Myth-tory*
* Almost — But Not Quite — Rhymes With “History”
Can the Historically Documented Emperor Norton Exist Peacefully Alongside Myths and Tall Tales About Him? Yes — BUT…
Framing Is Everything
[If past is prologue, this commentary will be sliced, diced, proof-texted, and social-posted to make me say things I never said. One can but try. —JL]
IN 2016, the San Francisco History Association presented The Emperor’s Bridge Campaign — the predecessor to The Emperor Norton Trust — with that year’s Ron Ross Founder’s Award. In acceptance remarks that I titled “Reckoning With Both the Man and the Myth,” I noted:
Balancing the life and the legacy of this particular figure can be a tricky business. Scholars of the historical figure of Jesus often talk about “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith.” I don’t want to push that metaphor too far here. But, in researching and teaching about Emperor Norton, we are challenged to reckon with both “the man” and “the myth.”
The myth of Emperor Norton is cherished by many — and it’s an important part of what keeps him alive and relevant.
[S]ometimes the myth and the man are at cross purposes….
But one has to follow the evidence where it leads. And what impresses me more and more, as I do my own research, is that the Emperor Norton who presents himself in his own writings is every bit as wonderful — often much more wonderful — than the received caricature of him as a cranky but lovable kook.
At the time, the Campaign had under its belt two major research projects using an evidence-based approach to correct long-embraced assumptions about the Emperor Norton story:
That he was born in 1819. In early 2015, we showed that, with 99.9% certainty, the Emperor was born on 4 February 1818.
That he issued a proclamation and imposed a fine against the use of the word “Frisco.” In early 2016, we — I — published a deep-dive establishing that claims for an anti-”Frisco” proclamation are utterly unfounded.
:: :: ::
IN THE YEARS since 2016, the Campaign and now The Emperor Norton Trust has built a reputation for research that puts the documented Emperor Norton first — research that
(1) Uncovers and discovers previously unreported and new evidence — and uses this evidence to expand and enrich the Emperor’s biography
(2) Digs into historical claims about the Emperor and — where evidence is elusive — uses the lack of evidence to reveal these claims as being unfounded and thus unwarranted to be included in the biography
A tiny but vocal cohort of Norton enthusiasts in San Francisco that doesn’t take their Emperor Norton “straight” but prefers it with “myths included” takes particular exception to (2) — so much so that they go to great lengths to mischaracterize me as a hardass who believes that (a) only what Emperor Norton is documented to have said and done is to be spoken, and that (b) myths and apocryphal tales about Emperor Norton should not be told at all.
This disinformation gets weaponized in a couple of different ways: Either I’m an egomaniacal stuffed shirt who fails to understand the true spirit of the Emperor or, if I show any appreciation for mythologizing treatments of the Emp, I’m a hypocrite.
Recently, I posted on Facebook about an eBay listing for a terrific 1958 TV Guide ad for a syndicated airing, in Chicago, of the 1956 “Emperor Norton” episode (season 4, episode 21) of the Western anthology series Death Valley Days.
When a leader of the “mythology as biography” group shared my post on their own Facebook profile, one of their friends chimed in: “Why would John want it? I’m sure it contains inaccuracies and apocrypha.”
In fact, I was the one who introduced this episode to many in the San Francisco history community when I included it in a Norton film evening — Lights! Camera! Norton! — that I curated and hosted on behalf of The Emperor’s Bridge Campaign at the Roxie Theater in February 2017.
Shortly afterward, I engaged the Internet Archive to digitize the DVD copy of the episode we showed at the Roxie as well as three other films — two television episodes (from Bonanza and Telephone Time) and a 1936 Columbia Pictures short — and in April 2017 used these to launch the Film section of the Campaign’s (now Trust’s) ARchive of Emperor Norton in the Arts (ARENA).
:: :: ::
OCCASIONALLY, the fanciful tellings of the Emperor Norton story that are related in these films made between the 1930s and 1960s overlap with the documented biographical history of the Emperor.
But, the primary interest and use of these extra-biographical films is as “inspired by” artifacts of the cultural history of the Emp — in the potential of these films to reveal larger truths beneath the surface: truths about Emperor Norton; about those who created these wishful versions of the Emperor; and about those who continue to tell themselves and others these versions of the Emp.
This is how we should be thinking about many of the undocumented apocryphal tales about Emperor Norton, too. To wit…
There is no evidence that the Emperor issued a decree forbidding use of the word “Frisco” and imposing a fine for violations. But the Emperor is documented to have issued Proclamations in which he called San Francisco the “Queen City of the Pacific.” The anti-”Frisco” story is a story — apparently created and first published in 1939 — that could be used as a springboard to talk about (a) Emperor Norton’s term of endearment for his adopted city and (b) the attitudes of some San Fanciscans towards the word “Frisco” from the late 1930s to the present.
There is no evidence that Emperor Norton ever shamed and dispersed an anti-Chinese mob by standing in the middle of the street and reciting the Lord’s Prayer. But, there is documentation of the Emperor’s confronting the anti-Chinese demagogue Denis Kearney at Kearney’s sandlot meetings on at least two occasions. And the Emperor issued at least 17 Proclamations advocating for the dignity and rights of the Chinese population in San Francisco. The Lord’s Prayer story adds a Christian spin that likely says more about the writer of 1939 — the same one who gave us the anti-”Frisco” decree — than anything the Emperor ever said or did.
There is no evidence that Emperor Norton called for a “League of Nations.” But there are numerous documented examples of his engagement on issues of international law and international cooperation. So, it would not be difficult to depict the Emperor as an unheralded avatar of the spirit that led to the creation of the League of Nations 40 years after his death.
There is no evidence that Emperor Norton called for a giant Christmas tree in Union Square “for the children.” But, there are numerous documented examples in which the Emperor both attended and commended various public amenities and amusements to his subjects — from opera and theater to farmer’s markets to skating rinks. And there are contemporaneous stories of his care for children. This is yet another story from the 1939 pen of the apparent creator of the anti-”Frisco” and Lord’s Prayer stories — and may say more about the writer’s Christian agenda than anything else.
:: :: ::
THE POINT HERE is that, in the case of Emperor Norton, biographical history and cultural history — the latter, including myths and apocryphal tales — are two complementary but separate things.
There is no problem with telling Norton myths. But the myths must be properly labeled. The myths can do what they are best fitted to do only if they are kept in the “culture” bucket.
I’m not talking about artists and writers who routinely take liberties with the Norton biography in producing works of art and humor: dramatic films, operas, musicals, comics — things that, by definition, are in the “culture” bucket.
I’m talking about those who are acting not as artists but as historians of Emperor Norton — and who are trusted to be honest brokers of that history.
For these people to put myths in the “biography” bucket — to claim flatly, without providing any context, that the Emperor said or did what he is not documented to have said or done — that he railed against “Frisco,” for example, or that he called for a big Christmas tree — in short, for them to conflate myth and history into one blurry and undifferentiated account, so that those who read and hear this account can’t tell which is history and which is myth — this does two things:
It creates a distorted, inaccurate, and misleading view of Emperor Norton.
It robs myths of their power by literalizing them.
It also makes a mockery of history itself.
There are self-declared Emperor Norton “historians” in San Francisco who will tell you with a straight face that, unless and until there is proof that the Emperor did NOT issue a proclamation against use of the word “Frisco,” they are free to say that he did — for no reason other than that they like the idea. Does this mean I am free to claim that Emperor Norton saddled up on a smiling dinosaur simply because the notion tickles my fancy? Source: Clipartmax
:: :: ::
TO BE FAIR, what really pushes the buttons of my San Francisco interlocutors is when I have the temerity to call out specific individuals — one individual in particular — for these anti-historical practices.
This makes me petty and mean, in their view — and, for some in San Francisco, there’s nothing worse than not being nice.
But, when you make yourself a public figure, you open yourself to public criticism.
A quick digression…
I never have cared for the term “history buff.” It suggests a certain fannish and hobbyish and dilettantish lack of focus and seriousness that I don’t associate with my own Emperor Norton practice.
At the same time, I generally have been reticent to call myself an “historian” — as I am not professionally trained and credentialed as such.
But, after 12 years of deep research and study of the Emperor’s life and legacy, including producing what widely is regarded as the most extensive — and intensive — body of scholarship on Emperor Norton…
nearly 210 articles;
an annotated map of nearly 110 locations where Emperor Norton lived, worked, and visited; and
an archive of more than 260 works of visual art, music, and film
…I am becoming more comfortable with considering myself an historian of the Emperor.
From this perspective, what pushes my buttons is those who — while promoting themselves as “historians” — have the chutzpah to make a routine of declaring that Emperor Norton said and did things that they know he did not — presenting as fact what simply is not true — passing off myth as biography — and expecting to be celebrated for it.
Whatever else this is — entertainment, performance — it is not history. And it does not deserve to be respected as such.
:: :: ::
THE TITLE OF this piece — “Myth-tory” — is a bit of a misnomer. It suggests that the basic categories at play are “myth” and “history.”
In fact, it appears that this is how my occasional challengers see it. When they speak of “history” and “myth,” they treat “history” as a synonym for “biography” and “myth” as a kind of sub-category of biography. This leads them to ask whether myths about Emperor Norton should be included in his biography.
Their answer to that question is Yes. My answer is a decisive No.
But their whole schema is misguided — and their misdefinition of the categories leads them to ask the wrong question.
What I am saying is that, really, it ALL is history. Yes, the Norton myths make claims for what Emperor Norton said and did during his lifetime. But, the myths — especially the ones that San Francisco folklorists seem most determined to leverage into the Emperor’s biography — appear to have been created long after the Emperor’s death. Each of these myths has its own history and must be interrogated as to who created it, when, and what the myth says about its creator and potentially about Emperor Norton.
It’s not that myths and apocryphal tales about the Emperor can’t have value — depending on how they are used. They can. They’re just not biography.
A full historical accounting of Emperor Norton includes:
Biographical history — the documented life of Emperor Norton
Cultural history — including undocumented myths and tales
But, the way to recognize and include both of these histories is not to blend the cultural into the biographical and just call the whole stew “biography.”
Rather, it is to negotiate between the two, so that the documented biography and the undocumented myths live in their own mutually supporting spaces.
Put more briefly:
Call biography biography. Cite sources.
Call myth myth. Cite sources.
Do not mix.
:: :: ::
I TEND TO MENTION myths about Emperor Norton mostly to debunk them as undocumented. No doubt, this has led some to conclude that I have some animus towards Norton myths.
It’s not that.
Rather: My treatment of myths reflects my view that biography should drive the narrative. For me, the the documented history of the Emperor’s life is both satisfying and sufficient — not least, because there is so much yet to discover on that front.
The Mythologists often behave as though the Emperor’s biography needs embellishing. Indeed, they spend so much time defending myths as to give the impression that an Emperor Norton who did not rail against “Frisco” (he didn’t); did not originate the push for a League of Nations (nope); did not stop an anti-Chinese riot by reciting the Lord’s Prayer (no record of that); and did not call for a Union Square Christmas tree (sorry) would be less worthy of attention — as though the myths were the main attraction, when in fact they are a bit of a sideshow (and not that interesting in and of themselves).
Too: I object to how the myths often are used to promote a cartoon version of a prophetic Emperor who was an heroic visionary on every imaginable issue — and who also gives cover to the cultural biases of those promoting the myths (see “Frisco”).
My downplaying of the Norton myths may, however, have the effect of helping to keep the line between Norton biography and Norton myth a little crisper and brighter. For that, I am not sorry.
One of my favorite quotes on the general theme of keeping history legitimate comes from a 2021 interview with Harvard historian Jill Lepore:
We need a better history, and we need a fuller history, and we need a harder history. It needs to be hard. It needs to be hard to think about, because it is hard to think about. I think we call a lot of things “history” that aren’t history. A lot of stuff that we call “history” is really folklore, myth, or tourism. History is a humanistic discipline that requires an extraordinary amount of intellectual exertion and accumulation of knowledge. And it’s important, even though it’s been packaged as something that you could just pick up at the store, buying a facsimile of the Declaration of Independence or a tricornered hat. That’s not history; that’s just tourism. I think we confuse the two. But the study of history is hard, and it can often be painful.
One of the first pieces I wrote and published to the Emperor Norton Trust website, in January 2014, was our biographical essay on the Emperor.
Over the years, I’ve revised the essay from time to time, in response to new findings.
But, the opening lines have never changed:
Emperor Norton (1818-1880) is both a legend and an historical figure. It’s not always easy to tell where one begins and the other one ends.
What I know now but did not know then: There’s a reason why “it’s not always easy to tell” where the biography and the legend of Emperor Norton stop and start.
It partly is because, in every generation, there has been a vocal set of people who cling to and promote the legends and myths of the Emperor as though they were part of his biography — and who have difficulty letting that go.
Answering the question of why that is so is its own project of cultural history.
:: :: ::
For an archive of all of the Trust’s blog posts and a complete listing of search tags, please click here.
Search our blog...