Ludlow Griscom’s Little Brother

It’s a bad habit left over from my days as an academic, I confess, but I still find myself turning eagerly to the acknowledgments when I first open a bird book. Who gets thanked, who doesn’t? Can we distinguish between genuine gratitude, flattery, and bread-and-butter thank you’s? And if we can rise above the level of mere gossip, what do the lists of names tell us about long-vanished communities of birders and ornithologists?

Every birder in this part of the world, and most, I suspect, in other parts, too, know Ludlow Griscom’s Birds of the New York City Region, published by the American Museum in 1923. Replacing Frank Chapman’s 1906 pamphlet, originally published in the AMNH Journal, Griscom’s book quickly became the status and distribution “bible” for an entire important generation of American birders; Roger Peterson and the rest of the Bronx County Bird Club famously “could recite chapter and verse” from their great mentor’s work. But the book is a monument of far more than local importance: it marks the first time in the history of birding that the author of a regional avifauna systematically confronted sight records on a massive, modern scale: “the grand total” of such reports Griscom evaluated for the book “easily passes the enormous sum of one hundred thousand.”

eBirders may be unimpressed by that figure, but remember that those records trickled and poured and washed in on slips of paper — paper! Fortunately, Griscom had time:

…Dr. F.A. Lucas, director of the American Museum … instructed me to prepare a handbook as soon as possible, it having become evident that publication by the Linnaean Society would be unduly protracted …. I should devote my whole time to the preparation of the Handbook….

Ralph W. Tower and Frank Chapman, great names in the history of the Museum, offered their support, as did “all but one of the active members of the Linnaean Society” — I wish I could figure out who was the target of that typically snide Griscomianism. The Linnaean made Griscom Chairman of its Local Avifauna Committee, to which were also named J.T. Nichols (“who,” wrote Griscom, “knows more about Long Island birds than anyone living”), Edmund Janvrin (a young physician who had treated Booker T. Washington in New York), and L.N. Nichols. Roy Latham and Eugene Bicknell (of Catharus renown, and an early champion of the field glass method of birding) contributed important records, as did from New Jersey Waldron Miller, Griscom’s colleague on the Nicaragua journey of 1917. Another of his frequent field companions, Maunsell Crosby, proofread the manuscript; Crosby had been the personal assistant to the great Jonathan Dwight, the owner of a collection of New York area birds that Griscom described as “the best in existence” and which furnished a number of important records for the book.

Put all the names together and you have a fantastic tapestry of relationships, a lively picture of who was who in New York and New Jersey birding in the first quarter of the last century. But here’s a surprising name, one not many of us have heard of:

… my brother, the Rev. Acton Griscom, rendered invaluable service in critically reading the entire book in both galley and page proof.

Ludlow’s brother? Ludlow’s brother the Reverend?

Passport photo, Clement Acton Griscom III. From “puzzlemaster” at flickr.com

The Griscoms and the Ludlows were wealthy and well-connected, famous members of America’s nineteenth-century gilded upper class. The children’s generation — Ludlow was born in 1890, Acton in 1891, and their sister Joyce, who died in a horrific accident at the age of three, in 1898 — continued to enjoy the wealth, but as if they were characters in a Thomas Mann novel, the industrial vigor and financial assertiveness of their ancestors seemed to drain right out of them. Ludlow became an ornithologist, and Acton — well, it’s not easy to figure out just what Acton did with his life.

The best (and virtually the only) comprehensive source to the life of Ludlow Griscom is William E. Davis, Jr.’s Dean of the Birdwatchers, an excellent history of Griscom the birder and (probably no fault of the author’s) a slender biography of Griscom the human being. Acton, the younger brother, appears a grand total of two times in the book. Davis calls him “something of a black sheep in the family,” noting that he “could never achieve stability,” and quotes at length a 1952 letter from the older brother to Frederick R. Goff :

My brother’s life has been a tragic and unfortunate one, and in recent years has been mostly spent in New Mexico and Venezuela. I know that he has had serious financial reverses and I would be surprised if he had not been forced to sell his library and his manuscripts for whatever sum of money he could obtain.

I haven’t seen the letter, which resides in the collections of Cornell University, but the excerpt here, taken together with the addressee, points us in a very interesting direction. Frederick Goff was one of the greatest of American historians of the book, the Goff of Incunabula in American Libraries and Head of the Rare Book Collection at the Library of Congress. And it turns out that Acton Griscom was an important collector and amateur scholar of the early book.

Acton studied at Columbia, and around 1920, he made a significant gift — not a sale “for whatever sum of money he could obtain” — to his alma mater of nearly two thousand volumes treating of Joan of Arc, among them several fine manuscripts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

Columbia calls Acton’s gift “one of the outstanding collections in its field in the world.” Other manuscripts from his library can be found among the holdings of other important North American institutions: the University of Illinois owns a thirteenth-century Rule of St. Benedict, the Newberry Library a Nider Reformatio (purchased by Griscom from the estate of John Singer Sargent), Berkeley a Victorine commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine, the Morgan Library a thirteenth-century English Bible.

Fancy stuff, and there was evidently much more. The catalogue of Acton’s private library, published in 1931 (thus after his donation of the Joan of Arc materials to Columbia), runs to 51 printed pages, covering titles in

early printing, chivalry, mysticism and occult, Jeanne d’Arc, English and Romance literatures, etc.; part II general literature including a garner of old, rare and unusual books, early American juveniles, criminology, etcetera.

Catholic tastes indeed. But we know that “chivalry” and “mysticism” combined to form Acton’s principal area of inquiry. His 1917 Columbia M.A. thesis was titled “An Introduction to the Study of Mysticism,” and his scholarly publications dealt with the textual history of the matière de Bretagne — the stories of King Arthur and the Round Table — in high medieval Wales and England.

His serious work reached its high point in 1929 with the publication of an edition of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae, one of the foundational texts in the Arthurian tradition, to which Griscom appears to have contributed the Latin text and a historical essay. The reviews were not unanimously kind, several critics noting a naivete both philological and historiographic, but all the same, it was decades before this edition was superseded.

Davis, in his biography of the elder Griscom brother, connects the “immense library on Joan of Arc” to the Griscom parents’ “rather bizarre” “strong belief in reincarnation,” hinting that they considered themselves latter-day versions of the fifteenth-century French heroine and of Napoleon. Acton certainly shared his parents’ commitment to theosophy, an interest that seems to have annoyed Ludlow no end. In 1919, Acton presided over his father’s funeral at New York’s Chapel of the Comforter, an institution dedicated to the reconciliation of Christianity and theosophy. Following his father’s death, Acton continued as a frequent contributor to The Theosophical Quarterly, writing articles and reviews and taking an active part in conventions and committee meetings. (Unsurprisingly, the name of Ludlow Griscom appears in the Quarterly precisely never.)

Unlike his older brother, Acton was also interested in politics. In keeping with long family tradition, he was a vocal supporter of women’s rights. In the months after the conclusion of World War I, he spoke and wrote vigorously about the evils of Bolshevism, the intrinsic Frenchness of the Rhineland, and the deceptive wickedness of the German people.

German dishonor is a byword …. the outwardly clean streets of German cities but whited the rottenness within …. “Kultur” was a myth, and … the German people and the German civilization were notably inferior….  Immorality in Germany is literally appalling…. Does the American citizen wish to be friends with such people?

Here speaks, obviously, the Francophilia of America’s upper classes at the turn of the last century, the same small still voice that was heard in 1935 when Acton Griscom married Blanche B. Miller, who had four years earlier taken a graduate degree at Clermont-Ferrand. Ludlow was not in attendance. The wedding announcement describes Acton as “a noted collector of medieval manuscripts … an investment specialist in government bonds with Farrell, Brown, & Co.”

The couple was divorced in Florida in 1943, after which Acton becomes much harder to trace. Just before the divorce, he registered for the draft at the outbreak of World War II, and by the late 1940s, he is in Venezuela, flying once a year to New York for an autumn visit. Thanks to Davis, we know that he was still living in 1959, “when Ludlow’s wayward brother, Acton, knelt before the coffin” at his elder brother’s burial in Mount Auburn.

The negative characterization of Acton Griscom is understandable, I suppose, in a biography necessarily related from the dour older brother’s point of view. But the facts seem to be richer and more complex than the story Davis tells. Even these first, sketchy bits of evidence that good old google reveals are enough to suggest that the story could be told very differently: the story of an older brother who dismissed his parent’s religious explorations, an older brother who married without his mother’s approval, an older brother who spent his talents and his advantages on birds. And Acton? A man of the cloth, the avatar of filial piety, a scholar and a businessman.  Who’s the black sheep, the wayward brother now?

Drop me a note in the Comments below if you know more about Acton Griscom.

Share

A Postscript on the Bristle-thighed Curlew

From CLO's website

The discovery by David Allen and Henry Kyllingstad in 1948 of the first nest and eggs of the Bristle-thighed Curlew was a big deal in the world of American ornithology. On the death of Arthur Allen in 1964, the obituary by Sewall Pettingill made conspicuous mention of this, Allen’s “most notable postwar expedition,” and noted that among the honors accruing to the team was the Burr Award from the National Geographic Society.

I was puzzled that nowhere in any of the sources on Kyllingstad or Warren Petersen was that prestigious award mentioned. Did the entire expedition really receive the award, as Pettingill says?

This morning I heard from the National Geographic Society:

our records only name Dr. Allen as the award recipient, and our grants database does not list other members of the Alaska expedition.

It’s impossible at this remove to say what’s fair and what wasn’t.

Share

Another Other People’s Bird Book

Quick: which edition of the AOU Check-list belongs on every North American birder’s shelf?

Reference works are not all created equal. If you’re going to buy a Britannica, make it the eleventh, please; given a choice of Peterson guides, take the 1947. And if you should be in the market for an AOU Check-list (yes, that’s still how it’s spelled, a century and a quarter after it first appeared), be sure to buy the fifth edition, fifty-five years old this year.

How come? Don’t we want our status and distribution books to be as up to date as possible?

Well, yes. But the fifth — six years older than I am — offers two important somethings that no edition since has seen fit to provide. First, all of the official scientific names (not, however, the synonyms) are outfitted with accent marks, a terrific convenience if you’re trying to figure out whether to say ArchiLOchus (no) or ArchILochus (yes).

And more importantly, this is the last edition of the Check-list to treat all of the subspecies then recognized from North American north of Mexico. What that means, of course, is that this book, no matter how out of date in some particulars, remains the most precise source for information on the status and distribution of the birds it covers.

Nowadays, this and the other six editions of the Check-list are readily available on line, but it wasn’t always so, and I was delighted several years ago to find an honest-to-goodness paper copy, bright and clean, that I could afford. (I rarely pay more than a dollar or two for a book, no matter how much I want it.)

Yes, there are the usual check marks, 524 of them according to the discreet penciled tally that ends at McKay’s Bunting.

McKay’s Bunting?

Obviously, this was the book of a well-traveled birder, a suspicion neatly confirmed by ticks next to, for example, Emperor Goose, Common Teal, Steller’s Eider, Slaty-backed Gull, Red-legged Kittiwake, Bluethroat, Arctic Warbler, and so on. A few Old World species are scrupulously noted as having been seen in Egypt, making it apparent that the rarities without such annotation must have been seen in North America–in Alaska, obviously.

Happily, there is a stamp on the foredge of the book block:

followed by a neatly inked monogram on the front pastedown:

Henry Carroll Kyllingstad was born on March 19, 1914, in North Dakota and died December 3, 2002, in New London, Minnesota. He went to Alaska as a young schoolteacher: in 1941, he conducted the first Christmas Bird Count in Mountain Village, Alaska (tallying five species); it was about the same time that he started a banding operation there.

By 1946, he was married; his wife, Gertrude Lois, apparently shared his interests, if her observations that year of a playful Northern Shrike are any indication. Within two years, the couple had moved to Fort Yates, North Dakota, where they apparently taught school.

The ornithological high point of Kyllingstad’s Alaska time came in June 1948. Beginning in 1944, Kyllingstad paid repeated visits to the Kusilvak Mountains, in the Yukon Delta, in search of the Bristle-thighed Curlew, a bird that, so said his wife, “had become an obsession.” On the advice of George Sutton, in 1948 Kyllingstad put together an expedition for the Arctic Institute to find the nest of this mysterious sandpiper; he was accompanied by a teaching colleague from Kalskag, Warren M. Petersen, and by none other than Arthur A. Allen, one of the great names in the history of American academic ornithology.

The two men’s accounts of Allen’s involvement in the curlew expedition reveal a certain lack of agreement. Allen, writing in The Auk, says that he had had “the privilege to organize an expedition under the auspices of the National Geographic Society [, which] joining forces with one led by Henry Kyllingstad … penetrated the interior to the east side of the coast range.” Kyllingstad offers a somewhat different version of events:

I was extremely happy … to receive a grant [from the Arctic Institute] … Warren Petersen agreed to come along, and later Dr. Arthur A. Allen of Cornell University asked if he might join our party. He brought assurance of funds from the National Geographic Society which we felt would be desirable if the Mountain Village area should be unproductive….

Two expeditions or one? A merger or a polite intrusion?

In any event, the little party proceeded, taking every opportunity along the way to observe the other nesting birds of the tundra. “Except for the occasional rain,” wrote Kyllingstad, “there was only one thing wrong — there were too many birds to photograph in the short time we planned to stay.”

On June 11, the party decided to split up. Allen and Peterson stayed at Igiak Bay to take more pictures, while Kyllingstad and Allen’s son, David, set up a new camp twenty miles out of Mountain Village.

The next day, Kyllingstad and Allen fils set out in the drizzle. Soon enough they flushed a curlew:

We watched a while, whispered agreement on the likely location of the nest which we thought surely must be there, and then at a signal from David we rushed the spot. David had wisely removed his raincoat and high wading boots, and being considerably more of a runner than I, was soon ahead of me…. he reached the nest a few seconds before me.

(The elder Allen would write: “The nest was discovered by David G. Allen, and Henry Kyllingstad was with him at the time.”)

This was the first Bristle-thighed Curlew nest known to science, and had Kyllingstad thought to shed a layer and run a little faster, the original owner of my Check-list would have been the first white man in history to see one.

Exciting stuff. Knowing all of this, I open the book to page 184, to the entry for Numenius tahitiénsis. And I find — a neat red check mark and the penciled number 160. Modest to the end.

Share

Other People’s Bird Books

Years ago, I left home one morning without the book I’d asked my students to prepare for that day’s class discussion. Happily, my research assistant was in that day, so I gave her a dollar and sent her down Green Street to get me a copy — the cheapest used copy she could find, please, as I planned to use it once and then throw it onto a high shelf. She came back with a badly abused volume, its cover scuffed and torn, its pages dogeared and underlined.

The underlining fascinated me. Literary historians learn to look closely at things like that, and I had made a small career out of using just that sort of evidence to understand the way people read five or six centuries ago. But here was a nut I couldn’t crack. The cheap pages of my latest acquisition offered what looked like plenty of clues, but I just couldn’t figure out what principles had guided my underliner. So I turned it over to my RA. Who, naturally, came up with the answer in a jiffy. It wasn’t the moving passages, or the problematic passages, or the passages that s/he would use in a term paper that our reader had signaled. No, not at all.

It was the hard words.

I should have learned not to overthink these things, but it’s irresistible when the fatum of a pre-owned libellus drops it into my hands. A couple of months ago I spent another of my dollars to pick up a pretty copy of Ralph Hoffmann‘s New England and Eastern New York, one of the most important publications in the history of North American birding. The cover’s a bit dinged, but I was delighted to find the book block tight and bright, every inspired word clean and readable.

And I was a little disappointed, too. You’d think that in the 110 years between the book’s being printed and my snatching it up from the junk table, someone, someone would have come up with something to write in the margins. There are a few penciled check marks, of the sort a desultory lister might enter once in a while. And there is a single solitary verbal annotation:

Too much to hope that anyone would recognize the handwriting, of course, which strikes me — way outside my paleographic comfort zone, admittedly — as the stereotypical school hand of a woman born in the first third of the twentieth century (note the failure to distinguish u and n and the classic d, above the line and with a big loop in terminal position).

But still, doesn’t that single, neatly anonymous entry — nothing more than a place and a date — preserve all the excitement of a bright spring morning 85 years ago, when among the migrant sparrows gathered in the yard there was a buzzy-voiced outlander singing from beneath a badger-skin cap? Even the vagueness of the location, so maddening at first, is suddenly touching when you consider the geographic scale in which this birder must have been working: Country Club Road (how vastly many must there be in New England, New York, and New Jersey?) was quite enough in an era when leaving town by train or auto still constituted a journey.

I know just how she felt. I have always loved White-crowned Sparrows, and among the many sightings of this species I can still recall with clarity and precision was one at the Beemer Road silo of an early May morning. Dave and I were scouting for a big day, and as we pulled up to listen for Vesper Sparrows (they used to breed on the hillside there, lo these many ago), we heard instead the slow whistles and buzzes of White-crowns, the

pure sweet notes that suggest the Meadowlark’s whistle or a Vesper Sparrow singing louder than usual, and continu[ing] with notes that recall the Black-throated Green Warbler.

Never will I forget the sight of the puffy-crowned sparrows moving along the fence while a Solitary Sandpiper fed on the pond beneath them; that is what I think of when I think of Sussex County, and I hope that something similar is what the earlier owner of my copy of Hoffmann thought of whenever she heard that buzzy whistle.

Share

It’s Striking, But …

Seventeen hundred years ago, Felix of Aptunga took part in the consecration ceremonies for the new bishop of Carthage. Then as now, high office came with low intrigue, and a cabal of bishops declared the consecration void, asserting that Felix had collaborated with the Romans by surrendering Bibles to officers of the persecution: no sacrament, they said, received from the hands of a sinful priest is valid.

They were overruled, ultimately by Emperor Constantine himself, but the Donatist heresy, as it came to be known, persisted for a hundred years and beyond in north Africa.

And it survives today, though now it rears its ugly head less in matters of religion than in questions of aesthetics.

I believe a number of things about Todd R. Forsgren’s photographs of birds in mist nets.

I believe that they are beautiful. I believe that they are startling. I believe that they are art.

What I do not believe is that no birds were harmed for the sake of these images. The artist says that he “basically give[s] [himself] ten minutes or so to set up and take the photographs,” a very long time indeed for a bird to hang in a net while huge bipedal predators fuss with machines. Tongues are wrenched, eyes scratched, hands and feet broken, heart rates raised: to be sure, such violent events are infrequent (probably not as infrequent as some studies suggest), but anyone with open eyes who has spent time around bird banders has seen these things and more.

No way is the oropendola in the photograph above lying quiet and passive in the pocket; that bird is struggling, and it has used its ten minutes to full advantage, working its head and its left wing entirely through the net. It also seems to have hooked a loop around its tongue. With a little patience, an experienced net-runner will have had no trouble extricating this bird from its tangle–but still, it would have been a lot easier ten minutes earlier.

But here’s the real question, the important question: does it matter? Does the fact that these photographs memorialize a situation that I think we can all stipulate is a bad one diminish their value as art? Are they, as a very thoughtful colleague of mine wrote, “ethically tainted”? Are we aesthetic Donatists, or are we willing to accept that good art can be about bad things?

In September 2001, Karlheinz Stockhausen held a press conference in Hamburg. A leading light of the German avant garde in the ’60s and 70s, Stockhausen had slipped into obscurity –but he burst forth again, and how, in Hambug with a dozen words that will live on long after his music is barely a footnote in Grove: the fall of the World Trade Center earlier that month was “das größte Kunstwerk, das es überhaupt gibt für den ganzen Kosmos,” the greatest work of art there can ever be in the entire cosmos.

The revulsion and the horror at Stockhausen’s words, just days after the attacks on New York and Washington, were universal and proper. (The universal attention paid those words was not, however, proper, given that the composer’s progress into mental illness was already well known.) As Anthony Tommasini put it in the Times, “real suffering is not [art]” and never can be.

The murder of thousands of people is not art. War is not art. And–just to ratchet things back down to our original, much more comfortable problem–trapping wild animals, for whatever purpose, is not art. To be sure, bird banding in the hands of far too many of its practitioners has become a performance and an entertainment and a money-maker, but it’s not art.

Suffering, especially suffering inflicted on unwilling and unknowing victims, is not art. But suffering is supremely and indisputably an appropriate subject for art. From venatorial scenes on the walls of Lascaux to the Grand Guignol, from medieval Passion cycles to Picasso, representations of real suffering problematize nature and human nature (and, often enough, the intersection between the two), upsetting our views of what is inevitable and what is right; and many such works do that in ways that are pretty, or striking, or clever, or even very beautiful.

Only a new Stockhausen, and one in a particularly impious frame of mind, could call the Bourbon Restoration and the occupation of Spain a work of art. But in the hands of a genius, torture, murder, and dismemberment become the stuff of masterpieces. The Disasters of War is beautiful–even if the disasters of war are not. Goya’s prints transform horror into works of formal perfection and intellectual challenge.

Todd Forsgren’s photographs are of birds captured, he tells us, by ornithologists for scientific purposes. They are suffering, but the photographer did not engineer their suffering (and I’m not sure it would make a difference to me if he had). The images he makes are not (as all those facebook photos of birds in the hand most decidedly are) souvenirs of curiosity, but rather the questioning record of a particular species of human intervention in nature. These photographs ask questions about the relationship between knowledge and freedom, science and reality, creation and “data.”

And they’re beautiful, in the way that carefully imagined depictions of shocking violence can be.

One of my friends, thoughtful and sophisticated, wrote:

I don’t like the imagery – takes away from the beauty of the birds…. seeing them all tied up like that is depressing and sad, it agitates me.

But that’s what art does. It agitates you, it “kicks complacency in the” rear, as another friend said, and makes you ask why an image or a text or a piece of music troubles or delights, or better, troubles and delights. Good art–and this is good art–takes you out of your settled ways and changes you. Good art is sacramental, and the value of a sacrament does not depend on how it is administered. We’ve known that since Carthage.

Share