progressive involvement

Letter of the poet, W.H. Auden, to his pastor after their parish had begun using a more modern language liturgy

77 St Mark’s Place
New York City 3

Nov. 26th [year not given]

Dear Father Allen:

Have you gone stark raving mad? Aside from its introduction of a lesson and psalm from the O.T., which seems to me admirable since few people go any more to Mattins or Evensong, the new ‘liturgy’ is appalling.

Our Church has had the singular good-fortune of having its Prayer-Book composed and its Bible translated at exactly the right time, i.e., late enough for the language to be intelligible to any English-speaking person in this century (any child of six can be told what ‘the quick and the dead’ means) and early enough, i.e., when people still had an instinctive feeling for the formal and the ceremonious which is essential in liturgical language.

This feeling has been, alas, as we all know, almost totally lost. (To identify the ceremonious with ‘the undemocratic’ is sheer contemporary cant.) The poor Roman Catholics, obliged to start from scratch, have produced an English Mass which is a cacophonous monstrosity (the German version is quite good, but German has a certain natural sonority): But why should we imitate them?

I implore you by the bowels of Christ to stick to Cranmer and King James. Preaching, of course, is another matter: there the language must be contemporary. But one of the great functions of the liturgy is to keep us in touch with the past and the dead.

And what, by the way, has happened to the altar cloths? If they have been sold to give money to the poor, I will gladly accept their disappearance: I will not accept it on any liturgical or doctrinal grounds.

With best wishes

[signed]

W.H. Auden

 

Bad book

It's the rare biography that, after reading it, you actually know less about the person you're reading about than you did before.  That's the case with Eric Metaxas' biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  

Bonhoeffer is entirely misrepresented in Metaxas' book, which he apparently wrote in order to try to steal Bonhoeffer into the American evangelical camp.  It's like Metaxas wrote the book with blinders on, seeing only what he had decided in advance he wanted to see.  

Bonhoeffer, incidentally, held the relatively common German view that American theology was shallow.  His closest friends in America, however, were all mainline pastors and theologians, and he found great vitality in the black church.  He taught Sunday School for a time at Abyssinian Baptist in NYC.  I can't recall that he said or wrote anything at all about American evangelicals.

When Metaxas' discusses Bonhoefferian theology that would make American evangelicals quesy, such as those in his later writings, he described Bonhoeffer's position poorly and said his thoughts should basically be ignored.

Which is why it is so refreshing this morning to see Scott Paeth utterly dissect and refute Metaxas' abominable book in a post titled Eric Metaxas and the Egregious Misuse of Bonhoeffer.

I could have as easily titled this post "The Egregious Eric Metaxas's misuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer," because, make no mistake, Metaxas is egregious, and the cottage industry he has cultivated in selling right wing Christian self-righteousness under the banner of comparing their moral sclerosis to the genuine courage and moral risk taken by Dietrich Bonhoeffer is disgusting and offensive. And the fact that he has done it through a biographical hatchet job that has become successful by flattering the delusions of American evangelicals that they are embroiled in a struggle for the soul of America that is in some way equivalent to that of the German Confessing Church just piles offense on offense.

With that teaser, go read the whole thing.

Short Review: Game of Thrones

Fantasy is not my favorite genre, but reading George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones series has been strangely captivating.  

The story is (very) loosely based on England's War of the Roses.  In the 15th century, it was the House of York versus the House of Lancaster.  In Game of Thrones, it's Stark versus Lannister.

To that, add something like Hadrian's Wall, which, in real life, kept the Picts at bay.  Martin's "Wall" keeps the "wildlings" and "the Others" at bay.  Toss in the Mongols--the "dothraki"--as well as dragons, seasons that last decades, and the machinations of medieval politics, and you have begun to enter the world imagined by George R.R. Martin.

It's a dismal one.  The violence is frequent, masochistic, and described with relish.  It gets a bit much, frankly, but that seems to be one of Martin's main points.  The ethical man--Lord Stark--is beheaded right off the bat, on the whim of a testosterone-addled teenager.  Life is "nasty, brutish, and short," as Thomas Hobbes once put it, and Game of Thrones underlines the point repeatedly.

Through five volumes, the poor Starks have endured much.  Lord Stark, the Hand of King Robert, was beheaded.  His son Robert, the King of the North, was killed at the Red Wedding, as was his mother, Catelyn.  Bran was thrown out of a window at age 4 and crippled for life.  Rickon is presumably dead.  Arya was last seen mind-merging with a tree.  

Jon Snow, Lord Stark's bastard son, is apparently assassinated by his colleagues at the end of volume 5.  I say "apparently" because Brienne of Tarth was presumed dead as well, but managed to reappear somehow.  Snow was last seen being stabbed by several daggers, like Julius Caesar, but was not actually pronounced dead.  Maybe Jon Snow will reappear in upcoming volumes 6 and 7.

Volumes 1-3 were compelling.  The main characters are interesting and well-described.  (Lesser characters number at least in the dozens, if not hundreds.)  The narrative moves with energy along multiple trajectories.  

Everything seemed to fall apart after the Red Wedding.  The assassination of young King Robert was a shock, especially since it seemed King Robert was the one perhaps most likely to win the "game of thrones," the battle for sole kingship in the seven kingdoms.

After the Red Wedding, the narrative loses its forward movement.  The narrative bogs down and nobody really seems to do anything.  They move around a lot.  Various characters are on various difficult journeys of great length, described often and in great detail, in which every moment is fraught with sudden danger and arbitrary violence.  

Yet, nothing actually seems to happen.  At the beginning of volume 5, Lord Stannis was in the snows outside Winterfell, precisely where he would be at the end of volume 5.

Volume 6 is not due for a few years, to be followed by a final volume 7.  Perhaps that will give the author sufficient space to bring at least a few of the many threads together.  Perhaps he will hew to his line of life's dismal suffering and drudgery, or perhaps Arya Stark will reclaim Winterfell!

Volumes 1-3 were riveting.  Volumes 4 and 5 were rather a slog.  Here's hoping the final volumes are a return to the series' former glory.

Image:  gameofthroneswallpaper.com 

 

Lectionary blogging: Epiphany 6: Matthew 5: 21-37

²¹“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ ²²But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.²³So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, ²⁴leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. ²⁵Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. ²⁶Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

²⁷“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ²⁹If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ³⁰And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. ³¹“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ ³²But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

³³“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ ³⁴But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, ³⁵or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. ³⁶And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. ³⁷Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

Translation:  You have heard that it was said to the ones living long ago, "You will not murder," and whoever might murder is subject to the judgment.  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother (or sister) is subject to the judgment.  And whoever might say to his brother (or sister), "you empty-head," is subject to the Sanhedrin, but whoever might say, "you fool," is subject into the hell-fire.  If, then, you might offer your gift upon the altar and there might remember that your brother (or sister) has something against you, leave there your gift before the altar and go first to be reconciled to your brother (or sister) and then come offer your gift.  You agree with your adversary quickly, as long as whoever is with him on the way, lest the adversary deliver you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will be thrown into prison.  Truly I say to you, you will surely not go out from there until you might give over the last farthing.

You have heard that it was said, "You will not commit adultery."  But I say to you that anyone seeing a woman in order to desire her is now committing adultery in his heart.  But if your right eye might cause you to stumble, take it out and throw (it) from you, for it is profitable for you that one of your members might perish and not (that) your whole body might be thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw (it) from you, for it is profitable for you that one of your members might perish, and not your whole body be gone into hell.  But it has been said, whoever might release his wife, let him give her a divorce.  But I say to you that anyone releasing his wife, except of word of illicit sex, does adultery to her, and whoever might marry the one released is being adulterous.

Again, you have heard it was said to the ones living long ago, "Do not swear falsely, but you will give to the Lord your oaths."  But I say to you, do not swear at all, not by heaven, for it is a throne of God, nor by the earth, for it is a footstool of his feet, nor by Jerusalem, for it is a city of the great king, nor might you swear by your head, for you are not able to make one hair white or black.  But let your word be "yes, yes, no, no."  But whatever is more than these is out of the evil one.

Background and situation:  This section (5:21-37) is a continuation of the Sermon on the Mount.  Thus far, Jesus has spoken the prologue, the Beatitudes.  He then began his first major speech in Matthew with the proclamation of his listeners as salt and light and proclaimed the fulfillment of prophesy and the law.  The law remains in full force "until all has come to be," a reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus which brings the New Creation.

The major source seems to be Q with some Special Matthew worked in, and with a couple of bank shots off Mark.  Matthew 5: 25-26 has a parallel in Luke 12: 58 while 28-29 seem to have come out of Mark 9: 43-48.  Matthew 5: 27-28 has a connection to Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-4 and 11-12.

November 22, 1963

I was a freshman in high school, in chemistry class, sitting next to Roger Workman at the third table from the front in the middle aisle.  

It was about 12:30 p.m. when the principal of the school, Arnold Anderson, his voice crackling through the intercom, announced that President Kennedy had been shot.  He didn't say if he was dead, only that he had been shot.  About ten minutes later, Anderson confirmed the President had died.

That weekend was a marathon of black-and-white television--Huntley and Brinkley, Cronkite, and Smith foremost, each with their retinue of reporters.  Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, was killed on live television.  

The procession of the President's body through the streets of Washington on the way to the funeral contained several elements now considered iconic--the riderless horse, JFK Jr'.s salute, the cadence of the drums, world leaders such as Charles DeGaulle and Haile Selassie leading the international delegations.  Most Americans over the age of 60 will remember this:

 

It wasn't long before the official story of the assassination, the Warren Report, was called into question by a number of reporters and writers.  In a short period of time, most Americans became convinced that the assassination of JFK involved a conspiracy of some sort.  In the 1970's, the House Select Committee on Assassinations agreed with them.

In more recent years, revisionists such as Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi have argued that the Warren Commission basically got it right.  Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, and he fired three shots at President Kennedy, including the final and fatal one that struck the front part of his head.

The Zapruder film clearly shows President Kennedy's head being driven back, apparently by a shot from the front.  The revisionists want to argue that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's head move slightly forward at impact before an "exploding nerve" drove his head backward.  

In other words, even though, with his head being struck in the front and exploding backward, it looks as though the President was shot from the front, he really wasn't.  They might as well be saying, "Who you gonna believe?  Us, or your own lyin' eyes."

John F. Kennedy presided over the United States at the heighth of its power and influence.  World War II had ended only 15 years before his election, and we were still enjoying the benefits and advantages of victory.  We were well on our way to repairing the damage done by the Great Depression.  Our military power was such that Kennedy could stare down the Soviets over Cuba.

After his assassination, nothing seemed quite right.  Hopeful and optimistic at the beginning of the decade, America sunk into recriminations and hostility, even near chaos, by the decade's end.  Many Americans, inspired by JFK, went into politics in the early 60's.  By the late 60's, politics was out.

It has been 50 years since that fateful day, but his death still haunts us.  Politicians of all stripes, but especially Democrats, tried to mimick the Kennedy style and associate themselves with his energy and "vigor."  They all sounded inauthentic and "tinny."

Was John F. Kennedy a great President?  Yes.  He was smart enough to end-run the military hawks on Cuba, and tough enough to make Khrushchev blink.  To his political detriment, he embraced the civil rights movement.  In his American University speech of 1963, he was looking forward to a world that was not bogged down by intractible ideological conflict.

Of the many books that have been written about President Kennedy and the Kennedy assassination, these would be at the top of my list:  JFK and the Unspeakable, by James W. Douglass; An Unfinished Life, by Robert Dallek; Kennedy, by Ted Sorenson;  Brothers:  The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbott; President Kennedy:  Profile of Power, by Richard Reeves; Johnny, we hardly knew ye, by Kenneth O'Donnell;  and The Making of the President, 1960, by Arthur Schlesinger. 

 

 

Wonders of the inter-tubes

I've been wanting to read a political history concerning Napoleon Bonaparte.  A five minute search turned up a promising book by Steven Englund, Napoleon:  A Political History.  Some three or four clicks later I bought it.  It cost under $10.  

About three days later, it arrived in the mail from the Jacksonville Public Library, which had sold it in order to raise money to purchase new books.  Turns out, it was exactly what I was looking for, and exquisitely written besides.

Contrast that with an intentional book search I did about 15 years ago.  I had not been able to find Spiritus Creator by the Danish theologian, Regin Prenter, published around 1950.  A local used-book store managed to find a copy which would (and did) cost me $55.  I had it in about three weeks.  

It also turned out that, within two weeks of receiving Spiritus Creator, I happened to mention to a colleague that I'd finally found one for $55.  He said, "You should have said something.  I'd have given you my copy.  In fact, here it is.  Take it."  So then I had two copies of Spiritus Creator, one for $55 and one for free.

Not very long ago, it took considerable effort to find the books you were after, and then another considerable effort to get them.  Now, it's five clicks and three days.

Bruce Reyes Chow: "We must keep talking about race"

Bruce Reyes Chow is one of those people whom I've never actually met but whom I feel I know fairly well.  Ah, the wonders of the internet and social media!

Bruce was moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) from 2008 to 2010.  His new book is titled:  But I Don't See You as Asian: Curating Conversations about Race.  I caught up with him recently and he addressed some of the issues raised in his book:

(PI) OK, Bruce.  What causes racism?

Bruce:  There certainly is not one easily determined answer to this one. Some would say it's the history of slavery while others might say that it is a modern outgrowth of interactions between people of different cultures as the globe shrinks.

If I had to name one reason today, I would say that it is our collective inability to see one another as individualized human beings. Now this is NOT about being color-blind or wanting people to so give up culture, but I do believe that we too often see one another as A Black or An Asian or A White that we do not allow ourselves to be empathetic or understanding to what it means to BE Black or BE Asian or BE White. When we do this, we are less likely to appreciate the nuances and complexities of each individual's experience of their racial reality.

I would also say that another cause - can't just stop at one - is our failure to see how institutions and systems can perpetuate an ongoing culture that lives certain racial groups above others.

(PI) Racism has been called the "original sin" of America. Comment?

Bruce:  I have not heard this much, but I can see how this is tied to our history of slavery and exclusion, mostly around African American and Native American and how so much of our economy and culture has been build on our history of slavery and marginalization of people of color...

I think this is an untapped area of discussion to be had because, in a day and age when we want things to be solved yesterday, we must find a way to see that the impact of generations of slavery and racial exclusion will not be solved quickly. Yes, there are always exceptions to every rule, but as a larger narrative for the United States, there is great opportunity in having this conversation.

(PI) What can be done to diminish racism?

Bruce:  Contrary to what some may want, it is not to STOP talking about race. I am a firm believer that deeply conflicted relationships are not served by silence. Whether a marriage or a society, unless we keep talking about and through our disagreements, we doom ourselves to further withdrawal from one another and a building up of resentment and distrust. No matter how difficult we know it to be, we must keep talking about race.

Bruce is a native Northern Californian and 3rd generation Chinese/Filipino who writes and speaks extensively on faith, politics, race, parenting and technology.

Bruce graduated from San Francisco State University with a degree in Philosophy, Sociology and Asian American studies (1990), earned his masters degree from San Francisco Theological Seminary (1995) and was granted an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Austin College (2011).

A prolific blogger and sought-after speaker, Bruce's previous books include The Definitive-ish Guide for Using Social Media in the Church (Shook Foil Books, 2012).  His writing can be found on his blog, www.reyes-chow.com, as well as The Huffington Post, Patheos and The Working Preacher.

Bruce is also a Presbyterian Teaching Elder having pastored multicultural congregations for nearly 20 years. In 2008 he was elected to the highest office the 2 million member Presbyterian Church (USA).

Bruce currently lives in San Francisco, CA with his wife, Robin, his three daughters, Evelyn, Abby and Annie and one very cute canine.  But I Don't See You as Asian can be purchased here.

 

Tricky Dick at 100

This is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Richard M. Nixon, 37th President of the United States.  One thing you could say about him:  he had an astute political mind.  We still live in the political world that he did much to form.

The general pattern of his political approach was set in college.  He attended Whittier College in southern California.  At the time, the dominant social group at Whittier was the Franklins.  The Franklins were the aristocrats, the nobility, of the student body.

Nixon organized the Orthogonians--the "right angles"--as a counter to the Franklins.  He had correctly deduced that most of the students were not hip or cool or popular, and they somewhat resented those who were.  Playing on that resentment, a tactic he would use throughout his political life, he was elected student body president.

"People react to fear, not love," Nixon told speechwriter William Safire. "They don't teach that in Sunday school, but it's true."

He was among a large group of World War II veterans who were elected to the House of Representatives right after the war, a group which included John F. Kennedy.  It seems an unlikely pairing today, but Nixon and Kennedy were friends in their early years in the House. 

Richard Nixon became a national figure by taking on Alger Hiss.  Hiss was a communist and a spy, said Cong. Nixon.  Urbane and sophisticated, Hiss was the perfect foil--a Franklin to Nixon's Orthogonian.  Hiss was convicted of perjury in 1950.  In the hothouse atmosphere of McCarthyism, Nixon made his bones on Hiss.

Dwight Eisenhower took Nixon as his running mate in 1952 primarily to shore up his right wing.  Nixon would go on to appear on the national ballot of the Republican Party five times.

Eisenhower never cared much for Nixon.  They had virtually no personal relationship.  Ike never invited him to his Gettysburg farm.  During Nixon's campaign for president in 1960, when Eisenhower was asked what contribution Nixon had made to the administration, he replied that he'd have to think about it for a week or so and maybe he could come up with something. 

The 1960 campaign, the first that I personally remember, pitted the archetypal Franklin, John F. Kennedy, against the archetypal Orthogonian, Richard Nixon.  In this case, however, the Franklin scored a narrow victory.  Nixon would be paranoid about Kennedys for the rest of his life.

He made a rare political mistake when he ran for governor of California in 1962.  It was a poor race for him, and he mis-read the electorate.  He ran against the incumbent, Pat Brown, the current governor's father, and wound up getting beat badly.  Nixon blamed the press, and groused, "Gentlemen, this is my last press conference."

In 1968, he declared himself a "new Nixon".  He wanted to portray himself as poised and mature.  He easily won the Republican nomination, then pursued a "southern strategy" to play on white resentment against the civil rights movement.  (Nixon, at one time, had been something of a liberal on civil rights.  Against John F. Kennedy, he received about 40% of the African-American vote.)

One sign of Nixon's enduring influence is that his "southern strategy" worked for the GOP for most of the past 50 years.  Reagan solidified Nixon's coalition in 1980, and both Bushes were the beneficiaries.

Nixon's actual record as president was, from today's perspective, strikingly liberal.  Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.  He supported universal health care, the Equal Rights Amendment and affirmative action.  He even once proclaimed himself a "Keynesian."  These are all heresies in the GOP today.

It should be noted, however, that these positions were politically expedient at the time.  When it comes to liberalism, Richard Nixon was no Lyndon Johnson.

The elusive Nixon came into clearer focus with Watergate.  His diehard supporters claimed that everyone did the things Nixon did and that Nixon's big crime was getting caught.  Most people didn't buy it.  Wiretaps and burglaries are crimes, and so is trying to bribe your way through a cover-up.

For all his considerable intelligence and political savvy, Richard Nixon was also insecure and paranoid, a liar and a crook, a bigot and a racist.  He tried to smear his every opponent.  We're still living in the rancid and festering sewer of a political atmosphere he more than anyone else helped to create and legitimize.

Best books on the subject:  Nixon Agonistes, by Garry Wills;  Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.

Image:  Time magazine 

Biographical propaganda at best, making stuff up at worst

Some years ago now, I presented a psychological study of Thomas Jefferson at High Plains Mental Health in Kansas.  I sent a copy to Dumas Malone who had written a five-volume study of Jefferson in the 1970's.  He won a Pulitzer for it in 1975.  Malone was kind enough to send a hand-written note in return.  He died in 1986.

So I know a little bit about Jefferson, is what I'm saying, and David Barton doesn't.  For years, Barton has been trying to peddle the notion that the Founding Fathers of our country were all evangelical Christians.  His recent book, The Jefferson Lies, makes that argument about Jefferson.  

In fact, as anybody who knows anything about Jefferson should surely know, Jefferson was a free-thinker and a deist--a Unitarian, if you will.  He was a great critic of religion in general, and edited the parts of the Bible he didn't like.  

His political opponents, among them the establishment churches, railed against Jefferson in the election of 1800.  He would burn Bibles, they said.  Armed troops would break into your homes to seize them.  The infidel Jefferson is at the door!  

Baptists, however, supported Jefferson.  They did so precisely because Jefferson believed, as did they (then), in religious liberty.  Believe what you want, said Jefferson, I certainly do.

Jefferson was a thorough-going creature of the Enlightenment.  He read and appreciated the French philosophes, as did many of the Founding Fathers.  The American republic and its Constitution are more the product of Montesquieu and Rousseau than Jonathan Edwards and John Calvin.  (Roman Catholicism and Luther are not even in the picture.)

Barton likes America, he likes evangelical Christianity, and he likes Jefferson.  Somehow, he wants to get them all on the same side.  Eric Metaxas did something similar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  He tried to hijack Bonhoeffer into evangelical Christianity.

Bonhoeffer was an intellectual.  Theologically, he was influenced by Barth and neo-orthodoxy, and the intellectual currents of Europe in the 1930's, none of which, apparently, Metaxas knows anything about.  (For the definitive biography of Bonhoeffer, and an astute assessment of his theology, see Eberhard Bethge's Dietrich Bonhoeffer:  A Biography.  Bethge was Bonhoeffer's best friend.  He knows whereof he speaks.) 

Barton's book has been panned even by conservatives, and, finally, has been pulled by the publisher.  In an age when, seemingly, anybody can say anything at all without any regard for factuality or truth, it is highly unusual that a book would actually be pulled from distribution for its "factual errors."  That's how bad it was.

Metaxas' book won't suffer the same fate.  His Bonhoeffer may be just as "evangelically tarted-up" as Barton's Jefferson, but Metaxas' writing is better and he presents a more polished image.  

Napoleon famous asked, "What is history but a fable agreed upon?"  Still, people, there ought to be at least some standards.  How about rule number one:  You can't just make stuff up.

 

Requiscat in pacem, Gore Vidal

I've liked Gore Vidal ever since he called William F. Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" on national television back in the 60's.  It was a great bonus that he also wrote some very good books--in particular Lincoln, which I recently re-read.

His patrician snobbery was over-the-top, yet you never wondered a second if it was an act.  That was pure Vidal, along with his inveterate name-dropping.  Not too long ago, in the course of ripping the Democratic Party, he casually mentioned that Hillary Clinton had visited him in Italy.

He had an excellent grasp of history.  You might not always agree with him, but his views were expressed with erudition and backed by a sizeable reservoir of knowledge.  Read his novels of 19th century America and you will learn a very great deal about 19th century America.

So goodbye, you cranky old queen.  Thanks for the books!