Weekly Bulletins

Worship

Men's Group

Parish Council

Philoptochos

History of the Parish

Sunday School

Church Calendar

Youth Groups

Fellowship Hall

Father Paulson

Father Pavlow

Parish Life and Events

Links

Directions

Contact Us

      The practice of perpetuating the Greek culture in the church environment and in the family was reinforced by a basic distrust of non-Greeks and widespread scorn and rejection which most immigrants felt in their early years in the United States.  Hence, the motherland's customs and traditions became the major influence in an otherwise threat-oriented environment.[2]

       Consequently, the church emerged as the paramount source of support for immigrants providing a sense of security, identity and continuity.  No change would be tolerated because any change might have the most threatening consequences.  Thus, "the church became a fortification of religious and cultural institutions that would keep them sound against the strange New World."[3]

       Since the 1940s, however, a growing number of inter-church marriages[4] have been adding to the Greek American congregations.  Many men, women and children, from their ethnic and religious backgrounds, changed the composition of the Greek Orthodox family and the church community.  The use of Greek as liturgical language is unintelligible to these new members.[5]  Many of them return to their former churches accompanied by their young Greek American spouses because they find it bewildering and incomprehensible to worship in a foreign language.  These new members find the language, liturgy, and church-decor very different from what they are accustomed to in the American setting.  They become frustrated in this environment, and for that reason, they leave.

       Furthermore, in many parishes to which Greeks continue to emigrate in large numbers, it appears to the non-Orthodox observer that Greek identity is a mandatory prerequisite for active membership in the Greek Orthodox Church.  Appeals for changes to accommodate the changing constituency have been generally resisted, criticized, in some instances condemned, and increasingly, the Greek Orthodox Church has been viewed by some as indifferent and intolerant.

       As a result, worship has taken on greater meaning elsewhere for many who feel their worship and spiritual needs are neglected or dismissed for tradition's sake.

            Scope and Purpose of this Project

       This project is an attempt to gain insight and to provide a partial resolution and balance in the new and complex Greek Orthodox church setting.  The intent is to  frame an Exploratory-Descriptive Project designed to ascertain, in some measure, the linguistic, liturgical and church-decor preferences of Greek Orthodox immigrants and the families of their descendants in the congregations I pastor.  The primary setting of this project will be given to Saint Nicholas Parish in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

       As the twenty-first century approaches, the demand of the Greek Orthodox populace for worship opportunities in the vernacular as the formal worship language is increasing.  In addition, the determination by Greek-American parents to rear their children as "Greeks" is lessening and the teaching of the Greek language is being relegated to a lower priority.  For many, the Greek language and ethnicity is threatened with extinction. 

       To impede this trend, a shift of concentration has been taking place toward revival of active interest in their Greek Orthodox Church which is viewed as the last hope for the survival of Greek identity.  While the church emerges as the paramount source of support for immigrants by providing a sense of security and balance, a powerful resistance to change for fear of assimilation is concurrently engendered.[6]  Handlin writes,

Village religion was, as a matter of course, conservative. Peasant and priest alike resisted change. They valued in the Church its placid conviction of eternal and universal sameness, of continuity[7]. . . Precisely because migration had subjected those to attack, it was necessary aggres- sively to defend them, to tolerate no change because any change might have the most threatening consequences.  Thus, all immigrants were conservatives, dissenters and peasants alike.[8]

       But for the succeeding generations, and those whose roots are in other religious denominations and ethnic cultures, who have embraced Orthodoxy as a matter of personal choice, there has persisted a serious dilemma.  "How," they ask unceasingly, "are we to worship meaningfully in a church in which we feel peripheral and discordant?"  

       Clearly, as reasons vary for which people choose to belong to the Greek Orthodox Church, their expectations vary also.  It is this variance of expectations and how to respond to it in view of our Lord's mandate to "Go ye, therefore, to all nations . . ." (Matthew 28:19, KJV), that has been the moving force for this project.  This may be interpreted to mean that people of all nations ought to be able to worship in the Orthodox church and find worship therein at least understandable!

                  Need for this Project

       Though the Greek Orthodox Church is experiencing considerable difficulty filling the worship needs of its people, sporadic efforts are being made in many parishes to accommodate the religious needs of those who inquire into Orthodoxy.  For the most part, however, the hierarchy has been powerless to initiate favorable change.  Priests who endeavored to do so by testing practical linguistic, liturgical, and decorative revisions have been subjected to

ridicule, chastisement, and severe censure from laymen and peers.

       My hope is that this project will prove helpful to seminarians and Orthodox priests in America.  This will give them a better understanding of the factors that influence the expectations of the Greek Orthodox worshipers.  Help is needed in providing meaningful and renewing worship experiences in place of those which remain literally inundated with hymnology, often to the detriment of other essential elements of the liturgical celebration.[9]

                       Definitions

       Some of the terms used in this paper need clarification to enable the reader to comprehend fully the meanings as intended and understood in Greek culture.  The following list of definitions is provided for that purpose.

Archbishop, Archdiocese: Archbishop is the title given to the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, of North and South America.  This title signifies the first among bishops and represents definite administrative rights and authority in the Church.  The Church is also known as Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America. It is comprised of ten dioceses, each with a bishop of their own forming a synod whose president is the Archbishop with a cathedral and offices located in New York city.  The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America falls within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (see PATRIARCH, ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE) of Constantinople.[10]  The synod of the Patriarchate elects[11] both the Bishops and Archbishop of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America.

Clergy-laity congress: A congress held every two years, attended by the parish priests and four lay representatives from each parish, including the president of the parish council, a second member of the council, and two others elected from the membership at a parish assembly.  The congress is officially entitled and numbered as follows: e.g., 31st Clergy-Laity Congress.  The agenda includes both spiritual and administrative concerns of growth and development of the Orthodox Church in the Western Hemisphere.

Communion spoon, (λαβίς): This is a small spoon with a long handle bearing at its end a small cross.  It is usually gold or gold-plated, and it is used to take the consecrated Elements, Body and Blood, from the chalice and impart them to the Orthodox communicant.[12]  Throughout this thesis the Greek form of the word will be used.  It is not known when exactly the λαβίς was adopted for use in the Divine Liturgy, but soon after the twelfth century, use of the λαβίς was generally practiced in the Orthodox church.[13]

Community: As used in this thesis this word refers to a colony of Greek Orthodox Christians residing in the same city.  Usually, a large number of this group, or their predecessors, may originate from the same mainland locale or island from Greece.  A parish council comprised of officers and board members is elected by the people of the community to manage their common ethnic concerns and eventually lead them in building a church for corporate worship.[14]

Divine Liturgy: Throughout the Orthodox Church worldwide, this term is used to denote the Holy Eucharist (Communion service), celebrated on Sundays and major feast days.  In this paper, this wording is used synonymously with eucharistic worship.

Divine worship: As used in this paper, this term refers primarily to the Eucharist, the chief act of public Christian worship in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Ethnic marriage: As used in this thesis, this term refers primarily to a marriage in which both spouses, as well as the parents of both spouses, are of Greek (Orthodox) extraction.  Such a marriage will be identified in APPENDIX B, with a capital letter (E), in parenthesis, at the end of each response.  

Generation: In this study, the focus is on changing preferences in aspects of worship through many generations and is, therefore, of some considerable significance.  The term may include four definitions which according to Gould and Kolb depend upon the framework in which it is applied. 

The four definitions are

1.  A generation comprises all those members of a         society whose behavior towards each other and towards members of other generations is based on the fact that they are contemporaries, or that they are descended by the same number of degrees from a common ancestor.

 2.  A generation comprises the offspring of the same parent or parents and is counted as a single degree of step in reckoning the descent of a person or family from a more distant ancestor.

 3.  A generation comprises all those members of a society who were born at approximately the same time, whether or not they are related by blood.

 4.  A generation is the time segment between the birth of those members of a society born at the same time and the birth of their offspring, statistically assumed by the social scientist to be a certain period, usually thirty years.[15]

        In this study the arrival of Greek immigrants to American shores constitute the ancestors from whom descendants will emerge who will be referred to as American generations.  The first offspring of immigrants, born in America, are designated first generation.  The children of the first generation are designated second generation, etc.  Since the flow of immigrants to America has continued unabated since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, those designated first, second, third, or fourth generation descendants are not necessarily contemporaries.  Their designation simply identifies the degree or step in the line of descent from their immigrant ancestors who arrived at various times during the last one hundred years.

Iconostasion (Εικovoστάσιov): This is the divider that separates the sanctuary from the nave of the Orthodox church.  It will be used in this thesis in its Greek equivalent.  Εικovoστάσιov originated as a low rail, remnants of which are today's rails that separate the solea (σoλέα) from the nave in some churches.

       About the 14th century, the rail evolved into the present-day εικovoστάσιov which completely separates the sanctuary from the rest of the temple, and distances the Eucharist and the clergymen from the congregation.  In every Orthodox Church the world over, four of the icons on the εικovoστάσιov are located in precisely the same location.  As one faces the altar, the icon of Christ is located on the right of the royal door or entrance to the sanctuary.  The icon of John the Baptist is next to the icon of Christ.  To the left of the royal door, the icon of the Mother of God is located, and next to it is the icon of the saint in whose name the church is dedicated.  All other icons follow no ordered placement.[16] 

Immigrant: According to Marcus Lee Hansen, immigrants are all the newcomers into any country of which they are not

natives but in which they seek permanent residence.[17]  In this paper the term "immigrant" will reflect this definition precisely.

Inter-Church Marriage: This term, as used in this thesis, refers to marriages in which one of the spouses is of a Christian denomination other than Orthodox.  Also, the parents of these spouses may or may not be of the same religious persuasion.  Such a marriage will be identified in Appendix B, Responses, with capital letters (IF), in parenthesis, at the end of each response.  

Language:  As used in this paper, this term refers to New Testament Greek, the traditional language of the Greek Orthodox Liturgy and the English versions into which it has been translated.

       A second application of the term refers to the language in which the sermon is delivered and the ethnic cultural pattern with which it identifies.  In this regard, the "language" in which the preaching is done is particularly significant in that it responds to personal and communal experience deriving from particular social settings and particular personal and inter-group relationships.

Orthodox: This term is used to refer to all the people of

the Orthodox Christian faith in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, irrespective of their ethnic origin.  When ethnic terms precede the word Orthodox, they indicate the national origin of the worshiping group and the language which is traditionally used in the religious services by their clergy when it is not displaced by the English language.

Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarchate: Patriarch is the ecclesiastical title dating from the fifth century and accorded to the bishops of the five chief sees of Christendom: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.  Later, the Archbishop of Constantinople became Ecumenical Patriarch, that is, the first among the Patriarchates of the East.  The Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[18]

Soleas (Σoλέας): The Greek equivalent of soleas is σoλέας.  In this thesis, it will appear in the Greek version.  Σoλέας is a spacious, raised area before the sanctuary, the dimensions of which usually average twenty-five feet in

width and fifteen feet in depth.  In some cases, such as at Saint Nicholas in Virginia Beach, Virginia, it is the width of the entire nave.  Upon the σoλέας which is a step or two higher than the floor of the nave, three steps at St. Nicholas, sacraments such as baptisms and weddings, as well as other ceremonies, take place.

       In the famous church of Saint Sophia, the emperor's and bishop's thrones stood on the right and left sides respectively.  After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the episcopal throne was moved to the right where the emperor's throne stood.[19] 

     According to Schmemann, in ancient times serving at the altar was restricted exclusively to the liturgy of the faithful, i.e., the offering and consecration of the holy gifts -- the eucharist in the strict sense of the term.  The rest of the time, the place of the celebrant and the clergy was on the "bema" (βήμα-σoλέας) i.e., among the people.  This is indicated to this very day by the location of the bishop's throne, in the middle of the church among the Russians.  And, in fact even now, the most important parts of non-eucharistic services are performed in the middle of the church and not at the altar.  The first part of the liturgy, listening to the scriptures and the homily, took place not in the altar but in the nave, with the celebrant and the clergy having assumed their special places on the bema (βήμα), i.e., among the people.[20] 

                       Limitations

       Certainly, there are some shortcomings in the present study since there is nothing to compare it to or judge it against because it is the first of its kind.  The researcher has set out to construct the first data-base study of people's preferences in divine worship.  This he has done.

       The information has come from the people themselves.  Also, it is recognized that there are a vast number of inquiries that could have been included.  Future projects will, and ought to, include a far greater number of probes concerning the sacramental, administrative, and advocatory systems of the church.  Along the way, some difficulties have been encountered.  Some of the impediments endured included the following:

       1.  The size and complexity of the problem and the vulnerability of the data to misinterpretation were potential limitations. 

       2.  With some immigrants, who did not possess sufficient mastery of Greek or English, it was sometimes difficult to grasp the exact meaning of their responses. 

       3.  Precise and accurate identification of respondents with a specific generation posed some difficulty.  Some respondents telephoned us weeks after the interview to inform us that they were, in fact, offspring of a different generation than the one in which they initially included themselves.

       4.  Some insisted on being surveyed personally with the printed questionnaire upon which to record their responses personally.  Others preferred to be interviewed by phone in their homes with others present who seemed to coach them.  This was true in cases when respondents seemed to be experiencing tension during the interview.

       5.  Immigrants who cannot speak English were interviewed in the Greek language which then required translation.  We trust that our translations are sufficiently reliable.

       6.  The sensitive nature of the material essential to this project may have limited the willingness of some respondents to respond as candidly as possible.  Some recalled, and revealed readily, having regretted former hostile attitudes and actions taken to protest the implementation of linguistic or decor changes.  We are less than certain whether some of those few statements were made to patronize the clergy.  We suspect that some felt they might regain some imagined loss of respect by telling us what they believed would restore favorable regard.

                    Literature Review

       My personal interest in this project has grown out of my experience as a pastor for forty-eight years.  During this time, my desire to provide, for my congregations, opportunity for active and meaningful participation in divine worship, has never ceased to be my highest and most sacred pastoral priority.

       The significantly organic relationship between the     development of faith and the process through which a worshiper is called to ascend towards the divine,[21]  has been the subject of much research over the years.  The role of the worshiper in the worship setting has been examined as a vital issue from a number of perspectives by many renowned theologians.  From a select number of distinguished churchmen who have devoted considerable scholarly attention in this arena, I have drawn much with which to examine and provide integrity for my activity.

       The Very Reverend George Florovsky hints at the use of an appropriate, common language, when addressing the vital issue of Christian worship stating, "Christian worship is intrinsically a personal act and engagement, and yet it finds its fullness only within the Community, in the context of common and corporate life."[22]  From Florovsky's learned assessment, and in view of "If two of you shall agree as touching anything that they shall ask . . . ," common worship, common prayer and common appeals, presuppose and require common language.[23]

       The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese has made noteworthy effort to address the language-in-worship issue.  During the Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Archdiocese at the New York Waldorf-Astoria on June 30, 1970, the Rev. Dr. Nicon D. Patrinacos, Chairman pro-tem of the Liturgical Committee, delivered an address entitled "Liturgical and Linguistic Reform" and said in part,

A Liturgical Commission is currently engaged in translating our Liturgy, a translation which, when published, will be the only authorized English text for  use within the Greek Archdiocese . . . Our leadership will, no doubt, issue the necessary guidelines as to the use in church of these English texts.[24]

       Twenty years have passed.  Many translations have since appeared and are in current use in churches of the

Greek Archdiocese.[25]  Though designation of an English translation as the authorized version for use throughout the Archdiocese is eagerly awaited, the period of creativity and resourcefulness has been indefinitely extended.[26]

       Analogous to the linguistic consideration in this project is congregational participation in worship.  However, to understand the Greek approach to worship in an adopted land, Thomas Burgess, in his book Greeks in America, holds that one must understand the ecclesiastical history of Orthodoxy as viewed through the eyes of the Orthodox.[27]

        On the surface, it seems to have been of little concern to the Greek Orthodox Immigrants that their Orthodox faith is not understood, by their children and non-Greeks in this land, since a good many of them do not understand it themselves.[28] 

       Nonetheless, Greeks consider the language of the Church the language with which Paul introduced Christianity to the world during his missionary journeys, and they regard themselves and their Church the treasury and guardian of this Divine legacy whatever the cost.  And this, probably, is one of the foremost reasons they cling so tenaciously to their religious heritage and are so strongly committed to its perpetuation.  Any deviation from language and liturgical form is considered blasphemous with the ulterior intent to assimilate to Protestantism or Catholicism.  According to Chrysie Constantakos, survival of the   language, when related to ethnic continuity, takes on a distinct significance. "To those who find linguistic survival indispensable in national or ethnic continuity, disappearance of language may be tantamount to ethnic extinction."[29]

       Adamantios Korais was one of the greatest and most revered philologists of the eighteenth century.  In his honor many parochial Greek-language schools are named.  It was his fundamental concept that language made and preserved a nationality and that the distinctive quality possessed by a language was interwoven with national character and, therefore, a hallmark for nationality.[30]  Chaconas elaborates with three uniting factors which hold together the Greek nations: language, nationality, and religion.[31]

       The Orthodox Observer, the official publication of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in the Western Hemisphere, publishes letters in the "Letters to the Editor"[32] columns every week asking why an English Orthodox Church is so distasteful in English-speaking America.  Such an example is the letter printed in a recent issue, November 1992, entitled "A Ludicrous Idea," 

    Editor: It is so ludicrous to expect converts to the          Orthodox faith to learn Greek in order to experience the      fullness of the Orthodox experience.  Even if we study        Greek, it might take a lifetime for most of us to get to

    the point of understanding even the sermon which, in          some cases, is in scholarly Greek . . . . Yes, we are         proud of our Greek heritage, but I praise the Lord when       I see converts who are so drawn to the truth and beauty       of our liturgy and are brought into the Orthodox church.      (Dot Nicholas, Belleville, Ontario, Canada).

       In addressing the needs of the dispersed church, the writings of many theologians stress that Orthodox worship affords, for centuries neglected, a liturgical lay participation that brings the sacred stage from the sanctuary to the pews.[33]  Careful analysis of a number of these works reveals that it is the people who speak and act through the priest as they petition God.  The Very Rev. George Florovsky strongly asserts,

that on all levels, private and corporate, Christian worship must be a common worship, a worship within the Community.  Worship is never just a monologue if it is a genuine Christian worship, but intrinsically a dialogue and conversation.[34]

According to Harakas, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom,

invites the participation of the worshiper in concrete and specific fashion.  No, one could even say that the text of the Liturgy, begs, requires, yes, demands participation!  Without participation, a large portion of its riches remain closed to us.[35]

Patrinacos adds,

    Indeed, ceremonies are and should be doors opening to         experiencing the divine, not developing liturgical

    themes that take place on a plane and at a distance the       worshiper cannot reach.  Reducing people to spectators,       may cause them to seek other religious affiliation.           Worship ought not be banquets of beauty where worshipers      can feast their emotions but starve their souls.[36] 

Indeed, Florovsky maintains,

all prayers are composed in plural in the Divine Liturgy, including the prayer of consecration, and this

impressive liturgical plural, the liturgical we, emphasizes the corporate character of Christian existence.[37]

Father Silouan of Mount Athos notes,

that out of love, God gives us prayer in which to talk with Him."[38]

Alexander Schmemann unequivocally asserts that,

the concelebration of celebrant and the people is further expressed in the eucharistic prayers, which are all, without exception, structured as dialogues.[39] 

Archimandrite Vasileios of Mount Athos explains,

The epiklesis (Επίκλησις) is not simply said aloud by the priest, but by the whole body of the Church: it is a rite of invocation, an act of supplication . . . so that the fact of changing and sanctifying of the precious gifts and of the faithful is experienced consciously and with our whole physical being.[40]

       "Yet, although the Byzantine rite gradually and systematically developed in the direction of an ever greater separation of the "laity" from the "clergy," it did not succeed in eclipsing nor rendering unrecognizable the actual communal character of the Eucharist.[41]

       Patrinacos points to another more serious reason, however, that limits the capability of Orthodox worshipers to become the liturgical participants they deserve to be.  Concerning the inaudible prayers, he declares, 

The people are hardly in a position to truly participate in the liturgy simply because they do not understand what is going on.  Unless one is a theologian or takes pains to study the liturgy at home, indeed, very few do or are in a position to do that, the liturgy remains for most of our people scarcely anything more than a hymnal performance.  This lack of understanding does not refer to the theological ramifications of the liturgy, for which people certainly need expert help, but relates entirely to the structural unfolding of the liturgy and, specifically, to what people hear and what they hear not.  And the things they do not hear constitute the essence and the heart of the liturgy, the part that makes the liturgy a Eucharist and distinguishes it from a gathering of common prayer.[42]

Professor Afanasiev concludes, 

Our task, therefore, consists . . . rather in coming to realize the genuine nature of the Eucharist.[43]           

                       Methodology

       As was stated in the section Need for this project, this is an exploratory-descriptive project intended to provide for us a means through which we, the clergy, will be enabled (a) to be better informed of the cultural and ethnic composition of our congregations, (b) to identify, periodically, their linguistic, liturgical and church-decor preferences, and (c) to be more suitably equipped in providing divine worship more fitting to their preferences and good and beneficial to their souls.             

       To implement the approach to research undertaken, ninety interviews were taken of Greek Orthodox worshipers who are members of Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  A questionnaire consisting of two segments is utilized.[44]  The first segment incorporates personal data;  the second incorporates questions pertaining to aspects of worship in the Greek Orthodox Church concerning the following:

The language (5 choices)

The iconostasion (5 choices)

The priest (3 choices)

The use of incense (4 choices)

Kneeling (3 choices)

Acolytes (6 choices)

Singing the responses (5 choices)

Recitation of prayers (4 choices)

Frequency of reception of Holy Communion (6 choices)

Method of distribution of Holy Communion (6 choices)

       Persons interviewed were (a) fifteen immigrants, five male and ten female, (b) fifty persons, eight male and

twelve female from four succeeding American-born generations, descendants of immigrants, and (c) twenty-five American-born grammar and high-school age children, descendants of immigrants.   

       A team of three priests consisting of my assistant, a navy chaplain and me, administered the survey, primarily in person-to-person interviews.  Some of the interviews were necessarily carried out in the Greek language and were translated into English.  The priests are bi-lingual.

                    Reviewing the Data

       The responses for each segment of the questionnaire were reviewed by Mr. Jack Callan, Director of Saint Leo College, Norfolk, Virginia and Deacon at Community Chapel, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Father Robert Luke Uhl, my assistant; Father William Bartz, LCDR,CHC,USNR, and this writer, pastor of Saint Nicholas.  Appraisal of the project consists of the following:

       a)  Identification of the weaknesses in the project and in the manner in which the interviews were conducted.

       b)  An assessment of the project as a potential model for seminarians as well as priests in the field.

                        Publication

       The project, in its entirety, will be presented to the Chancellor of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America for publication in the Orthodox Observer.  The

project and the results will also be published by the Holy Cross Seminary Press at Brookline, Massachusetts, 02146, U.S.A.

                 Background and Procedure

       This study was not initiated with the prospect of making significant discoveries that would cause an upheaval in the Greek Orthodox church.  What is implied here is that the information gathered by a carefully conducted inquiry would prove to have been available ever since first generation Greek-Americans fashioned families with spouses from other religious and ethnic backgrounds. 

       Since Greek immigrants began coming to these shores in significant numbers at the turn of the century, the basic findings in this study began developing almost at once.

This study simply gathered and organized into a systematic narrative what already was and continues to be.   

       An analysis and interpretation of the responses are done separately for each generation and each gender, with the focus on identifying the worship preferences for each group.  The questions in the survey (APPENDIX A) were asked by each interviewer in private.  If the respondent was not conversant in English, the responses (APPENDIX B) were translated by the interviewer into English for the record.

       The narratives that appear in each chapter are a careful analysis of the biographical and worship preference

statistical data located at the end of each chapter.  The biographical information inquiries provided over eighteen hundred pieces of data.  Additionally, each person responded to each of the ten questions posed in the questionnaire (APPENDIX A), and in some cases gave more than one answer (APPENDIX B).  The responses to each of the ten questions in each of the ten categories, provide a total of nine-hundred responses.  Altogether, twenty-seven hundred pieces of information are processed in the statistics and narratives recorded in the following chapters.