This short piece provides the cumulative textual evidence that Pynchon consulted a single source, Golder, F.A., 1915. “The Russian Fleet and the Civil War”. The American Historical Review, 20(4), pp.801-812, to construct the historicity of the Peter Pinguid Society episode in The Crying of Lot 49, as opposed to consulting the original Arkhiv Morskogo Ministerstva, Dielo Kantseliarii Morskogo Ministerstva, no. 91, pt. III., pp. 102, 103

Eve, Martin Paul

Pynchon Notes

English

This short piece provides the cumulative textual evidence that Pynchon consulted a single source, Golder, F.A., 1915. ?The Russian Fleet and the Civil War?. The American Historical Review, 20(4), pp.801-812, to construct the historicity of the Peter Pinguid Society episode in The Crying of Lot 49, as opposed to consulting the original Arkhiv Morskogo Ministerstva, Dielo Kantseliarii Morskogo Ministerstva, no. 91, pt. III., pp. 102, 103

Name not available

Historical sources for Pynchon's Peter Pinguid Society

University of Lincoln Institutional Repository

Historical  Sources  for  Thomas Pynchon's  'Peter  Pinguid Society'Martin Paul EveMost close readings of the Peter Pinguid Society section in The Crying of Lot 49 have hailed it as an example par excellence  of Pynchon's aptitude for combining historical fact with fiction. However, many of these  works have underestimated the precision of Pynchon's sourcing (J. K. Grant 60-61) while others, in extreme cases, have been deceived into the all-too-familiar uncanniness whereby Pynchon's extra-textual history  appears too fantastical  to  be real  (Pérez 40).  In  this  brief  paper,  I  will  present  the cumulative textual  evidence to support the view that Pynchon consulted a single work, F.A. Golder's “The Russian Fleet and the Civil War.” The American Historical Review 20.4 (1915): 801-812 to construct the historicity of this episode. I will  also present an interesting historical connection to the date of significance to Pinguid's supposed  followers,  for  the  9th March,  1864  was  actually  the  date  of  Ulysses  S.  Grant's  ascent  to  the  rank  of  Lieutenant-General; a significant factor in the Union Civil War victory.To briefly recap: The fictional Peter Pinguid Society was, according to Pynchon's text, founded to  commemorate the eponymous captain of a Confederate man-of-war. En-route to launch an assault on San Francisco, Pinguid encountered a Russian vessel under the command of  Rear Admiral  Popov – sent to  prevent Anglo-Franco assistance to the Confederacy – and, in what Brian McHale sees as a Faulknerian parody, the narrative remains unclear over whether they fired at one another (McHale  96). Much of the historical scenario could have been constructed from archival naval communications, particularly the Arkhiv Morskogo Ministerstva, Dielo Kantseliarii Morskogo Ministerstva, no. 91, pt. III., pp. 102, 103, which is the basis of Golder's work. However, it  is far more likely that Pynchon did not make a visit  to the Russian  archive and, instead, relied on this secondary source.Such  a  conclusion  is  warranted  by  four  direct  textual  correlations  to  Golder's  article  and  the improbability of Pynchon arriving at an identical translation of the original Russian sources therein. Firstly,  Pynchon writes that:“[r]umours were abroad that winter that the Reb cruisers  Alabama  and  Sumter were indeed on the point of attacking the city” (Pynchon 32)which distinctly echoes Golder's own: “[i]t was reported that the Confederate cruisers Sumter and Alabama were planning to attack the city” (Golder 809)This  is  of  particular  note  as  current  scholarship  on  this  section  has  emphasised  the  likelihood of  the  Alabama  and  Sumter  rumour being of  Pynchon's own making.  Indeed, Golder's  article contains all  the  named ships, and more, employed by Pynchon in this section: “Bogatir,  Kalevala,  Rinda, and  Novik, the clippers Abrek and Gaidamak” (Golder 808) Secondly, Golder writes that:[i]n view of this possibility Popov took measures to prevent it.  He gave orders to his  officers that should such a corsair come into port, the ranking officer of the fleet should  at once give the signal “to put on steam and clear for action” (Golder 809)a direct portion of which appears within Pynchon's passage:the Russian admiral had, on his own responsibility, issued his Pacific squadron standing  orders to put on steam and clear for action should any such attempt develop. (Pynchon 32)The  direct  repetition  of  the  translated  phrase  “put  on  steam and  clear  for  action”  seems more  than fortuitous.Thirdly, Golder's article posits the diplomatic link between Russia and America in the emancipation of their respective slave populations:Alexander had freed the serfs; Lincoln was emancipating the slaves (Golder 805)which Pynchon uses, as Nicholas and Stevenson have pointed out, inaccurately, crediting Nicholas, instead of Alexander (Nicholson & Stevenson 30) when describing Fallopian's state of mind:appalled at what had to be some military alliance between abolitionist Russia (Nicholas having freed the serfs in 1861) and a Union that paid lip service to abolition while it kept its own industrial labourers in a kind of wage-slavery (Pynchon 33)Finally,  Pynchon seriously plays up the significance of this initial military dalliance between the US and  Russia, crediting the event with serious Cold War repercussions:But  that  was  the  first  military  confrontation  between  Russia  and  America.  Attack,  retaliation, both projectiles deep-sixed forever and the Pacific rolls on. But the ripples  from those two splashes spread, and grew, and today engulf us all. (Pynchon 33)Even without the fictitious firing incident, Golder comes to a similar conclusion of this event as a truly  remarkable point of international relations, stating:It was a most extraordinary situation: Russia had not in mind to help us but did render us  distinct service; the United States was not conscious that it was contributing in any way  to Russia's welfare and yet seems to have saved her from humiliation and perhaps war.  There is probably nothing to compare with it in diplomatic history. (Golder 812)Moving  now  to  the  second  point  of  historical  interest:  the  date  chosen  by  Pynchon  for  the  fictional  hostilities between the Russians and Americans,  the “9th March, 1864” is “a day now held sacred by all Peter Pinguid Society members”. This date was actually marked in Civil War history as the day on which  Ulysses  S.  Grant  was  appointed  Lieutenant-General  of  the  United  States  (U.  S.  Grant  116), a  crucial legislative  move in  his  progression towards becoming General-in-Chief;  a  position required in  order  to legally allow Grant to overrule his co-Generals (Catton 116-123). In reality, the date celebrated by the PPS turns out to be of significance for the Union, not the Confederacy. Such turbulence regarding the Society's  allegiance, which disregards the dialectic of “[g]ood guys and bad guys”  (Pynchon 33) in order to pass critique on the entire project of industrialisation, also cannot wholly rest upon support for slavery; Pynchon  cannot have been unaware of the canonised historical rhetoric which regards Eli Whitney's cotton gin as the  crucial  industrial  development  that  rendered  slavery  economically  viable  (Rhodes  25-27).  I  would suggest, although the troubling of political polarities was already evident, that this research should urge  future scholarship to more rigorously question the usually assumed label of “right-wing” that is applied to this organization in Pynchon's text.Works citedCatton, Bruce. Grant Takes Command. London: J.M. Dent, 1970. Print.Golder, F. A. “The Russian Fleet and the Civil War.” The American Historical Review 20.4 (1915): 801-812. Print.Grant, J. Kerry. A Companion to the Crying of Lot 49. 2nd ed. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2008. Print.Grant, Ulysses S. Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1886. Print.McHale, Brian. “Modernist Reading, Post-Modern Text: The Case of Gravity's Rainbow.” Poetics Today 1.1/2 (1979): 85-110. Print.Nicholson, C, and R.W. Stevenson. The Crying of Lot 49: York Notes. Harlow: Longman, 1981. Print.Pérez, Patricia López. “Narrativizing the 60s: Historiographic Metafiction in Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49.” Proceedings of the SUISS International Symposium. 2009. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.Pynchon, Thomas. The Crying of Lot 49. London: Vintage, 1996. Print.Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850. London: Macmillan and co., 1893. Print.

Birkbeck Institutional Research Online

Historical Sources for Thomas Pynchon’s “Peter Pinguid Society”Martin Paul EveMost close readings of the Peter Pinguid Society section in The Crying of Lot 49 have hailed it as an example par excellence of Pynchon’s aptitude for combining historical fact with fiction. However, many of these works have underestimated the precision of Pynchon’s sourcing (J. K. Grant 60-61) while others, in extreme cases, have been deceived into the all-too-familiar uncanniness whereby Pynchon’s extra-textual history appears too fantastical to be real (Pérez 40). In this note, I will present the cumulative textual evidence to support the view that Pynchon consulted a single work, F. A. Golder’s “The Russian Fleet and the Civil War” to construct the historicity of this episode. I will also present an interesting historical connection to the date of significance to Pinguid’s supposed followers, for 9 March 1864 was actually the date of Ulysses S. Grant’s ascent to the rank of Lieutenant-General—a significant factor in the Union Civil War victory.To briefly recap: The fictional Peter Pinguid Society was, according to Pynchon’s text, founded to commemorate the eponymous captain of a Confederate man-of-war. En-route to launch an assault on San Francisco, Pinguid encountered a Russian vessel under the command of Rear Admiral Popov—sent to prevent Anglo-Franco assistance to the Confederacy—and, in what Brian McHale sees as a Faulknerian parody, the narrative remains unclear over whether they fired at one another (96). Much of the historical scenario could have been constructed from archival naval communications, particularly the Arkhiv Morskogo Ministerstva, Dielo Kantseliarii Morskogo Ministerstva, no. 91, pt. III. (102-03), which is the basis of Golder’s work. However, it is far more likely that Pynchon did not visit the Russian archive and, instead, relied on this secondary source.Such a conclusion is warranted by four direct textual correlations to Golder’s article and the improbability of Pynchon arriving at an identical translation of the original Russian sources therein. First, Pynchon writes about a potential Confederate naval threat to San Francisco:Rumors were abroad that winter that the Reb cruisers Alabama and Sumter were indeed on the point of attacking the city. (32)which distinctly echoes Golder’s account, 243Spring-Fall 2009It was reported that the Confederate cruisers Sumter and Alabama were planning to attack the city. (809)This is of particular note as current scholarship on this section has emphasized the likelihood of the Alabama and Sumter rumor being of Pynchon’s own making. Indeed, Golder’s article contains all the named ships, and more, employed by Pynchon in this section: “Bogatir, Kalevala, Rinda, and Novik, the clippers Abrek and Gaidamak” (Golder 808). Secondly, Golder writes thatIn view of this possibility Popov took measures to prevent it. He gave orders to his officers that should such a corsair come into port, the ranking officer of the fleet should at once give the signal “to put on steam and clear for action.” (809)A direct portion of Golder’s version appears in Pynchon’s corresponding passage:the Russian admiral had, on his own responsibility, issued his Pacific squadron standing orders to put on steam and clear for action should any such attempt develop. (32)The direct repetition of the translated phrase “put on steam and clear for action” seems more than fortuitous.Thirdly, Golder’s article posits a diplomatic link between Russia and America in the emancipation of their respective slave populations: “Alexander had freed the serfs; Lincoln was emancipating the slaves” (805), which Pynchon uses inaccurately (as C. Nicholson and R. W. Stevenson have pointed out [30]), crediting Nicholas, rather than Alexander  when describing what Mike Fallopian finds troublesome about Pinguid’s response to the confrontation:appalled at what had to be some military alliance between abolitionist Russia (Nicholas having freed the serfs in 1861) and a Union that paid lip service to abolition while it kept its own industrial labourers in a kind of wage-slavery, Peter Pinguid stayed in his cabin for weeks, brooding. (33)Finally, Pynchon seriously plays up the significance of this initial military dalliance between the US and Russia, crediting the event with serious Cold War repercussions:But that was the very first military confrontation between Russia and America. Attack, retaliation, both projectiles deep-sixed forever and the Pacific rolls on. But the ripples from those two splashes spread, and grew, and today engulf us all. (33)Even without the fictitious firing incident, Golder comes to a similar conclusion 244 Pynchon Notes 56–57that this event was a truly remarkable point of international relations:It was a most extraordinary situation: Russia had not in mind to help us but did render us distinct service; the United States was not conscious that it was contributing in any way to Russia’s welfare and yet seems to have saved her from humiliation and perhaps war. There is probably nothing to compare with it in diplomatic history. (812)As Golder describes it, however, the result is an accidental détente between two nations whose relations would evolve to the Cold War tensions of the 1960s when Lot 49 is set.Moving now to the second point of historical interest: the date chosen by Pynchon for the fictional hostilities between the Russians and Americans: “the 9th March, 1864, a day now held sacred by all Peter Pinguid Society members” (32). This date was actually marked in Civil War history as the day on which Ulysses S. Grant was appointed Lieutenant-General of the United States (U. S. Grant 116), a crucial legislative move in his progression towards becoming General-in-Chief; a position required in order to legally allow Grant to overrule his co-Generals (Catton 116-123). In reality, the date celebrated by the PPS turns out to be of significance for the Union, not the Confederacy. Such turbulence regarding the Society’s allegiance, which disregards the dialectic of “[g]ood guys and bad guys” (Lot 49 33) in order to critique the entire project of industrialization, also cannot wholly rest upon support for slavery; Pynchon cannot have been unaware of the canonized historical rhetoric which regards Eli Whitney’s cotton gin as the crucial industrial development that rendered slavery economically viable (Rhodes 25-27). I would suggest, although the troubling of political polarities was already evident, that this research should urge future scholarship to examine more rigorously the usually assumed label of “right-wing” that is applied to The Peter Pinguid Society.—University of SussexWorks CitedCatton, Bruce. Grant Takes Command. London: J.M. Dent, 1970. Golder, F. A. “The Russian Fleet and the Civil War.” The American Historical Review 20.4 (1915): 801-12. Grant, J. Kerry. A Companion to The Crying of Lot 49. 2nd ed. Athens: U of Georgia P, 2008. Grant, Ulysses S. Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1886. McHale, Brian. “Modernist Reading, Post-Modern Text: The Case of Gravity’s Rainbow.” Poetics Today 1.1/2 (1979): 85-110. 245Spring-Fall 2009Nicholson, C., and R.W. Stevenson. The Crying of Lot 49: York Notes. Harlow: Longman, 1981. Pérez, Patricia López. “Narrativizing the 60s: Historiographic Metafiction in Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49.” Proceedings of the SUISS International Symposium. 2009. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.Pynchon, Thomas. The Crying of Lot 49. London: Vintage, 1996. Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850. London: Macmillan and co., 1893. 

Martin Paul Eve

Crossref

Historical Sources for Thomas Pynchon’s “Peter Pinguid Society”

An evaluation of the likely historical sources consulted by Thomas Pynchon in relation to the "Peter Pinguid" society episode of The Crying of Lot 49

Martin Eve (521032)

Sussex Research Online

Historical Sources for Pynchon's Peter Pinguid Society

http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/12262/13/18-35-1-SM.pdf

Historical sources for Pynchon's Peter Pinguid Society

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

University of Lincoln Institutional Repository

Birkbeck Institutional Research Online

Crossref

Sussex Research Online