Nathaniel Branden

I believe Nathaniel deserves his own thread. Without his tremendous body of work and his energy neither Objectivism nor its newer name, libertarianism, would have prospered as it did.

Nathaniel has been like an older brother to me, metaphorically speaking. Whenever the world and people did not make much sense, I knew I could pick up one of his books and have a companion that I did understand and understood me.

As a few of you know, I am currently working on two manuscripts, one is nonfiction and the other is a fictional work based in a real event that happened when I was in my earily twenties--an event which was and now is (in a ficitional sense) generated out of my abiding Objectivist/Libertarian mindset.

As I started to plan my nonfiction book, my opening paragraph was about my desire to get people out of their comfort zones to do "unique and beautiful things". "Comfort zone" is a term that originally had to do with optimal human ambient temperatures. Of course, at present, comfort zone means something else. So, I e mailed Nathaniel and asked him to give me his definition of comfort zone for my book. I would like to share it with you here:

"I understand by "comfort zone" those aspects of life, or circumstances, or contexts, in which one feels that one's current, habitual ways of acting and responding are adequate." - N. Branden

What are you experiences with Nathaniel's works, if any; have you seen him speak or purchased any of his tapes; what is your own definition of "comfort zone."

I've read The Passion of Ayn Rand about Barbara Branden's relationship with Nathaniel and Ayn Rand. I have not read Nathaniel Branden's side of the story, Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand. Have you read both? Can you comment on the two different accounts?

Free love. I hear it doesn't work.

I can only assume this is a joke, "Objectivism nor its newer name, libertarianism". Har har, very funny.

It has been awhile since I've read any Nathaniel Branden's work but from what I remember being most impressive was how he tied rational thinking and acting to self-esteem, which is something that seemed wholly lacking with others who worked in the field. In fact, the whole subject of self-esteem seems to have been written off to a large extent as kind of pop psychology, Stewart Smalley, lets all feel good about ourselves 1990's fad - which I suppose is unfortunate because there probably is legitimate value in authentic self-esteem that is worth serious study.

As far as Branden's books I've always thought The Psychology of Self-Esteem, his first book on the topic was one of his best. Of course this was written when he was still closely tied with Ayn and as a result most closely reflects her philosophy in both content and tone - his later books, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, Taking Responsibility, and The Art of Living Consciously really delve into practical considerations The Psychology of Self Esteem and of the proper psychology for individuals living in a modern dynamic society.

I agree haylan that he really is worthy of some reading. I don't know where I would put his importance in the whole libertarian movement though - yes he started NBI and got the whole activist thing moving for Rand but I think Rand's influence would have been felt regardless of Branden.

As to your question about the definition of "comfort zone" I guess I would agree with Branden's definition you provided, though I honestly have never cared for that phrase, it has always smacked of this new age self help kind of stuff that I don't care for much. That being said I don't know what else I'd use in place of it:-)

Thanks for bringing up the topic though because now I think I'm going to revisit some of his work, I'd kinda forgotten about him. Good luck on your book, I'd be interested in reading it when you're finished.

stevenschmitt

misesean: In an interview, Dr. Branden discusses the relationship between the term "Objectivism" and "Libertariansim" in an interview on rebirthofreason.com:

Nathaniel Branden Interview, Pt. 1
by Alec Mouhibian
At 74 years of age, Nathaniel Branden sticks out like a silver thumb. Thanks to million-dollar smile and a rich contrast between hair and complexion, his appearance—much like the old Ronald Reagan’s—is illuminating, and it is matched with a desire to be illuminated. Nothing seems to warm him quite like a spotlight, whereas at the outskirts of attention, he seems out of place. Combine this with a brilliant gift and passion for interpersonal interaction, and it is not surprising that Branden has been the Magic 8-ball of Objectivism for almost fifty years. When he answers a question, one gets the impression that he is discovering and explaining at the same time. Which certainly gives new meaning to the phrase “likes to hear himself speak.” The fact that he responds with unnerved discomfort to any uninteresting question indicates that this impression is not merely due to charm.

I arrived at Dr. Branden’s Beverly Hills bearings with the goal of asking him about issues—topical and theoretical—he hadn’t publicly addressed before. Though I had originally hoped to avoid Ayn Rand as much as possible, it was perhaps inevitable that references would frequently be made to the chooser of the Chosen One.

Dr. Branden is a practicing psychotherapist and multi-platinum selling author of several books, including The Psychology of Self-Esteem, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, The Art of Living Consciously, Taking Responsibility, and My Years With Ayn Rand.

***************************************
AM: I wanted to break the ice with something light. What, in one sentence, is the meaning of life?

NB: We are all responsible for creating the meaning of our own life…I don’t know that there is any general meaning apart from the meaning that each one of us gives to our life… Beyond that you could say, I suppose, that the meaning of life lies in the fulfillment of our faculties, of our potentials, of our capabilities.

AM: I’m sure we could turn that into one sentence, somehow. What did you think of Ronald Reagan?

NB: Let me begin by saying that I think he has been a much underestimated man by his opponents. I think that his understanding and handling of our relationship with the Soviet Union was brilliant. Gorbachev himself gives Reagan credit for effectively ending the Cold War. Are there areas where I would disagree with him? Sure. He was opposed to abortion. He did not believe in total laissez-faire capitalism. He did build up our national debt pretty enormously. But I tell you one thing he did that impressed me so much it almost wipes everything else off the mat. It’s something I found thrilling beyond words. And that was: he was in Russia, and he gave a speech in the University of Moscow. And the theme of the speech was to explain to the people there what American capitalism is. Here is the President of the United States, in a distinguished university in a country with whom we’ve had hostile relationships for decades—getting up, and in the most passionate yet totally non-belligerent way, explaining what economic freedom means, what capitalism means. It was so extraordinary in the moral clarity that he brought to his presentation that I’ll remember it, with great admiration, forever.

AM: One of the examples of Ayn Rand’s mental alienation from reality that baffles me the most is that, after supporting Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, she openly denounced Reagan. Yet it was Reagan who conspicuously embodied many of the characteristics she had wanted to see in a president: unabashed patriotism, pro-enterprise fervor, and moral clarity in regard to the Soviet Union. And he was the only one she told everybody not to vote for.

NB: Well unfortunately there are a number of examples one could give of this strange perspective that she had. I do think at times that she was very alienated from reality and a prisoner of her own ideology. A lot of the time, however, she was brilliant and really nailed issues properly. But occasionally she would come out with something like this that I was utterly flabbergasted by.

AM: What party are you registered with?

NB: The Libertarian Party.

AM: What do you think of the present state of the Libertarian Party?

NB: I don’t like it at all. It doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. I don’t know what I’m going to do this year. It’s a terrible year. When the choice is Bush or Kerry, we are in very deep trouble.

AM: Did you support the War on Iraq?

NB: If you asked me before the war began, I would’ve said no. I would’ve said that we should concentrate on hunting down Al Qaeda people. I shared the perspective of the folks at the Cato institute. But, you know, if it’s true that Russia and certain other sources told Bush that Saddam Hussein most definitely did intend to launch something serious against America, and that should’ve proven to be true, attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. How it’s being handled and conducted is a different question entirely. People don’t remember, however, how many screw-ups and mistakes there were in World War II. Not anticipating properly and making mistakes that cost lives is nothing new or peculiar to Iraq. It happened in Korea and it happened in World War II, and it certainly happened in Vietnam. Television makes us all aware of everything—saying why didn’t they know this? Why didn’t they know that?—forgetting that if we held past presidents to the same standards, they should all be impeached.

AM: So you think the reaction to the post-war situation is overblown?

NB: Americans tend to have a fantasy that everybody else at heart is just like them. And they don’t understand that there are other cultures that are totally different, such as the cultures in the Middle East. Very few people in the services are really trained and are really knowledgeable of the culture and aware of the kind of things they need to be aware of if the intention is to create a new nation there. So I think there is lots to criticize, even if one says the war could be justified. So I’m inclined to the side that says it wasn’t the best move we could make if the purpose was to protect our country. I would rather have seen the energy put to chasing Al Qaeda terrorists around the world.

AM: The question of how to treat different cultures brings us right to Abu Ghraib. The two cells where the abuse scenes took place contained the worst criminals in the entire prison. Do you think that, given the proper context, such treatment is condonable?

NB: I think it was stupid. It accomplished nothing good for the U.S. It didn’t accomplish anything good. It just allowed some people to let off steam. But I look at everything from the point of view of: what is the purpose of doing this? What are you trying to accomplish? Why do you think this will accomplish it? And I never could see the sense of that kind of thing—to say nothing of the morality…

AM: Even if it resulted in extracting information?

NB: I think a case could be made for that, if there was reason to believe that these people had information that could save lives. I think a case could be made for some forms of roughening up whom one deals with, but it can’t be coming just out of rage or exasperation. It has to be conscious, it has to be purposeful, and it has to be grounded in information.

AM: Now for a related issue, one that is as divisive among libertarians as it is at large. And that is Israel. Some libertarians believe it deserves all the financial support it gets. Other libertarians believe that it was our support of Israel that led to 9-11, that sure the Arabs hate us, but they wouldn’t hate us enough to strap bombs if it weren’t for our outspoken support of Israel and presence in the region. What do you think of the whole thing?

NB: Israel has always been a very good ally to the U.S. Their intelligence service is probably the best in the world. They are the only bastion of something approaching freedom in that part of the world. If we were going to support any country I could see why Israel would be a good candidate. However, I don’t know that there has not been an over-dependence on the U.S., which has been harmful to Israel, either. I don’t know that it didn’t slow down that transition from where they are to a freer country economically. Because, you know, they are a socialist state in many ways. And our financial contribution made it easier for them to continue in that role. So the point is that there are reasons to support helping Israel and there are reasons to support hands-off. Strictly speaking, I don’t see how one could defend this on an Objectivist/libertarian foundation. If you ask whether I think an Objectivist/libertarian philosophy would be opposed to helping Israel, I would say, “Yes, I think so.” Except the paradox is that Rand was a passionate supporter of America helping Israel. And God knows she was not a Zionist.

AM: And she supported foreign aid to Israel, which was the real contradiction.

NB: Well, they do a lot of the developing of our military hardware. They are a very important source of inventions and technology that translates into our military’s resources. Think about this: the United States, with almost three hundred million people, has the most patents filed by citizens in one year. Number 3 is India, with a population of almost a billion. You might be interested to know that the number 2 spot is occupied by a country with a population of only 5 or 6 million people. So there could be in there the basis for making a case that it is in America’s interests to secure the safety of Israel.

AM: That is interesting—I hadn’t heard that statistic before. Do you have any favorite contemporary political writers?

NB: Jean Francois Revel is a brilliant, brilliant writer. I just finished his book Anti-Americanism. I can’t recommend that book enough. Also, a book called Liberalism and Terrorism, by Paul Berman. That book did more to clarify what the War on Terror is really about, than anything else I’ve ever read. So I would recommend that very strongly.

AM: You also mentioned that you liked Camille Paglia.

NB: Oh, yeah. I get nothing but joy from reading her. She’s a very interesting writer.

To be continued ...

deniro, I have not read Barbara Branden's book, so I cannot comment on it. I did read Judgement Day; that book impressed me because Nathaniel was certainly no apologist for himself. He clearly attempts to give an accurate accounting of events from his own point-of-view. As usual, Nathaniel owns his life, his work, his words, and his evolution of self.

Althought I have read all of Ayn Rand's work, I believe that without reading Nathaniel Branden, who is nothing if not foundational to Objectivism and Libertarianism, then it is difficult to understand the practical implications for the individual of her philosophy.

steveschmitt: I turn again and again to The Psychology of Self Esteem. Just the list he has near the front of the book discussing the assault on a child's mind is well worth reading and contemplation.

Personally, I have used Nathaniel's sentence completion assignments to very good effect--as he says, you are your own best psychologist because you know all the answers.

I think I underlined half of the text in The Art of Livign Consciously!

haylan, have you ever read anything from Branden where he has discussed his early work? Are there any parts of it he wishes he's gone into more depth or other parts he has found to be incomplete or no longer agrees with. Just curious.

On p.62 of my copy of Honoring the Self Branden calls Original Sin "antihuman" because it is "anti-self esteem."

Well, that may be. But there still must be some accounting for human imperfection. If you are saying there is no such thing as original sin or natural depravity, that human beings are not naturally flawed, then that must mean humans are capable of achieving perfection. Now that's a burden I don't want. And however much original sin gets blamed for saddling us with excessive guilt, I would feel guilty if I knew I had the capability of being or becoming perfect and yet for some reason was not perfect -- and was very conscious of that fact.

The American mantra -- you can be whatever you want -- simply isn't true, though I understand why it can be helpful and why we tell it to children. But can't it also be a burden, as much as burden as original sin is to those misguided Catholics who turn guilt into some kind of lifelong art form, where suffering somehow earns brownie points with God?

Even in Branden's philosophy, there would have be some accounting for one's own imperfection -- assuming that one really does see oneself as flawed, and not as some kind of perfect god or superhero whose choices never can be wrong simply because they are one's own choices.

Without a sense of personal imperfection, and without a means of explaining it, we are lost in a labyrinth of narcissism, which tripped up even Slick Willie Clinton.

deniro, you touched on something that is in my opinion the biggest problem with much of Branden and the Objectivists (I realize they are not one and the same but for my purposes here I'm joining them). If ethics ultimately is tied to ones reason then mistakes, if you follow reason, become moral short-comings, don't they? What could be more detrimental to human development, much less self-esteem, than having every mistake take on the sense that not only am I wrong but I'm fundamentally not good either.

Contrast this with the Catholic argument of original sin and it seems to me that catholicism is much healthier and rational. Mistakes are mistakes and failure is just that, not a question of morality. Branden even touched on this himself to a degree in an interview I read once (I don't remember the source) where he said one of his criticisms of Rand was the complete lack of empathy in her fictional characters. This would stand to reason and is played out in her novels that the failures are also bad people and deserve every misfortune that befalls them. Nowhere in her novels that I'm aware is there an instance of a redemptive character. Contrast this with Catholicism or Christianity in general which is entirely based on redemption.

haylan: thanks for that. Interesting post; I'll have to read more of his stuff. Though I don't see much about the connection between Objectivism and libertarianism there. Here's an article on just that subject by Dr. Branden: http://www.theadvocates.org/library/objectivism-and-libertarianism.html (note: non-standard encoding), which doesn't make the mistake of equating libertarianism with Objectivism (though he suggests Rand should have tried to do so).

{FWIW, IMO "minarchism" is an impossible self-delusion, and not really libertarian at all}

Misesean: I have the quote from Nathaniel, (which I could not locate in my research stack but will), where he discussess the term "libertarian"--which is what I was referring to, although I can see I was not clear--being his own choice for Rand's philosophy. She did not like it for various reasons (also explained in the quote) and decided on "Objectivism."

Thanks, also for the link (now how do you do that? I wish someone would enlighten me!)

stevensschmitt: In Judgment Day, Nathaniel talks about how difficult is was to write "Honoring the Self"; that he was never satisfied or comfortable with it. In that book, in articles, in interviews, Nathaniel talks extensively about the evolution of his own thought. In fact, I find that people who do not evolve their thought beyond whatever they thought in their late teens and early '20s are rather pedestrian thinkers. Even though I began my thinking life very early because of my circumstances, the nuance of those thoughts and the test of them in real life situations has certainly engendered in me a far more benevolent and yet firmer grasp of the prevailing conditions. And, my continuing education in a variety of fields has also built an extensive knowledge base. Further I know how to evaluate and discriminate between the feelings, opinions, and facts others present to me for consideration. Constructing a critical (meant in its rhetorical sense) thought and decision making process takes many years and decades.

deniro and Stevenschmitt: I notice that you are not completely familiar with the libertarian or Objectivist canon or Nathaniel's work. I think closer examination would give you some of your answers. It would be unfair to the thinkers who wrote and continue to write under those banners to paraphrase their remarks directed at "morality" and "ethics"--both serious subjects.

Elsewhere, I have spoke out about morality on my own behalf which is situational and therefore not as foundational as value and virtue. I can give examples if you wish...I do not adhere to any philosophy that is not practicable by real human beings in the course of their everyday life.

Finally, if you will allow yourself to read even one of Nathaniel's books, in particular, The Art of Consciousness, Taking Responsibility, or Six Pillars of Self Esteem, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. And, you will discover that, although the term "self esteem" was adopted by the feel-good crowd they do not mean what the coiner of that phrase, Dr. Branden, did and does. Building "your reputation with yourself" takes conscious effort and has next to nothing to do with the opinions of others whether good or bad.

In fact, my mother said that even your own opinion of you hardly matters! Now, get your mind around that one.

WOW stevenschmitt!!!!

"condescending"? you are definitely reading something into my "tone" that was and is hardly intended, for this I do not feel responsible. I write here with every intention of having a discussion, and sharing my own knowledge base and questions with others.

I do not know you or anyone here personally; that means I know nothing about posters' experiences, knowledge base, sensibilities, hot buttons, way of speaking, sense of humor, interests, age group, birth order, temperament, sun sign, beverage or choice, or what anyone's had for breakfast. Nor, does anyone here know me.

I approach this message board giving everyone the benefit of the doubt about everything. I know writing is not like speaking and understand fully that the written statement can come across in a different manner than intended.

Cut me some slack!!!

PLEASE

haylan - sorry for the harsh tone, I was having a bad day yesterday.

Onward and upward!

Thanks, Stevenschitt, for the ultimate justice! I cannot tell you how much I appreciate it.

What I really wanted to do with a discussion of Nathaniel's work is to let others know about this incredible resource.

I do a lot of study, research, and pondering as part of the process of writing and I do not mean to come across as condescending, rather, I would like to come across as sharing and transferring what I know to be true to others...that is my goal, and I do realize that I fall short at times.

Onward, yes, and certainly, upward -- and outward, too!

The only works by Nathaniel Branden that I have read are "Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand" and his essays in "The Virtue of Selfishness". I concur with haylan that Branden exemplified the practicality of Rand's philosophy. If Judgment Day is any indicator, the true Objectivist movement was initiated by him with NBI.

Oh, and has anybody heard his interview with Don Swaim? It can be found here: http://wiredforbooks.org/nathanielbranden/

Reply to post #1:

> have you seen him speak

In the 1970's I attended a speech he gave to a libertarian group. I was very put off by the fact that his response to an audience member (whose question was not at all hostile, but suggested disagreement with an assertion) was ad hominem. If I'd been thinking of asking any questions myself, that decided me against it!

myshelves--I certainly hope that no one judges me today on what I said and how I acted on a single occasion in the '70s!

I have not seen Nathaniel in person just heard him on a number of programs and interviews. I am sorry to hear of your poor experience...do you have any good things to say about his books?

haylan-- I didn't/don't judge him today. Frankly, like stevenschmitt, "I'd kinda forgotten about him."

I answered your question about whether anyone had seen him speak, and reported the most memorable thing about the event. If you were looking for someone to gush about the thrill of such a live encounter, I'm sorry to disappoint you. It was a "poor experience" for most of us to hear a man from whom we'd expected logic belittle the questioner instead of addressing the question.

It has been a long time since I've read any of his books. I remember agreeing with much (not all) in The Psychology of Self Esteem.

My favorite author in the psychology/psychiatry area is Thomas Szasz.

I watched an interview of Branden on the net a few months ago where he came out and pretty much apologized for much of his crass nature in the early days. Personally I have a lot of empathy for the guy, it's easy to look back now at Nathanial, Ayn and a lot of the early Objectivists and say, geez why did they all have to be such a bunch of jerks... But if you step back and look at the intellectual climate they were operating in, they were really fighting it out in the trenches during a time when there were not a lot of friendly allies. We are now in a time when conservatives rule the radio, tax cuts are synonymous with economic growth, and most communists are found in history books. It was a different world back then.

Hi stevenschmitt,

"friendly allies . . . conservatives rule the radio"?

I hope you aren't telling me that NB is a welcome guest of Hannity, O'Reilly and their ilk. :-) They likely regard Objectivism as akin to satanism. The Virtue of Selfishness!? Auugh! Sin!

myshelves - Yeah, I doubt NB would call up and say, "your a great American Sean" :-)

My point is that someone arguing man's mind as the fountainhead of progress will have a lot easier time now while we live in the "Google era" than it was back in the early days of the cold war.

You're right though... If Rand was disgusted with Bill Buckley imagine how she would react to O'Reilly :-0

Now that you mention it though, I think Leonard Piekoff has actually been on O'Reilly's show before.

stevenschmitt: I do not think that NB has much of an opinion of Piekoff's intelligence (from what I recall in Judgement Day- ha ha)

I first read Ayn Rand at the age of 14 and at that time all I got from it was that I identified very strongly with some of the main characters: Howard Roark seemed to be living my life! I also identified with Hank Reardon and Francisco in Atlas Shrugged--as you can probably guess, I am the creating type!

However, Nathaniel Branden is the one who really helped me stay on track when it came to sticking to REALITY and trusting my own ability to oberve the empirical evidence and draw my own conclusions as a way of maintaining and building on my own qualities.

The fact that Nathaniel changed over time is, to me, one of the proofs of that I can trust him--no one stays the same! Particularly from their early 20's to their mid 70's!

stevenschmitt, I thought you might also be interested in the fact that I was in college in the late 60's and was one of the very few Objectiviests (there were no "libertarians") on campus (University of Oregon.) I a very interesting and unusual experience walking that path that I am sharing through a manuscript I am currently working on.

So many of today's libertarian leaders (like the folks at Cato) were just guys in S. California where my mother lived--so, I was there when the whole thing started. I have to say that the "libertarian" movement, as such, is a disappointment to me. Rather than concentrate on building a grass roots organization (like political parties do,) they wanted a national forum in which to express their views.

This is where I differ with any idea of a libertarian political movement I suppose because of my Objectivist roots--I believe that the future belongs to the individual because that is what our species is! -- individualated "fractals" on a basic theme. Without a firm grasp on this fact and what education (skills, experience, knowledge, training) should arise from this fact, then the individual has no way of deciding which economic, social, government, and spiritual framework can best suit their actual need to not just survive but flourish. IMHO it is just not possible to honor and respect the individual as the basic building block of our nature, and then work from a "top down" strategy. It is lazy way to approach change because it is falling--once again--into the trap of believing that the future can be altered through influencing established "leadership." What is your take on this?

Back when, Nathaniel was about the only one out there offering guidance on staying true to myself and what I KNEW was REAL...so, I feel a deep and abiding affection for this person I have never met, just corresponded with on occasion.

Nathaniel does speak at the Objectivist conferences, as well as libertarian events. One of my dreams, however, is to have dinner with Nathaniel and his wife one of these days and get to see him laugh!

myselves: Thomas Szas is also one of my favorites...I do not have a hierarchy of favorites--they are all lovingly equal in my eyes. Each mind is so unique, and each point of view is so important to the whole that I feel grateful to each person for the contribution they make.

By the way, it is difficult to get across any tone and attitude here, I was attempting to come across as ironically and smiling not snotty! Sorry about that!

Stevenschmitt - Hmmm. How about Buckley as a guest of SH or BO'R? I picture them wearing headphones to get an explanation of every 4th or 5th word from BB. (grin)

haylan: Naming favorites is tricky. I decided a long time ago that if I can take only 10 books to the desert island, I'm not going! And if I have to go, I'll opt for 9 books on desert island survival skills and primitive shipbuilding techniques, plus one very thick volume of Mark Twain's works. :-)

I do miss the vast array of clever emoticons available on another forum I visit. No offense taken - - - on either side, I hope.

I love emoticons! I have quite a collection. I am with you on the survival books -- speaking of desert islands, a lot of my favorite books in childhood had to do with making something from nothing: Swiss Family Robinson; Boxcar Children; The Five Little Peppers and How they Grew.

I was always making houses myself-- under a convenient set of bushes or laid out on the lawn with various pieces of lumber or sticks; with the hay bales on my uncle's ranch...I was ever busy constructing things.

Secretly, I would love to take a stab at the "desert island" although I would prefer an island with enough resources to last a while--then again, isn't a starship an island in space? That always excites my imagination, too...how to decorate my bulkheads!

No way! Deserted islands might be nice places to visit, but. . . . If I'm ever stranded on an island I want one that already has books - - - along with good bartenders, indoor plumbing, and other amenities.

I used to worry about the "10 books" question in connection with a space voyage. Reluctantly, I concluded that if I could take only 10 books, I'd have to remain earthbound. Interesting that none of the SF people proposing the question back then realized that computer technology could solve the problem.

:). I'm with Misesean on this one.

Do you mean the connection between Objectivism and libertarianism? To what do you agree? That they are connected is without question; how they are connected is perhaps the question. Ayn Rand was, IMO, shamefully lacking in gratitude or citations! She never spoke of the antecedents of her own thoughts (some of which are obvious) -- or denied them--and Nathaniel stated in Judgement Day that he never saw her read a book! (I believe I have that correctly.)