I’m not totally over my cold, but it’s better, and I’m back in the land of the living. So, here’s the next post in the series.
Doctor Luke’s Assistant ended in May 66 A.D., just as the Jewish revolt was breaking out. In DLA, no actual battles occurred, but unrest was growing.
The Teachings begin two weeks after the end of DLA. War breaks out before the end of the year and will continue until 70 A.D. This is the timeframe for my new book, so have to work in events of the wr into the book, event making them part of the plot. The main characters will be going here and there in Israel—and maybe even to other nations (still working that out), so I need to get things right. I can’t have the main character confronting Roman soldiers in Caesarea when the fighting at that point of the war was taking place in Galilee.
But where do you get information about the war, information that will give a specific timeline? I have a number of history books on Israel. Each of them covers the war, but none of them give a timeline. They say this happened first, that happened second, etc. But none give much of a timeline. Various online sources weren’t much different. I ran into an online Jewish encyclopedia recently. Perhaps, when I fully explore that I’ll find more info, but an initial look tells me it doesn’t have what I’m looking for.
That leaves me with the works of Josephus. Written by Josephus about 15 years after the war ended, The War of the Jews was the most extensive history written about this war. Josephus was a Jewish general on the Israeli side who lost a battle, was captured by the Romans, and ended up on the Roman side. As a result, his history is suspect. Did he skew things to favor himself? Does he treat the Jews more negatively than is justified and the Romans more positively, even though he’s a Jew?
Back in the late 90s or early 2000s, we bought a four-volume edition of Josephus’ works. Now they are available on-line in a number of places. I’m glad to have the print edition, however, as I can extensively mark in it, and am doing so.
Alas, the timeline is difficult to establish in Josephus’ War. He gives a few dates, even down to the day, but in an archaic dating system. I’m reading slowly in it. I’m underlining. I’m taking notes. As it is the best reference available, it’s what I’ll use most.
I can ignore Josephus’ qualitative statements and just focus on timelines. Where was the fighting going on as 66 A.D. turned to 67 A.D.? What Roman general might my characters have interacted with? Where was loss of Jewish life greatest, should I decide to kill off any characters?
So many decisions to make. I want events to track with history. I want my characters to interact with that history accurately. It will slow down my writing to do this, but that’s how I want to do it.
The twelve apostles’ importance to the growing church cannot be over emphasized.
In my last post, I began a series of posts about my novel-in-progress, The Teachings, saying I would make several posts to explain what my intentions are for the series and for this particular book.
Today I’ll discuss the underlying Christian document. In Greek its title is The Didache. This translates to The Teachings. That’s the short title. The longer title is The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. It is relatively short, shorter than the Gospel of Mark, the shortest of the four canonical gospels.
What are the contents? You would think from the long title that it was a list of things the apostles said as the church formed in the years are Jesus died. The gospels told of Jesus’ life and teachings. Acts told about the formation and initial growth of the church. The Didache then gathered the teachings of the apostles. Peter said this, John said that, Matthew said this, Bartholomew said that.
Here’s what the full title looks like in Greek.
But no, The Didache doesn’t quote from the apostles. Rather, it is a type of church manual. One book I read calls it the earliest church manual. It begins with a section called The Two Ways, speaking of the way a Christian should live. The two ways are called the way of life and the way of death.
After this it talks about false teachers, food offered to idols, baptism, fasting, the Lord’s prayer, and communion. A section deals with teachers, apostles, and prophets who travel among the churches and how they should behave and how the churches should greet and provide for them. Additional topics are meeting on the Lord’s day, the offices of bishops and deacons, and being watchful for the second coming of Christ.
When was it written? The relative simplicity of church government suggest it was written at an early time. The ecclesiastical hierarchy developed slowly and became burdensome sometime in the 2nd Century. The Didache seems unaware of that system. I read quite a bit about this. Scholars have suggested any time from 60 A.D. to 180 A.D. Those that favor the later date suggests that the simple church structure was the writer’s attempt to show how it was at the time of the apostles. Those who favor the earlier date point to the absence of government structure as evidence that the date of writing has to be early.
For The Teachings, I chose the earlier date. The book is set from 66 A.D to about 74 A.D. (I won’t be sure of when the book ends until I finish writing it; it may end closer to 71 A.D.
Who wrote it? No one knows, and I’ve seen no speculation about that. The two ways section is very close to a part of the Epistle of Barnabas, a non-canonical writing thought to be from the first century. Other parts of The Didiche echo other writings from outside the Bible, but nothing seems to suggest who wrote it. Most likely that will remain a mystery.
Bryennios found The Didache while rummaging in a Turkish library.
How has history treated it? That this book was once an important part of the church is evidenced by mentions of it by church fathers in the late 2nd Century up into the 4th Century. However, many years later and it was lost. No one read it; no one copied it; no one mentioned it any more. Why would it fall out of favor? Perhaps because it wasn’t considered authoritative enough to be included in the New Testament (though some early lists of Christian scriptures do include it). Possibly the primitiveness of church government made it passe once the structured church had a complicated government. Why go to the trouble of copying a book that no one used any more?
The Didache was thus known to have existed, but we had no copies of it (save for a fragment or two) until 1873. A Greek Orthodox official was looking around in a library in Turkey and found a scroll that bore a date of 1056 A.D. Several books were written on this scroll, including the complete text of The Didache. The finder published the text 1883, and within three years the collective scholars of the church, in the Middle East, Germany, Great Britain, and the USA were in an uproar, arguing about it, trying to figure out its place in the church and composition time.
For this book of mine, assuming it was put together around 66 to 71 A.D., who wrote it? Scholars see it as a composite document, not written at one time, maybe not even by one person, and perhaps not at the same place. That is the premise I’m going with. One man will primarily responsible for its assembly, but the contents will come from many places. I may even write in a delay in issuing it.
In my next blog post I’ll write about what was going on in the world at the time my man is working on The Didiche.
It was sad, it was sad, it was sad when the big ship went down…. We used to sing that in boy scouts.
Through miscellaneous readings, and history-type TV shows, I know a fair amount about the Titanic disaster. I had never read a complete book on it, however. I bought The Titanic: Disaster of a Century by Wyn Craig Wade. I had seen this on a bookshelf somewhere, read a few pages in it during an idle moment, and decided it would be good to have. Amazon is my friend, and I soon had a new copy, purchased with a gift certificate.
The book did not in any way prove a disappointment. It was originally published in 1980, before the discovery of the wreck later in that decade. This was an updated version, published as a centenary edition in 2012. Mr. Wade had died in the meantime, and his daughter, Barbara Wade, completed and published this updated edition.
It starts with the news that the Titanic had struck ice and was in trouble. It followed the early reports: first the bare news of contact with ice, followed by reports of damage, followed by reports of all souls rescued and being brought to Halifax, followed by reports that Titanic was being towed to Halifax with all souls on board, followed by the Titanic sank but all souls were on another ship heading for New York.
The book spent a long couple of chapters on this, showing the lack of information and disinformation. Eventually the rescue ship, the Carpathia, arrives in New York and the truth becomes known, how 2/3 of the souls aboard had been lost, how the lifeboats had not been fully loaded, etc.
Into this steps the senator from Michigan, William Alden Smith. He rushes to New York City with a subpoena for J Bruce Ismay, president of the White Star Lines and one of those rescued, who was hoping to skedaddle back to England and avoid an American inquiry. The chapters moved into the hearings held, first in New York then in Washington DC. Through these hearings the story of the disaster came out.
I thought that was an interesting literary technique by Wade. Rather than follow the ship from its points of departure in the British Isles, it concentrated on the decisions that contributed to the disaster. How the crew hadn’t been well trained and didn’t know the ship. How a lifeboat drill had been cancelled the morning of the last day. How ice warnings conveyed by other ships had been noted and ignored by the captain who had never had a bad thing happen in 40 years at sea. How various vessels responded to Titanic’s SOS. How unregulated wireless “traffic” hindered rescue attempts and news forwarding. How the Californian was within sight of Titanic but did nothing to help, their captain apparently not really understanding what was going on.
The book is well-written, well-organized. I enjoyed it immensely, and read the 318 pages in thirteen sittings. I give it 5-stars, and will likely do a review on Amazon.
Is it a keeper, however? I have too many books, and need to begin to get rid of some. I’m not yet ready to get rid of this, however. I’ll pull another book from the shelf, one I’m sure I’ll never re-read, let it go, and keep this.
One of my copies of the Federalist Papers. Yes, I bought it used, to have at the office. This copy stays in the sun room; my other stays in The Dungeon.
As we deal with impeachment of the president in 2019, we have few precedents to base a position on. Impeachment has happened only twice, and would have occurred one other time had not the president resigned.
What is an impeachable offense? What was on the Founders’ minds at the Constitutional Convention? How would they approach it today? The place I always turn first on Constitutional issues is the Federalist Papers. What did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay have to say concerning this?
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
Federalist #65, by Alexander Hamilton
I don’t find this particularly helpful. Or, rather, it’s helpful, but not very comprehensive. Impeachment is a political process. Because the president is immune from being charged criminally while president, so that he/she wouldn’t be continuously harassed in office, impeachment by the House, trial by the Senate—resulting either in acquittal or conviction, resulting in removal from office, and then charging and trial by the courts. That’s the process, but for what can the president be impeached? I just went through the entire Federalist Papers, searching for “impeach” and other related terms. I’m surprised at how little is included. They include much discussion of why the Senate is the right body for impeachment trials. But, as far as discussions on what is and what is not an impeachable offense, I find very little, except what I’ve quoted above from Federalist #65.
An additional source is James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. I just went through those notes, looking for discussion on what is impeachable, and I found this.
The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up. Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after “bribery” “or maladministration.”
Mr. GERRY seconded him.
Mr. MADISON So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS, it will not be put in force & can do no harm. An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.
Col. MASON withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemeanors agst. the State”
On the question thus altered
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
James Madison, Notes on the Constitutional Convention, for September 8, 1787
This gives us a little more to go on. The original clause on impeachment was for treason and bribery. Mason of Virginia wanted to add “maladministration” as a reason for impeachment. What, exactly, is maladministration? I interpret it to mean “doing a bad job” or “not doing a good job”. In other words, incompetence or malfeasance.
The summary of the debate, somewhat spare in Madison’s words, was that maladministration would never in fact be used as a reason for impeachment, and the correction for maladministration is elections.
Facing rejection of his motion, Mason changed the motion to add “other high crimes & misdemeanors”. In other words, for crimes other than treason and bribery. This seems to me to be more or less the same as felonies and misdemeanors—things that would result in being charged in criminal court if not the president.
Others think the word “high” applies to both crimes and misdemeanors. If that were the case, the bar would be a little different than my interpretation.
The question now comes down to whether the impeachment of the current president meets the constitutional definition. Alas, I’ve already exceeded a reasonable word limit for a blog post, and will have to answer that in a future post. I may post earlier than my normal schedule.
Sometimes I pick up a used book and place it in my reading pile. Years may go by before I pick it up and read it. I don’t know how many times I never get to a book, or it will be years before I’m looking for something to read, dig deep in my pile, find something, and decide “This is the one for right now.”
A good book. If it weren’t falling apart, it might find a place in my library. Difficult call.
That was the case with Jews, God and History by Max I Dimont. When I pulled this from the pile, I found no label on it. Inside was a very faded receipt. I can just make out that I the receipt says I bought three books at Helping Hands, a local thrift store with a great books section, paid a total of $2.00 cash for all three. The purchase was at 10:42 a.m., but the date is too faded to read.
This is a mass-market paperback with cheap binding. While I was reading it, it fell apart into two sections. So much for such books printed in 1962.
This was an informative book. Dimont is a skillful writer. He gives much information, not statistics and data, but sweeping narrative about the Jews throughout over four millennia: where they were, what influenced them, who they influenced, what their motivations were. In 421 pages of 10-point font, Dimont gives a comprehensive documentation of this amazing people.
I have a couple of criticisms of the book, however. By the time I was done with it (two months elapsed between my starting and finishing it), I had pretty well forgotten what had come at the beginning. In other words, while I was impressed as I read, the writing didn’t stick with me. I sometimes, when I finish a book, go back and re-read the Introduction to see if the writer achieved whatever goals were stated there. In this case I haven’t yet done that, and don’t think I will.
My other criticism is that the book is totally unsourced. Along with the information given, Dimont makes sweeping judgments on the why of the history, not just the what. Here’s an example of one of those:
Like a Freudian libido flowing through the unconscious, attaching itself to previous psychic experiences, the Haskala flowed through the body of Judaism, attaching itself to former Jewish values and creating new ones. It attached itself to Hebrew and Yiddish, creating a new literature. It attached itself to Jewish religion and created Jewish existentialism. It attached itself to politics and created Zionism. Zionism fused the Jews in Eastern and Western Europe with the Jews in the United States and created the new State of Israel. This vast transformation and fusion began with a few Talmudic students fighting the Hasidists, who were preaching a return to primitivism of feeling as a way of relating themselves with God.
To me, such broad statements need to be sourced. Where did these ideas come from? Are they the author’s interpretation? They are stated as fact when they seem to be opinion. I would have liked it to be clearer.
Those criticisms aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, if being maddened at it a few times. I certainly don’t regret taking time to read it. It will not, however, have a permanent place on my bookshelf. I don’t think it would even if it hadn’t fallen apart.
However, while the book is unsourced, it does have an extensive Bibliography. Pages and pages of published works are listed, many of them look inviting. I’m tempted to tear these pages from the weak binding and find a permanent place for them in my library, being a list of potentially valuable sources for future research. The only thing making me think I should do that is the thought: How will I ever find those pages again?
I’d been wanting to read this for some time. It finally bubbled up to the top of the reading pile.
It wasn’t too long ago that I reviewedMark Lane’s Plausible Denial, a book about the JFK assassination. This was the first thing of Mark Lane’s I had read. I’d heard his name often, as he was an early critic of the Warren Commission often cited by other writers. I never read his first book on the subject, until now.
Rush to Judgment was published in 1966. Aside from articles in magazines, I believe this was the first book published critical of the Commission. Lane was in a unique place, having been hired by Marguerite Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother, to function essentially as Oswald’s defense attorney during Commission deliberations. That’s a simplification. But it put Lane in some meetings and hearings, and allowed him to see things, that were denied to most not directly associated with the Commission’s work.
Lane, who died in 2016, was a lawyer. Much of Rush to Judgment deals with the minutia of legal issues. He criticized the Commission for not following rules of evidence and rules of cross-examination as you would have at a trial. He looked at evidence that law enforcement agencies had given to the Commission and found it wanting. For example, Lane spends a lot of time on the paraffin test applied to Oswald to show if he had recently fired a gun. The police said the test was positive, whereas Lane showed the inconsistency in the test and was critical of police statements, even before the test results were available, that said the test would be found positive.
No witnesses were subject to cross-examination during Commission hearings. Lane took transcripts of the testimony of many witnesses and picked it apart. A woman who saw the murderer of police officer J.D. Tippet is alleged to have identified Oswald as the man, but her statements and response to a police line-up were inconclusive. To Lane, she described a different man. While no official cross-examinations were make, Lane showed how lawyers for the Commission did critically question witnesses who told something other than what the Commission’s foreordained conclusion was.
Lane was critical of the witness list. Many witnesses were never questioned; others were questioned only by the Commission’s lawyers. These were witnesses who were in Dealy Plaza, or who knew Oswald, or who knew Jack Ruby, or who had other information about the three murders (Kennedy, Tippet, and Oswald). He makes a good case that the Commission’s work was sloppy and incomplete and that, had the rules of a courtroom been followed, the Commission never could have come to the conclusion it did.
The book is good. A couple of times Lane heads down rabbit holes, spending too much time on small items. A number of times Lane uses legal vocabulary that requires a dictionary. I looked a few of those up, but further into the book just skipped over them, doing the best I could based on the context. The organization of the book was fine, as was the length and the quality of the writing.
As this is an early book in JFK assassination research, it lacks some details that other authors brought out. One has to remember when it was written, however, in order form a judgment on the book.
As I have accumulated a fairly significant, though far from comprehensive, collection of JFK assassination books, I will keep this one. Will I ever reread it? I don’t know for sure, but maybe.
So it was 50 years ago tomorrow that man first walked on the moon. The day before that the Apollo 11 Command Module, along with the Lunar Module and the Service Module, were picking up speed as the moon’s gravity started to have an effect. By the end of the day they would be orbiting the moon.
I had been watching the Apollo missions closely. Well, that is once they got off the ground. Apollo 7 had stayed in earth orbit, checking out all the systems. Apollo 8 flew to the moon and orbited it. Apollo 9 stayed in earth orbit, deploying the LM with two astronauts, testing its systems. Apollo 10, in May 1969, flew to the moon and orbited. This was a full dress rehearsal for the landing. They deployed the LM, flew it to within 10 miles of the moon’s surface, successfully docked back with the CM, and returned. All that was left was actually landing.
Word had it that the USSR was going to launch an unmanned probe to make a soft landing on the moon, and that they were going to get it there before we landed. This was a little drama as Apollo 11launched. Would we make our manned, soft landing before the Soviet’s did their soft, unmanned? At some point, possibly during our flight, we learned that the Soviet craft crashed on the moon, 5 minutes early. That was exactly the amount of time their retro-rockets should have fired to slow it to the soft landing. The cause of that failure was thus obvious (though some think it may have crashed into one of the taller mountains on the moon). The result was we had the moon to ourselves at that time.
I remember July 20, 1969. ‘Twas a Sunday. The moon walk was originally scheduled to take place late. My memory, which may not be correct, was that it was to happen after midnight, maybe around 1 a.m. on the 21st. NASA decided to move it forward, to around 11 p.m. on the 20th, after a four hour rest for Armstrong and Aldrin. But that was moved forward even more so that the moon walk would happen during East Coast prime time. [Note: I can find documentation of only one change in time for the moon walk.]
I remember the transmission, the first words, the astronauts walking on the surface, taking note of their bouncy steps in low gravity. It was all mesmerizing. I consider this one of the high points of my life. It was a privilege to watch this on TV. Oh, and I thank NASA for moving the walk forward, allowing me to watch it in prime time.
Never having seen one of the Saturn V rockets in person, I can only imagine it’s size.
We are less than a month away from the 50th anniversary of the first time mankind walked on the moon. I was 17 years old, about to be a senior in high school. I have some clear memories of it, while other things quite famous I have no memory of at all.
I thought I’d do a brief series (maybe three posts scattered over the next three to four weeks) about my memories of it. I hope my readers won’t mind this departure from my regular posts, which are related to writing.
Those who lived through it will never forget the earthrise photos that came from Apollo 8.
Yesterday evening, after my wife and I watched a 1996 Sherlock Holmes movie, we switched to regular TV to see what we could find. It happened to be the top of the hour, and we saw the start of a National Geographic program on the moon race. That took me back to my first introduction of how we were going to get to the moon.
It was in August 1965. I was at Camp Yawgoog, the Boy Scout camp in SW Rhode Island, my first year to go to scout camp. That week is more memorable for what happened on Sunday, after Dad picked me up and we headed home, but that’s another story, loosely recounted in my short story, “Mom’s Letter”. But I digress.
On Saturday evening, all the scouts, scouters, and staff gathered in the amphitheater for a program. It was done every week of the summer. This particular Saturday the program was about NASA’s space program, specifically about how we were going to get to the moon.
What the speaker showed us that night was a model of the entire LM, not a cutaway like this. It was a complex spacecraft.
I don’t remember the name of the speaker or who he was with. He may have been someone NASA hired to get the word out. He did a fantastic job. He had models of the different space craft that would be used. The Mercury program was over by this time. The Gemini program had begun. He explained how that was for the purpose of testing vehicle docking in zero gravity, extra-vehicular activities, longer times in space such as what would be experienced in a moon shot. The models were large enough for us to easily see.
I remember how he described the many parts of the moon shot: the Apollo rocket to get them into earth orbit; the engine burn of the command module to boost them on a moon trajectory; the separation of the lunar module from the command module; the descent to the moon and landing; the burn of the LM engines to send half the LM back to the command module, leaving half of the LM on the moon; re-docking with the command module; and the return to earth.
That happened 54 years ago, but it is all very clear in my memory. I suppose it is because I found it fascinating. Prior to that, I had of course followed what NASA did. Each Mercury and Gemini flight had captured my interest. It was earlier that summer that the first EVA had happened. While I was at camp Gemini 5 was in space, the first flight to go beyond a few days in space. So I wasn’t ignorant of the space program, but that presentation helped me to understand it better, gave me something to judge progress against as future flights would occur.
I’m glad to have such memories of the space program as it was during it’s early days, and am sorry for the kids of today that don’t have that sort of thing. Space travel still isn’t commonplace, but it doesn’t get news coverage as it used to. And that’s too bad.
The United States Constitution. What a great system of government.
As I mentioned in a previous post, as I’m going through the source documents for Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition, much good material gets edited out. It winds up on the cutting room floor, so to speak, using the movie industry term. Some of this is good material. I’d love to use it in my book, but, alas, I need to keep the book a reasonable size.
The thought came to me to use it for blog post material. So, instead of just dumping it, I’ve been saving it for use when it’s time to write a blog post and I have nothing else in mind. It could also be newsletter material, I suppose, if I ever take the plunge to writing a newsletter.
But, again alas, something I put into a file last week, from one of the Federalist Papers, is now nowhere to be found. What did I do with it? Did I save it to my Documenting America Vol 3 folder? It’s not there. Did I save it to my Blog folder? It’s not there either. Maybe, without paying attention, I saved it to the root folder of my Documents. Nope, not there either. Did I fail to save it and let it go drifting off into the ether?
Whatever, the excellent item I was going to use for today is not on my computer. I could spend an hour looking for it, but think, instead, I’ll find something else. I saved other stuff.
Here’s one from an anonymous writing from someone from Pennsylvania who didn’t like the proposed constitution.
The wealthy and ambitious, who in every community think they have a right to lord it over their fellow creatures, have availed themselves, very successfully, of this favorable disposition; for the people thus unsettled in their sentiments, have been prepared to accede to any extreme of government; all the distresses and difficulties they experience, proceeding from various causes, have been ascribed to the impotency of the present confederation, and thence they have been led to expect full relief from the adoption of the proposed system of government, and in the other event, immediately ruin and annihilation as a nation. These characters flatter themselves that they have lulled all distrust and jealousy of their new plan, by gaining the concurrence of the two men in whom America has the highest confidence, and now triumphantly exult in the completion of their long meditated schemes of power and aggrandisement.
Whoever wrote this, a small part of a much longer article, was, I think, spot on concerning what happens when power is obtained and then applied to government. Wealthy and ambitious people do tend to lord it over their fellow citizens. They are successful, often from their own work, and they see this as a reason why they should 1) be held in high esteem by others, and 2) have positions of political power.
The writer of the original document seems to have been wrong, however, about the motives of those who wrote the Constitution and about how the government would function under it. Things turned out much better than his dire predictions. He knew things weren’t going well under the Articles of Confederation, and saw this new document as setting up a government of the rich and powerful. I believe most of our 232 year experience with it shows us that this isn’t so.
My Documenting America series focuses on our historical documents, and tries to inspire people to seek the documents out and read them.
Or is it? As I look on Congress today, I see lots of multi-millionaires. I see people who make laws that apply to others but not themselves. I see the rich and powerful say the government should take over your health care while they keep a very nice plan for themselves. Same with pensions and Social Security.
I could go on and on. Can you tell I’m not a big fan of Congress? I think most of the ills in the nation that are often attributed to the president—every president, no matter who it is—are often the fault of Congress, either due to their action or inaction.
So why didn’t this particular passage make it into my book? Simply a matter of space. This document, like all of them I’m using in the book, is chock full of good phrases and arguments. Some turned out to be wrong arguments, some right. It’s all worth reading. If someone reads Documenting America and then digs into the source documents, they’ll see this. All the better. If they don’t, this will remain obscure and unread.
Perhaps my book and this blog will help others to find and read it.
This is close to the cover I want to use for “Adam Of Jerusalem”, but I can’t find the copyright holder of the photo. I’m probably wrong in even posting it here.
In my last post I wrote part 1 of a two-part review of John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government. I said I would do the next part soon. However, soon is not today. Instead, I’m going to write about what I’m writing, and what I’m preparing to write.
I have two books in progress, one complete and being edited, one being written. The first is Adam Of Jerusalem. I finished this in mid-December 2018, let it sit a few weeks over the holidays, then began editing in mid-January. I think those dates are right; it’s all kind of blurry without looking at my diary. I’ve made three editorial passes, and given the book to three beta-readers. I have figured I would publish it then.
But, in January I joined a newly-formed writers critique group. I decided to run AOJ by them. They didn’t like chapter 1 in January or chapter 2 in February. Not enough description they said. Too much getting from point A to point B without flourishes. Alas, that must be the engineer in me.
So I went through these two chapters looking for places to add some description, some of what I call extraneous information that gives the reader a better experience, that makes them feel like they were there when the action was taking place. It caused chapter 2 to increase in length 25 percent. If I did that for the entire book, the novel would go from 72,000 words to 90,000 words. That’s not awful, but I would have to think about that.
Still, I decided to go on with this for a few more chapters at least. Last night I re-edited chapter 5, having completed 3 and 4, and found a number of places to add those flourishes. I’ll type these last edits sometime today and step back and see how it looks to me. I imagine I’ll go on with this while waiting on beta-readers to get back to me.
And, perhaps, a fourth to this one? Yes: Making The Constitution Edition, hopefully in 2019. Update: It will come in 2019!
Then, my current writing project is Documenting America: Making The Constitution Edition. I’ve written about this series before many times, and this particular volume. At some point, around February 12, I began gathering source documents and completed the editing and writing of one chapter on February 18. Yesterday I completed the twelfth chapter (out of 31 or 32) and edited the source document for the thirteenth. I did that in the evening in manuscript, so will be typing that today.
Meanwhile, as I work on DA:MCE, I’m coming across material I realize I can use in a future edition. I don’t know what I’ll do next. The choices are many. I read some inspiring, early abolition works, and thought that a volume on the abolition movement might be good. So I created folders on my computer and began seeking out source documents for that. I’m a long way from doing anything with this book, but maybe, just maybe, I’m starting it the right way. Except, I should start a writing diary for it, even if it will have major time gaps in it.
One other project that I’m (somewhat) actively working on is a Bible study I developed and taught some years ago called Sacred Moments. It’s a study of the sacraments and the importance of them in the life of the Christian. They are sacred moments. I had a little trouble finding the files I created on that years ago. On a shelf in my closet, in an unmarked, green three-ring binder, I found the paper copies—preserved in sheet protectors, no less. Digging around in files transferred from an old computer, I found the computer files. I transferred them into my cloud storage.
I have no schedule for working on Sacred Moments. I feel I must do more research if I’m to publish it as a Bible study. It will be the first of those critters for me, and I would want to do it right. I did lots of research before, and even some after, but too many years have passed since I developed and taught it, so I’ll have to re-do some of that research.
That’s pretty much it. One other, more minor, task I want to work on soon is to get my ideas notebook in shape. I found it this week, on that closet shelf. I can’t remember the last time I looked at it. I’m thinking that may be a Sunday task, with a mug of coffee, in the sunroom.
