Anecdota Scowah - Number One

On April Fools’ Day, 1947, Nat Schmulowitz (1889 – 1966), a nationally known attorney, civic leader and bibliophile in San Francisco, California, donated ninety-three volumes, five hundred dollars, and an edition of the Hundred Merry Tales, towards the establishment of the Schmulowitz Collection of Wit & Humor (SCOWAH). 

Francis K. Langpaap, retired head of cataloging, wrote in her reminiscence of Schmulowitz that she recalled him saying, “It’s a disease! My spare moments are completely filled with reading catalogues and sending orders. It’s a wonderful, wonderful disease!”

During the 1950s and 1960s, Nat Schmulowitz published at the Grabhorn Press, five keepsakes titled, ANECDOTA SCOWAH, for his fellow members of the Roxburghe Club in San Francisco. The Roxburghe Club was formed in San Francisco on April 3, 1928, in honor of the original Roxburghe Club of England, a renowned bibliophilic society (itself named after the Duke of Roxburghe). 

“It is our hope that ANECDOTA SCOWAH will be regarded as medicine for a variety of mental ailments – as antidotes to continuous cold wars, chronic disorders, and the numerous etceteras in the catalog of life’s miseries.” 

It would seem that the ANECDOTA SCOWAH was Schmulowitz’s antidote for the ills of the world. 

It was Mr. Schmulowitz’s own fascination with humor that kept him adding to the collection himself. Throughout the years, Schmulowitz added to the collection, sometimes at a rate of one hundred items per month, which he gathered from around the world in a diligent and far-reaching search for materials. Amassing over 20,000 volumes and 160 periodical titles, in more than 35 languages and dialects, spanning more than four centuries, Schmulowitz was to Wit & Humor what Poggio was to the rediscovery of classical Latin texts. 

Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (1380 – 1459) was an Italian scholar, Papal secretary, and Renaissance humanist credited with the invention of the Roman type.  Bracciolini ran a joke club at the Vatican called the Bugiale - the “fib factory” - where papal scribes would gather at the end of a long day to hang out and tell scandalous stories. 

During Poggio’s travels through Europe, Poggio recovered, copied, and disseminated a great number of classical Latin texts that he discovered in German and French monastic libraries. It is thanks to Poggio that we have Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura, the architectural writings of Vitruvius, additional orations of Cicero, and of course, Poggio’s own Facetiæ, a 1451 collection of humorous and indecent tales in Latin. The Vatican did not condemn the volume, though it mostly contained invectives and salacious jokes. It was presumed that the jokes would only be savored by the clerical class and would not corrupt the morals of the masses that were not fluent enough read in Latin.

The Schmulowitz collection notably holds the works of Nasreddin Hojah*, the Facetiæ of Poggio, a number of Joe Miller joke books, and an impressive collection of periodicals such as Nebelspalter (Switzerland), Eulen-spiegel (Germany), Le Canard enchaîné (France), Lao Fu Tzu (Hong Kong) and, of course, Mad Magazine.

Schmulowitz distributed a catalog to friends, acquaintances, and libraries around the world in 1962.  A supplement to this catalog was published in 1977. The Book Arts & Special Collections Department at the San Francisco Public Library has been working diligently cataloging the collection. To date, the English language collection has been catalogued, with the foreign language collection being worked on now. Andrea V. Grimes, Special Collections Librarian, ensures the visibility of the collection by selecting key materials for the annual wit & humor exhibition, which she curates on behalf of the San Francisco Public Library. 

Following Mr. Schmulowitz’s death in 1966, Kay Schmulowitz, his sister, continued to support the collection with generous donations until her death in June 1984. Income from the combined bequests of both Nat and Kay Schmulowitz contribute substantially in maintaining the collection. 

In my next post, I will share my exploration of Schmulowitz’s “rare, obscure or choice anecdotes, or superior items of wit and humor which may be found in a comprehensive collection upon those subjects in their broadest significance," which thanks to Schmulowitz will be enjoyed for many generations to come. 

With special thanks to: 

Andrea V. Grimes, Special Collections Librarian

San Francisco Public Library

Every Piece Matters

Balance lies in our relationship to ourselves, rather than to the gods or to another. Balance develops rather than unfolds, and it develops because we reconceive ourselves as an individual already living in balance.

Sometimes this recognition comes about because we overhear ourselves talking, either to ourselves or someone else. When this happens, we begin wondering about the role of balance in our lives. In doing so, some of us set out on the royal road to individualism, a journey of epic elitism whereby we seek that which fullfils every aspect of our being's existence. 

Balance is the finest of miracles as it creates an utterly different yet self-consistent voice for all existence – and perhaps even, for nonexistence. In fact, the more one contemplates the concept of balance the more one is in awe of this mysterious state. As with time, we talk about what it is, but when it comes time to describe it, the burden becomes tangible. Like the great theologian and philosopher, St. Augustine (CE 354-430), famously wrote of his puzzlement in The Confessions:

What is time? In one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me... I plainly do not know.

Augustine is not alone in his bewilderment. Perhaps I am not alone in mine with respect to the concept of balance. What is the ultimate balanced cosmological state? The question of balance in our daily lives is easier to solve: plenty of rest, healthy eating habits, intellectual fuel for the mind, excitement and adventure for the spirit, love for the heart, creative output for the whole being, so on and so forth. But how do we explain our drive to exist in a state of balance, other than for self-preservation and a general sense of well-being? Does balance have a direction or is it a result of all directions simultaneously collapsing into it? It is an intractable yet fascinating question. 

God is either the ultimate Shakespeare, or an insoluble enigma depending on whether one views their life as a comedy or a tragedy. God is either existent and all-pervading or non-existent and illusory, depending on whether one views the world from the foundation of "stuff" or from the foundation of "wonderment" and "possibility".

Either way, if we do not want the world's cosmic author to kill off our character - without at least one memorable line before exiting stage left - it would seem that we must naturally assume that it is up to us to create something that only we could create from the unique culmination of our life experiences. When parts are not being used, it does seem as if they get recycled ~ and I for one am not ready to get recycled yet. If necessary, I will walk the tightrope, I will do what I should to maintain the highest degree of balance so that from this state I can produce something unique, just to stick around a little longer... not out of fear of going somewhere else, but out of reverence that any of this exists as well as curiosity as to where it is all headed.

For me, the zone of creativity is highest when the rest of my life is in balance. This is the place I perceive as being “in the zone…”

The zone is the outward limit of human achievement: aesthetically, cognitively, morally, and even spiritually. Self-creation is, perhaps, tangible proof of the ultimate cosmic balancing act.

Balance will go on explaining us, in part because balance invented us. Of course, one could argue that it is imbalance gave rise to life and that once the cosmos puts itself back into balance we will cease to be.

I don't know about you, but my ego does not enjoy the thoughts associated with the idea that our entire existence, our entire world might just be one bad cosmic hair day anxious to correct itself.

I can only offer an subjective interpretation of the many types of balance interplays.

To catalogue life’s largest gift is an absurdity: where to begin, where to end?  A few poems, or perhaps a joke or two might shed some humorous insight on the subject. Or perhaps a picture of an amazing elephant balancing on a beach ball.

Which is more amazing, the elephant or the beach ball?

If you're paying very close attention, you might start noticing patterns in what looks like a good deal of cosmic foreshadowing going on, which could be explained in purely physical terms, at least in terms of their structural connectivity. Of course, maybe all of this is just one giant cookie crumbling through space and time. 

The only thing I really do in life is experiment. I have been doing this for as long as I can remember. Take for example an early experiment I devised in elementary school whereby when I encounter a negative experience (external situation or internal thought or feeling), I immediately employ all the concepts I have taught myself to keep that negativity at bay, to prevent it from causing too many ripples in what normally feels like a sea of balance for me.

Despite my best efforts, things happen, and perhaps it is a good thing they do otherwise I might not have anything interesting to write about.

At first there was nothing, and then it exploded. In this sense, balance has been trying to put itself back together again ever since. In this respect, every single piece matters!

Rousseau, Kant and Marx Walk Into An Enlightened Bar

The Weiner Court of Muses

Der Weimarer Musenhof (1860); Schiller liest in Tiefurt

Theobald von Oer

If enlightenment is an aspect of our true biological nature, we can make a reasoned case for seeking out its continuation or presence in all other things. If, however, by means of technological advancement, we ultimately transcend the biological limitations that have long-since defined the experience of being human, i.e., finite existence, then the questions surrounding enlightenment may no longer hold our imagination captive.

Discourse

Utilizing Kant’s Definition of Enlightenment:

Discuss Rousseau, Kant and Marx as Enlightened Figures

Kant’s (1724 – 1804) theory of enlightenment bridges the gap between the rationalist and empiricist traditions of 18^th century Europe; a time characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, politics, and the social order. Despite spending his entire life in the town of his birth, Königsberg (the then capital of Prussia; now Kaliningrad in Russia), Kant is regarded as one of the most influential European philosophers since the Ancient Greeks.

            For Kant, enlightenment was “man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity,” which, if cultivated by means of his “natural endowments” (i.e., one’s own reason), could serve to free him from the restrictions that prevent enlightenment. By this reckoning, Kant would consider any scholar, who offered the public a “carefully considered, well-intentioned thought on the mistaken aspects” of any doctrine, an enlightened person, or at the very least, an individual freely acting out “their own reason in all matters of conscience” in order to “liberate mankind from immaturity”.

            “It is a great and beautiful spectacle to see a man somehow emerge from oblivion by his own efforts, dispelling with the light of his reason the shadows in which nature had enveloped him, rising above himself, soaring in his mind right up to the celestial regions, moving, like the sun, with giant strides through the vast extent of the universe, and, what is even greater and more difficult, returning himself in order to study man there and learn of his nature, his obligations, and his end.”

                         

            Rousseau's (1712 – 1778) explanation of human beings as initially existing in a “state of nature is a highly romanticized one. He is thus known as the first philosopher of Romanticism, and for his argument that human beings are innately good, but have had their behavior altered by the corrupting influences of society. Given Rousseau’s influence on Kant’s work, in particular in the area of ethics, we can deduce that Kant considered Rousseau an enlightened figure.

The Happy Accidents of the Swing

Jean-Honoré Fragonard (1732 - 1806)

           For Kant, moral law is based on rationality, whereas with Rousseau, nature is a constant theme that should not be ignored. Despite these differences, like Rousseau, rather than ask the traditional question about whether our knowledge accurately reflects reality, Kant asked how reality affected our cognition or understanding. He attributed what we know as something that is determined by the nature of our sensory and cognitive apparatus. More simply put, knowledge starts with experience, which then requires ordering by the mind. Thus, it is possible by means of our reason, to discover universal truths about our world.  

            Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) thought that reality was historically constituted, containing internal conflicts that drive change. Like Kant, Marx thought that external (economic) forces affected our cognition and understanding.

            Marx’s work had a profound effect on world history, leading a third of the world’s population to live under regimes claiming allegiance to his philosophy. Like Kant, Marx believed that all concepts (including the processes belonging to history) were open to rational investigation. In other words, the historical situations upon which Marx based his philosophies were situations that contained internal conflicts that could be alleviated.

            Similar to Rousseau’s explanation of how social or external influences affected the natural state of mankind, Marx saw the inexorable logic driving the course of history as material, rather than spiritual, evidence for changes, and ultimately, the oppression of mankind, or more specifically, the worker. While Rousseau perceived social influences as something that affected human action, Marx further explained how those material forces, which affect human action, in turn, served as the engine of social change.

Diego Rivera (1886 - 1957)

Diego Rivera (1886 - 1957)

            For Marx, the dialectical conflict between distinct socioeconomic classes that production and distribution produce determines the course of history, driving social change, which ultimately contributes to the nature of class conflict. Thus, the opium of the people, accordingly, is that which sustains the status quo, the “superstructural” social phenomena (such as political institutions, religions, ideologies, philosophies, and the arts) that only serve the ruling class – the bourgeoisie.

La Bourgeoisie (1894)

Émile Pouget

            Much like how 18^th century philosophers experienced what their generation considered to be inconceivable heights of intelligence, industrial progress, and longevity; we again find ourselves on the brink of great social and philosophical change, the ramifications of which will be profound for enlightenment thinkers. The adjustments technological advancement pose present a glimpse of the coming age that is both a dramatic culmination of centuries of social, philosophical, and technological ingenuity as well as a genuinely inspiring vision of what Kant meant by “enlightenment” (man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity”). At the onset of the twenty-first century, two hundred years after Kant’s death, humanity once again stands on the verge of reconsidering what it means to be enlightened, not only in this discourse, but as a global community living in an era in which technology will challenge the very nature of what it means to be human will be both enriched and challenged.

*Disclaimer:

Rousseau, Kant and Marx are still in the bar discussing their theories of enlightenment. 

Raising Funny Kids 39: A Question of Genius

Touched by discovery, a genius’ intensity is naturally lifted up, rising to a proud height, filled with joy and vaunted wonderment, as if being created in every epiphany experienced.  

The sobriquet genius.  Is the nickname a truth or fiction? What must a genius do to justify the appellation?  

And what of young genius, does the designation stereotype the child into a class so utterly unrecognizable that they are forever branded, contemned to a solitary life of self-reliance, where proving their genius becomes more of a burden than a blessing?

Does genius attend its recipient so palpably, so intensely that one cannot deny they feel it when in their presence? 

Is it not as plain to see as the nose upon one’s face?  Is it such that only another genius can truly recognize its essence? 

Is the existential angst that overcomes a young genius in early childhood an integral component of a more elusive, immaterial quality? Must genius be revealed in a work of art or artistic performance for us to recognize its presence? Does the fervency of genius originate from the same source as that of talent? 

Is there such a thing as fresh genius? Are vigor, excitability and avidity qualities that when combined make up a synergistic strength we define as genius? Is there a measurable amount of a specific quality that all geniuses have in common, like a magnetic field with a strength and acuity that animates the bearer of it in ways that differentiate its expression from local frequencies? 

Is genius nothing other than the juxtaposition of divergent energies? Even if genius is nothing other than a contrasting effect of factors, is The Genius an explicit operator in the expression of this quality? 

Is creative output a necessary harmonizer for the sustained existence of genius localized in a field of varying frequencies? 

Can genius be measured directly or only calculated by a set of variables to describe its state? Can the state of genius be described in sufficient terms that might determine its future behavior? Is there an equation that can accurately define the dimensions of the vectors describing the state of genius? 

Could we model the physical system of genius to represent its input, output and state variables? Is genius a linear and time invariant dynamical system whose equations could be written in matrix form? Is there a point in genius from which we could measure small changes in the state of genius? 

Does genius evolve whereby its future states follow from its current state? Does genius only exist for a given time interval? Can more than one future state follow from the current state of genius? Against what framework can one identify a state of genius?