248
PARTISAN REVIEW
at times, because what he
~ays
refers
back to his established reputation. But
such a condition does not pertain to your
critic in this case. This seems to be just
another of those professional literary
sophomores who turn up from the uni–
versities every now and again to instruct
us out of the book in our errors. I for
one detest them as I detest plant-lice.
I'm not blaming Mr. Jarrell, I'm blam–
iftg you. Unless I'm very much mistaken
you've been beautifully taken in by just
another one of these flagrant literary
classmen, to make a show of your reo
puted partisanship. I hope he hasn't nailed
you so prettily for here is sentimentality
of the most barren sort, that of the aca–
demic instructor toward his assigned
subject.
Mr. Jarrell attacks me for my praise
of Patchen as a poet, taking exception to
my catch phrase "a hawk on the tomb of
John Donne" and replacing it with his
own phrase "a parrot on the stones of
half a cemetery." Let the two phrases lie
side by sid&-and go to Patchen's verses.
Sorry to see this sort of thing.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS.
Rutherford, N.
1.
-Dr. Williams protests that Mr. Jarrell's
review was "academic" and "trite," but
the tone of his letter suggests that what
really disturbed him was, on the contrary,
the fact that our reviewer failed to treat
these young poets with the genteel tact
and forbearance customary in the critical
press. We think that Mr. Jarrelfs review
was witty rather than flippant, that its
virulence was matched by its good sense,
and that it let some fresh air into the
poetic hothouse. There is a tendency these
days to regard young poets as sacred
beasts, surrounded by awful sanctions.
While we applaud Dr. Williams' constant
encouragement of and interest in young
poets, we suggest that sometimes they will
profit more from unsparing criticism than
from blanket endorsements.-ED.
FRED SCHUMAN: HUMAN BEING
Sirs:
I hope your
policy
is
sufficiently elas–
tic to publish a dissenting opinion. The
enclosed check for one dollar is for reo
newal of my subscription, and will bear
witness to my interest in reading your
magazine. I have a very low opinion of
your article, by Frank N. Trager, on
Frederick L. Schuman: a Case History.
I
call it vicious and small-minded.
Your magazine offers stimulating opin–
ion and has published articles of impor–
tance (Vivas on Dewey, for instance).
Its point of view has the weakness, how–
ever, of trying to straight-jacket all the
world's work into a single political-eco–
nomic formula, with monotonously a
priori
effect. This form of metropolitan
provincialism I find peculiarly loathesome.
Nevertheless, your comment is gener–
ally kept on a high plane, and it is pos–
sible for you to attack some one's ideas
without doing violence to sportsmanship
and decency. For example, Sidney Hook
on Max Lerner, in the current issue, a
4iscussion which could be answered only
on its own terms.
Trager on Schuman is of a different
order. It is evident that Trager cannot
know much about Schuman. As any poli–
tician knows, it is not difficult to isolate
phrases of a man's thought over a period
of years in order to discover contradic·
tions. I am not competent to answer the
charges in detail. My contention is that
they are meaningless_ As a colleague
(non-departmental) and friend of the ac–
cused, I can lay claim to a sort of knowl–
edge that Mr. Trager would not under·
stand; and I can assure you that the
image he draws bears no resemblance to
the original. The premises are all wrong.
Trager's Schuman is an abstraction di·
vorced from history. The real Schuman
is
a human being with sufficient courage and
a sufficient respect for history to admit
that events have forced him to change
biB
mind. Mr. Trager will never be placed
in such a position; his mind is bounded
by a formula and his logic is not a tech·
nique but an end.
Silly statements do not require dis·
proof. To attribute any change of view in
Fred Schuman to any form of dishonesty
is such a statement. The allegation viti·
ates the arguments. I see that the acad–
emies have no monopoly on armchair
scholarship or the Ph.D. mind.
Very truly yours,
S. L.
FAISON,
Ja.
Williamstown, Mass.
