42 / CHRONICLESndiscussing drug control legislationnwhich, for lack of sufficiently severenpenalties for drug traffickers, has nonpossibility of solving the terrible drugnproblem. Congress has recently enacted,nover the President’s veto, a “waternquality” act recently characterized bynJames J. Kilpatrick as a bureaucraticnmonstrosity, meant to benefit individualncongressmen. Left altogether unsolvednby the Congress are such crucialnproblems as the national debt, thenbudget deficit, the burgeoning crimenrate, widespread pornography, an inadequatensystem of education, increasingnpoverty (despite the billions ofndollars spent for its eradication), asnwell as the creation, through the neglectnof children, of ever larger generationsnof welfare recipients.nCongressmen sometimes blame theninadequacies of existing law on theninterpretations of the Constitution bynthe Supreme Court. This charge isnjustified, but is there no solution?nMust this democracy fail to operatenproperly on that account? The Constitutionnincludes provisions for its ownnamendment, an admittedly long and ancomplicated process, but good governmentnmay demand that this process benagain set in motion. It is hard tonbelieve the Founding Fathers intendednto establish a government incapable ofnoperating for the good of its people.nHamilton H. Howze is a retired generalnof the U.S. Army living in FortnWorth, Texas.nLetter From Albionnby Andrei NavrozovnThe Oxford ExperiencenThe recent election of the new Chancellornof Oxford University—or was itnthe prospect of another July undisturbednby fireworks?—reminded menof the letter I received from a Cambridgenfriend last summer, when I wasnliving in Oxford. I quote it with minorndeletions.n”Warm greetings to the Latin Quarternof Morris-Cowley, and happynFourth of July. I hope you are celebrating.nMy own preference lies more withnthe Third than the Fourth of July, for Inthink it more American to be prepar­ning for tomorrow than to celebratenyesterday. Nonetheless, I shall bothnprepare and celebrate next week if yountell me that you are coming to Cambridge,nwhich you should do.n”According to Vladimir Nabokov,nwho came up in 1919 by way of thenCrimea and Creece, the residual propertynof Cambridge, ‘which many ansolemn alumnus has tried to define,’ isnthe constant awareness one has ‘of annuntrammelled extension of time.’ Thensame feeling did not escape me atnOxford, so I attribute the differencenbetween the two to other things.nHenry James maintained that ‘a straynsavage is not in the least obliged tonknow the difference,’ but a differencenthere is, and I am curious to hear whatnAndrei Navrozov will make of it.n”My views on the matter are definite.nNo amount of development willnever make of Cambridge more than anvillage, whereas Oxford is a steamynindustrial Gehenna between 9 and 5.nOxford without Oxford would still benOxford, but Cambridge without Cambridgenwould be nothing. In fact, fornus of the gown and for them of thentown, Cambridge is everything. This isnnot to conclude, by extension, sincenthey are indeed different, that Oxfordnis nothing. In fact, we are quite willingnto concede that Oxford is something.nBut what? I think it typical of thenuncertainty in that question that onenshould see everywhere the signs ofnOxford trying to prove that she, likenCambridge, is also everything. Whatnelse could account for the unseemlynphenomenon that greets one’s eyes onnwalking into any bookshop. The OxfordnBook of Science, The Oxford Booknof Art, The Oxford Book of EdiblenFunghi, Tudor Carols, Quechua Versen. . . The Oxford Book ofOxfordl I wasntold that there were even plans for ThenOxford Book of Cambridge, but thatnthis was discarded as giving the gamenaway. My dear Andrei, it is as if Godnhad given us the Universe, and creatednOxford to keep track of it. Which isnjust as well, for had he given it tonCambridge it would have been returnednas either unnecessary, insufficient,nabsurd, or much too flashy.nWhence undoubtedly proceeds thenopinion that at Oxford people walk innthe street looking as if they owned it,nwhereas at Cambridge they walk in thenstreet looking as if they didn’t care whonnnowned it. . . .n”But do come and participate innthese delights. I shall try to arrangennice weather.”nThe stability of the Oxonocentricnuniverse was put to the test in Marchnas Roy Jenkins, described by my vitriolicnSussex friend Martin Seymour-nSmith as “a claret-swilling sentimentalist,”nbecame the university’s newnchancellor. The four-way election wasnbitterly contested, greatly politicized,nand widely publicized, with LordnBlake (who would have been endorsednby this magazine’s editors had they notnbeen too busy clearing the intellectualnswamp in the colonies) pitted againstnEdward Heath (the “wet” ConservativenPrime Minister deposed by Thatcher),nMark Payne (a 34-year-old “alternativencandidate” who displayed his campaignnposter reading “Ecce MarcusnPayne: Eligendus Est” outside thenSheldonian), and Jenkins (founder,nwith David Owen and others, of thenSDP and a former Labor “minister ofnsanitation or something like that,” asnSeymour-Smith remembered it). Withnthousands of alumni converging onnOxford, Castell’s, the High Street tailor,nhad an “unprecedented” run onngowns, selling out of its £55 model innsynthetic fiber and only a few in Russellncord (£99) or pure wool (£125)nremaining. The Randolph Hotel wasnfully booked, its restaurant (as thenmaitre d’ was reported to have put it)n”full of sirs and lords.” The SundaynTimes ran a sententia in Latin.nYet what, in reality, is Oxford? Perhapsnto capitalize on the enormousnelection publicity, Oxford UniversitynPress began bringing out its ubiquitousn”Oxford Books” in paperback, “at lessnthan a fiver each,” and I would like tonuse the remaining space to review thenfirst four arrivals: The Oxford Book ofnAphorisms, The Oxford Book ofnDreams, The Oxford Book of Death,nand The Oxford Book of Literary Anecdotes.nOUP may not be Oxford, but itntoo has a “genuine” Gothic facade.nVasily Rozanov, perhaps the subtlestnof all Russian writers, once countedn20 overshoes in the hall of his flat,nconcluding with pride that he was ablento feed 10 mouths, “including servants,”nby his thoughts alone. Rozanov,nwho is quoted twice in The OxfordnBook of Aphorisms—comparednwith 17 times for Anatole France andn