|
|
|
Turning and Turning in the Widening Gyre
Catherine Clinton
| Matthew Pinsker's thoughtful and compelling essay reminds us of the enduring legacy of David Donald. It offers not tricks and treats of the coming season, but rather a bicentennial Santa bag overflowing with presents, including (whiz-bang!) the gift of an online bibliography.1 The clichéd question "What new can be written about Abraham Lincoln?" has been given a digital update, and Pinsker's challenging and creative framing of this topic provides a rich mapping of historical fields. Some of us might wish that his essay could have featured more intersections between new academic themes and topics (such as environmentalism, cultural studies, queer theory) and the boom of interest in Lincoln studies, but Pinsker is not at fault. Then again, some of us might wish to remain with the narrow topic that lures crowds into museums, readers into libraries and bookstores, and promises a rosy future: Abraham Lincoln, whose star continues to rise. |
1
|
|
Sister and fellow Lincolnistas may want to quibble with finer points of interpretation— or even to bawl and brawl over specifics. But Pinsker has done a heroic job piecing together major themes and suggesting new avenues ripe for exploration. Because I have been tagged as someone who might have additional suggestions, and especially because Pinsker is so open to constructive commentary, I offer observations and thank the Journal of American History for this invitation. |
2
|
|
First and foremost, as Pinsker indicates, Lincoln studies has "been one of the more open fields in academia and perhaps the most oriented toward the general public," and lecture audiences are at times filled with buffs or self-described "wing-nuts"—as one audience member identified himself at a recent Lincoln conference at the Huntington Library.2 We have had the luxury of scheming that our manuscripts will find a publisher. With the $50,000 Lincoln Prize on the horizon for nearly twenty years, many have dreamed beyond publication—to fame and perhaps other rewards. |
3
|
|
Second, Pinsker's emphasis on the digital age reminds us that we are in a period of transition, especially concerning publishing. The Lincoln bicentennial intersects with a publishing crisis that may have enormous consequences. Commercial publishers are competing for declining sales, and many university presses are fighting just to survive. All of us keen on reading, writing, and keeping American history alive hope the life support supplied during this downturn can keep books on shelves and new readers for our research and ideas. |
4
|
|
Although I welcome many of Pinsker's suggestions about new research initiatives, I would caution that we must not abuse our position. The Lincoln scholarly establishment needs to spur a younger generation toward embracing populist, engaging intersections of interest. Pinsker makes a persuasive argument for pursuing a research agenda that would include many of the concerns raised by Mark E. Neely Jr. and Gabor Boritt in the 1970s, and he outlines an ambitious series of political biographies that would add to our appreciation of Lincoln's rise in Illinois. But before I sent anyone off in search of William W. Danenhower, the Chicago bookseller who led the Illinois Know Nothings, I might suggest that a vibrant new age of Lincoln studies could pursue other roads not yet taken.3 |
. . . |
There are about 1277 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
