Big Books at Bedtime
Last night, Kathleen came home early and tucked herself into bed at eight o'clock, lunchtime practically. She had planned another very late night, but gas pains had made her afternoon hell, and she was worried about flu. And she was certainly tired enough to go to sleep as soon as she had eaten something. Not hungry yet myself, I made her an omelette with some Grafton cheddar and urged her to drink a glass of cabernet. Then we had one of our big-book talks. Big-book talks involve lugging the Columbia Encyclopedia into another room - it is never in the right room - and getting down at least one version of the Bible, plus a lot of peering at small print in the lamplight. First, having alighted on the topic of monotheism, we had to look up Ikhnaton (not "Akhnaton," thanks very much - what does Ms Nola's Egyptologist brother have to say about that? not that she'll read this, because she's off on a wedding weekend - not her own, I hasten to note). Ikhnaton was a sun-worshiper who got so wrapped up in religion that his empire crumbled away; he was also Nefretete's husband. I rambled on a bit about Moses and Monotheism, but we did not actually consult that singular essay by Sigmund Freud (two Moseses?). It occurred to me that Tutankhamen, Ikhnaton's successor, might have been murdered at the tender age of seventeen so that the priests could stage a tradition-reviving funeral. In any case, there was nothing in the Encyclopedia to suggest cross-fertilization between an Egyptian king and the sons of Abraham. We moved on to the Gospel story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38). Surely the most remarkable thing about the mission of Jesus as he actually conducted it (not quite the same thing as how it got written up) is his feminism, or at any rate his habit of not treating women as second-class persons. Kathleen and I love to parse the Gospels because, having been brought up as Catholics, we're quite ignorant of Scripture relative to our Protestant countrymen. I've even fallen into the cynical habit of trying to size up exactly why the Church sorted out this or that particular snippet for spoon-feeding to the faithful - who of course were forbidden to read the Bible on their own - and in this light I perceived that the Mary/Martha story supports the notion of idle monastics. But then we got out Luke, and read it, and what stuck out was Mary's being allowed to sit at Jesus's feet - in the position of an acolyte - and to listen with the men. It's stories like this one, I'm sure, that set the West on its unique trajectory toward equality of the sexes - not that we've arrived, but still.
Presently Kathleen was drifting off. The wine and my voice had done their work. I always feel foolish saying that, if she's at all sleepy, I can put Kathleen to sleep with a few sentences, but Kathleen claims that it's one of the things she loves about me - a "wonderful radio voice." Well, I know professionally that I don't have a wonderful radio voice; I used to work with Mark Fowler, after all, and I know the real thing. But I can't convince Kathleen. Not infrequently, I'll be on the phone with her in the late afternoon and I'll notice that she's beginning to sound like a zombie: time to say goodbye, or I'll be saying goodnight.
Comments
I am still reading! I did go to a party on Royal Street last night where I was accosted by the bride's mother with, "Well, hello! So, wedding bells anytime soon????" I thought of many charming things to say, but instead I decided to just be charming and laugh it off. I said the young professor and I were waiting for a job offer from Harvard. This did not go over well in Tigerland, but it allowed me to gloss over the question.
At any rate, I will consult the rock star egyptologist and get back to you
Posted by: Ms. NOLA | February 25, 2005 11:42 AM
Kathleen is a little ticked at me for mentioning “gas pains” in this morning’s post. Why couldn’t I just say “tummy troubles”? Well, the fact is that that’s exactly what I nearly wrote, but didn’t, because it seemed patronizing. I would hope that no one would confuse gas pains with gas tout court.
Posted by: R J Keefe | February 25, 2005 03:30 PM
Your radio voice is just fine, always was - and until my bronchitis decides to decamp, you'll doubtless bear the bell away: at the moment a deep and diffuse rumble is the best that I can manage. Though I can still read Sharon to sleep as easy as kiss my hand; it must be a gift (he said, he hopefully)...
Posted by: Mark | February 25, 2005 06:47 PM
I've never heard your 'radio' voice, but I've always found your speaking voice most attractive, so if you sound at all the same over the air-waves, I must echo Kathleen's comment (although the sound of your voice has never lulled me to sleep, as I must always be on my toes to keep up with the thread of our all too infrequent telephone conversations). (Lest anyone mis-interpret this post, let me simply say that RJ and Kathleen and I have been friends for many more years than any of us would, I daresay, care to count.)
A note to Kathleen: I understood completely what RJ was referring to in his morning post, and I hope you're feeling better.
Posted by: jkm | February 25, 2005 08:00 PM
"...the Gospel story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38). Surely the most remarkable thing about the mission of Jesus as he actually conducted it (not quite the same thing as how it got written up) is his feminism...."
Mary, Lazarus, and Martha---my favorite Bible story, and your mention is the first time I've seen it coupled with the term feminism.
Mary is so flaky, the first of the flowerchildren: she takes immediate advantage of the good things. Even though I would still cringe at the silly things she does, on second thought, as Jesus says, it is beautiful.
Martha is charming just because of her complaints. And I can understand why Lazarus went to sleep: very brave of him to forego the pleasures of marriage and fatherhood, to devote his strength to being his sisters' protector. There must have been an unspoken message from the father as to Lazarus' mission in life: what father would tell his son not to marry and have children? And they must been loving parents of a loving family; and it shows--how Jesus loved them.
I think Jesus loved Martha specially. He came back to provide Martha the opportunity of making a profession of faith--a leap of faith which I consider greater than that of the bumbling, stumbling Simon Peter, from a standing position in a matter of seconds. It took Peter months to get to that point.
I can see the necessity for Peter's "rockiness" as far as founding a church is concerned, but personally I would sooner be a part of a church founded on Martha's flounces. (from Richard, a United Methodist)
Posted by: Richard Mintz | March 3, 2005 02:09 PM