Today in the archives, I am still working on the papers of a man who was (and still is) important to our town. This guy supplied the funds and the oversight to build the very building where the archives that I am playing in are housed. When he had it built, this building was the first public library here. Eventually the library collection outgrew this space and, (as I have discovered reading the correspondences in this collection) after much deliberation among the townspeople, the decision was made by the town council to allow the Historical Society to take over this space. My project is arranging and describing the collection of materials (correspondence, financial documents, newspaper articles and the like) associated with this endeavor as well as those associated with other projects undertaken by this man in the spirit of bettering (I will challenge this word in a later post) his hometown for the people (ALL the people?) who live here. Ultimately we hope to digitize these materials and make them available and searchable online for use by anyone with an internet connection and a machine to navigate it. (For now if you want to see these documents you have to come into the archives in person. And you don’t know exactly what’s available in the collection, either because I haven’t written a finding aid for it yet.)
This is the tedious part of the project, but it is my favorite part: I get to touch every single document, read each one, organize them according to project, enter their item number into my google spreadsheet along with a title and a short description of it so later on, researchers can judge whether it is a piece of a puzzle they need for their stories. Meanwhile, I am getting a glimpse inside of the head- and heart- of this individual whose grim portrait watches over me while I work.
Is he really that grim? Or is he sad? Can you really tell, just from a portrait? When I first started on this project, I worked on background information about this fella that other archive volunteers had assembled years ago- genealogical information about his family and newspaper clippings about his gifts to the town and of his obituary, anniversary ceremonies celebrating his work, his life- and the marriage licenses of his THREE marriages. (Did he out live his wives or did he divorce them? I have not learned this yet. I’ll keep you posted when I do!) I do know that one of the marriages was a complete surprise to his friends and family because it said so in the marriage announcement in the paper. I never thought too much about his relationships and how he felt about them until I ran across this letter:
So, good luck reading that handwriting. The line that got me is the sentence that includes the underlined word, “blush.” I don’t know if you noticed, but he underlined that TWICE. That’s a really big deal. I’ve seen him underline words for emphasis before but NEVER twice. Here’s a transcription of the whole sentence:
“I read the Progress [the local paper] which made me BLUSH. What will or can they say more after the announcement on Founders Day. Apr 12th I rather think that I am fortunate in being away.”
Now, this guy’s handwriting is tough to decipher on a good day, but this note is a hot mess. I love that he always addresses his right hand man, Watson, as “My Dear Watson.” (In contrast, Watson, in his notes back to PGM just uses initials in the greeting and the sign off. No “my dear” anything, just “P.G.M”- and signs off, “W.O.W.” Sometimes he uses periods to separate the letters, most of the time he does not.) I am pretty sure Watson is hard-core serious. He is the details guy, the dude who handles renting a car and hiring a driver when his boss is in town. He's the guy signing the checks and overseeing the accounts of all PGM's projects in town, and manages the correspondence with the architect, building contractors, sculptors and other professionals hired for the projects. Our dude Watson lives here in town, and Mr. Big- PGM- lives in New York. (look up in the top right hand corner of the note- he always puts "New York" ahead of the date. I am SO glad they both date EVERYTHING.)
AAAANYway, I am guessing when I say I bet Watson is the guy who got that story into the Progress in the first place. I have found several letters from prominent businessmen around the country- especially up in Chicago, where PGM made his fortune- who have written to Watson thanking him for sending them a copy of the paper (He’s also the PR guy, right?!) and congratulating PGM on those accomplishments. Clearly I am going to need to do a post or several dedicated to Watson. (Also, my apologies for all the parenthetical phrases, but eh, I need them today.)
Back to the theme of THIS post. (Thank you for hanging in with me.) BLUSH. Let’s talk about the word blush. When I read this letter out loud to a colleague in the archive his reaction was, “BLUSH?! Really? I don’t think of men blushing, why did he say blush? Women blush!” AAaaaaand… discussion ensued.
Me: Men can’t blush? Him: Well, I guess, but why would they? Me: I mean, it's blood rushing to the face, so what else would you call that? A Flush? Him: Ok, yeah, flush, but why? Me: He's flustered? Embarrassed? Him: But why would he say 'blush?'
Well, you can imagine how this unraveled our entire afternoon. This colleague is also a well-traveled editor and has been for ages. As he describes himself, he is a white guy in his 60’s so he sees things through a different lens. I agreed- I am a white woman, from the rural South (yes this matters) in my 50’s, with a completely different lens from his. We both dig words and are fascinated by how meanings change — and how a listener or a reader would interpret a word’s use based not only on how it is used, but also who is using it. We are both describing materials in an archive- and we are aware that our world view lenses can influence what words we choose in our descriptions- and can skew another’s perception of them. This is not neutrality, see? Neutrality really is impossible.
So I looked up “blush”… it’s an old word, Middle English, meaning “to be red; shine,” according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. YourDictionary.com says it means to “become red in the face, especially from modesty, embarrassment, or shame.” In Psychology, according to the American Journal of Psychiatry, the blush is unique to humans, and studied by Darwin in 1872. (Apparently there was an entire volume written in 2013 devoted to the psychology and phenomenon of the blush.) Our guy PGM was writing in 1919, closer to Darwin’s 1872 than my colleague’s and my 2023.
I wonder what he meant. Does his use of the word “blush” change your perception of him in the picture above? I’m guessing he was claiming to feel some modesty about the praise in the article. Did he mean it? He was writing a private note to his employee- did he want his employee to see him in a certain light? Do you suppose he put as much thought into his word choice as I am? (Am I letting my imagination run away with me?) Maybe he really was a modest person, not really looking for accolades. Maybe he truly intended to spend his fortune in his home city to enhance the lives of the people who lived here and not for personal gain. I am early on in this project; I expect to learn a lot more about him, and I’ll keep you posted as I do. Meanwhile, think about the power of the words you speak, and the words you hear. Think about the use of words in archival description. Why do we choose the words we use and how will archive users in the future be influenced by what we say about the materials - and the people they represent- in our archives?