’otta, mille dugento con sessanta sei anni compié che qui la via fu rotta. (Inf. 21.112-114) Five hours from this hour yesterday, one thousand and two hundred sixty-six years passed since that roadway was shattered here. [38] The earthquake occurred in the year 34 CE at noon of Good Friday. It is now 1266 years plus one day minus 5 hours later: in other words, it is now 7 AM of Holy Saturday in the year 1300. In order to deceive Virgilio and Dante, Malacoda offers true and precise information with which we can date the pilgrim’s journey. Indeed, Malacoda’s reference is so important that all our critical discussions as to precise dates and times within the Divine Comedy begin from the information that Malacoda provides us in Inferno 21. [39] Malacoda dates Dante’s journey. He does so by stipulating the precise amount of time that has elapsed — in years, days, and even hours — since the Crucifixion. [40] Malacoda is able to deceive Virgilio because he accompanies his lie with a great truth: the date of the death of Christ. Moreover, Dante fashions a backstory that is chronologically very subtle and precise. Malacoda is able to deceive Virgilio about the state of the bridges over this bolgia because the Roman poet does not know that the bridges have fallen: when he was previously here, the bridges were still intact. In other words, Virgilio’s first trip to lower Hell antedates the earthquake caused by Christ’s Harrowing of Hell; it antedates the earthquake that caused these bridges to crumble and the other ruine to form. Virgilio indeed tells us as much in Inferno 12. With respect to the ruina that marks the entrance to the seventh circle, Virgilio informs the pilgrim that the great landslide was not present when he journeyed this way before: “Or vo’ che sappi che l’altra fïata / ch’i’ discesi qua giù nel basso inferno, / questa roccia non era ancor cascata” [Now I would have you know: the other time / that I descended into lower Hell, / this mass of boulders had not yet collapsed [Inf. 12.34-6]). [41] Let us reconstruct the chronology. We have just learned from Malacoda that the bridges over the sixth bolgia fell as a result of the Harrowing of Hell. In Inferno 9, Virgilio tells Dante that he was newly stripped of his flesh — newly dead — when Erichtho summoned him: “Di poco era di me la carne nuda” (My flesh had not been long stripped off [Inf. 9.25]). Therefore, Erichtho caused Virgilio to journey to lower Hell in the window of 54 years that transpired between the Latin poet’s death in 19 BCE and Christ’s arrival in Limbo in 34 CE. The fashioning of so precise a backstory adds psychological density and realism to Dante’s Virgilio-narrative. [42] Malacoda’s truthful lie — in effect, a falsehood that appears true — is the precise inverse of comedìa, a truth that appears false. When Dante first uses the term comedìa in the context of Geryon’s arrival in the final verses of Inferno 16, he defines it as a “truth that has the face of a lie”: “ver c’ha faccia di menzogna” (Inf.16.124). In other words, Dante defines comedìa as a truth that may at times appear false: “a comedia is that truth which has the appearance of a lie but which is nonetheless always a truth” (Dante’s Poets, p. 214). [43] Inferno 21 ends with a burlesque treatment of military behavior as practiced by devils in Hell and with a famous instance of the low “tavern humor” that characterizes this bolgia. The devils signal to their leader that they have understood his instructions by pressing their tongues between their teeth. He in turn signals them to depart on their mission with a trumpet blast from his ass: ma prima avea ciascun la lingua stretta coi denti, verso lor duca, per cenno; ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta. (Inf. 21.137-39) But first each pressed his tongue between his teeth as signal for their leader. And he had made a trumpet of his ass. [44] A comedìa necessarily embraces and meditates on all forms of semiosis, because it embraces and meditates on all forms of reality. https://digitaldante.columbia.edu/dante/divine-comedy/inferno/inferno-21/

Very cool. One’s 8-inch amateur telescope will be dragged out of the basement to observe. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jupiter-saturn-form-rare-double-204700194.html

But now I do get some confidence in Kavanaugh’s independence: [i]During Tuesday's Supreme Court hearings, which are part of a third attempt by Republican states to overturn the health care law, Roberts echoed earlier comments from his colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who suggested that, under court precedent, cutting out the individual mandate while leaving the rest of the massive bill intact was "straightforward." (Kavanaugh repeated the same argument later, as well.)[/i] https://www.yahoo.com/news/chief-justice-roberts-striking-down-164800063.html?guccounter=2&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYm95dG95LmNvbS90b3BpYy8zMjY3OC1jaGllZi1qdXN0aWNlLXJvYmVydHMtc3RyaWtpbmctZG93bi1vYmFtYWNhcmUtbm90LW91ci1qb2IvP3RhYj1jb21tZW50cw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEKFujn3JkoPIP5u4k_oy99CQryTHzfezXBV1opicr0PiLMF1DpcLRrO7jEeQZNwJm9PZw5OcXQusWxarxHSiFjm3XmMhA7oAWqYhH4Ps0vM8ZNDdM0NwvyrS8lTmj9u-DfEMAhAyV8zfWbMFVOwJtQebWquFSIrVJw_Owil72qk

I never liked the subways when I lived there. I took a taxi, or just walked. Even one time, when it was rush hour & no taxis available, on foot from my apt in Hell’s Kitchen to a hotel in Upper East Side. Yes

American Literature: Gay Male, Post-Stonewall https://web.archive.org/web/20060715102454/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/am_lit3_gay_post_stonewall.html

Hollinghurst is a genius. Another of course is Edmund White. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/books/edmund-white-a-saint-from-texas.amp.html%3f0p19G=0232 And, probably my favorite, Andrew Holleran. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Holleran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancer_from_the_Dance

Interesting. From WaPo; the link will not copy for some reason. Frederick Douglass delivered a Lincoln reality check at Emancipation Memorial unveiling By DeNeen L. Brown June 27, 2020 at 7:30 AM EDT On April 14, 1876, Frederick Douglass arrived at the unveiling ceremony for the Emancipation Memorial, the statue now under attack by some protesters in Washington’s Lincoln Park. A crowd of 25,000, many of them African American, had gathered to hear Douglass speak on the 11th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. Support our journalism. Subscribe today. By all accounts, Douglass, the great orator and abolitionist, was not pleased with the monument, which depicted Lincoln holding a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation while towering over a kneeling black man who had broken his chains. Douglass, who commanded audiences across the world with his dignified poise and intellect, extended polite platitudes in the speech about the beauty of the monument, which had been designed and sculpted by Thomas Ball and had been financed mostly by donations from formerly enslaved people. Then Douglass, a tall man with a nearly white crown of hair, launched into a 32-minute rapid-fire discourse on the conflicted legacy of Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, as the country moved into the third year of the Civil War. Lincoln’s proclamation had declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.” As great as the proclamation was, Douglass explained, Lincoln had issued the document of freedom reluctantly. Lincoln’s motivation was to save the union. According to the Library of Congress, in response to a challenge in the New York Tribune by the journalist Horace Greeley that he take a clear stance on abolition, Lincoln had provided a response stating, “If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” In his speech at the 1876 statue unveiling, Douglass exposed Lincoln’s legacy. “Truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory,” Douglass said, “Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.” Slave-owning presidents become targets of protesters Douglass, who had met Lincoln on several occasions at the White House, said that Lincoln was not a president for black people and that Lincoln’s motivation above all was to save the union, even if it meant keeping black people in bondage. “He was preeminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men,” Douglass said, according to the speech stored at the Library of Congress. “He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.” Frederick Douglass in 1876. (George Kendall Warren/National Portrait Gallery/Smithsonian Institution/Reuters) More than 144 years later, the controversy surrounding Lincoln’s legacy and the “Emancipation Monument” has erupted again. This week, protesters demanded the removal of the monument, which is also called the Freedmen’s Monument. Police built barriers around the monument to protect it after some protesters threatened to tear it down. On Thursday, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) announced that the city should debate the removal of the statue, and “not have a mob decide they want to pull it down.” Arguments break out by statue of Abraham Lincoln in D.C. park Historians say the threats offer an opportunity to explain Lincoln’s complicated legacy to general audiences that know only the simplistic view of Lincoln as the president who freed the slaves. C.R. Gibbs, a historian and author of “Black, Copper & Bright: The District of Columbia’s Black Civil War Regiment,”explained that the kneeling slave depicted in the Emancipation Monument was most likely inspired by an old abolitionist image used to fight for freedom for enslaved black people. “It was probable that the white sculptor was influenced by the poster with the words, ‘Am I Not a Man and Brother’ over a kneeling slave,” Gibbs said. At the time of the monument’s commissioning, Harriet Hosmer, who was considered one of the first female professional sculptors, designed an alternative sculpture that would have depicted several figures, including a black Union soldier. “Some scholars and historians believe that would have been too revolutionary,” Gibbs said, “and perhaps too expensive. But it was an opportunity missed.” Douglass used his speech at the unveiling, Gibbs said, "to clean up and clarify exactly what Lincoln’s contributions were with respect to black people.” “For black people, Lincoln was neither our man nor our model,” Gibbs said, echoing Douglass. In his speech, Gibbs said, Douglass told the crowd that Lincoln “was important in the struggle and we honor that. But Douglass wanted Lincoln to emerge from the myth.” In August 1862, Lincoln told a group of black leaders during a visit to the White House that they were to blame for the Civil War. “He said, ‘But for your presence amongst us, there would be no war.’ ” “Basically, he was saying, ‘you all are the cause of the war,’ ” Gibbs said. “Lincoln had said he was not an abolitionist. When we say Lincoln freed the slaves, we leave out the agency and sacrifice of U.S. colored troops and those in the Navy who fought and died for this freedom.” Frederick Douglass needed to see Lincoln. Would the president meet with a former slave? According to the Library of Congress, “Lincoln honored Douglass with three invitations to the White House, including an invitation to Lincoln’s second inauguration. During his first visit, Douglass petitioned Lincoln to pay African American Union soldiers as much as their white counterparts. Lincoln answered that African American soldiers would get their fair wages when the time was right, which frustrated Douglass, although he came to understand Lincoln’s reasoning.” In this image from the U.S. Library of Congress, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln sits for a portrait February 5, 1865. (Alexander Gardner/U.S. Library of Congress via Getty Images) In the speech at the unveiling of the monument, Douglass gives the audience an idea of how complicated his relationship with Lincoln was. “The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the republic,” Douglass said. “We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed.” Douglass criticized Lincoln as not moving fast enough to free thousands of enslaved black people: Douglass also said that Lincoln’s slow pace was frustrating and bewildering. In short, Douglass said, Lincoln tried the patience of abolitionists who wanted a speedy end to slavery: Douglass said abolitionists cared little about how Lincoln proclaimed emancipation. “It was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.” In the speech, Douglass concluded that despite Lincoln’s failings, he should be remembered for the great accomplishment of freeing thousands of enslaved people. “Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the union was more to him than our freedom or our future,” Douglass said, “under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood.” Then Douglass recalled the scenes of black people waiting for the emancipation to take effect. “Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word?” Douglass asked. “I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation.”

When Frederick Douglass after a long time was denied entry for being a ‘Negro’ finally was admitted entry into the White House on the afternoon after Lincoln’s second acceptance address, Lincoln clasped his hand and said, ‘Douglass! I have been waiting to see you. What did you think of my speech?’ ...No egotistical question, but: ‘Did I get it right?’ Lincoln was asking.

A true online friend. I am devastated likewise.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Opinions_of_Tristram_Shandy,_Gentleman

Search https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/a-dark-covid-winter-could-force-gop-to-make-deal-on-stimulus.html

Late follow-up thought. When Reagan would send SecState James Baker III off to some foreign negotiation, he was known to say: ‘Just try to get 80% of what we want. Don’t go over the cliff with all flags flying.’

I don’t think there as such as accidents. Each person’s unconscious is too strong for that. (Speaking as one who, again to say, put myself through a half-decade of psychoanalysis).