326
Letters
FROM FRANCE
Sirs:
Thank you for sending me the two
recent issues of pARTISAN REVIEW. I
must confess I was a bit disappointed
with the contents. From a literary point
of view, it is up to its usual standard.
But I missed your editorials and your
firm and outspoken fashion of dealing
with contemporary events. The "London
Letter" might have appeared in the
New
Yorker.
And
if
it had not been for the
"Paris Letter," one would have thought
you did not know there was a war going
on. It's all right criticizing the Stalinites,
but is it sufficient? Spender's "Journal"
made me sick. Do you share his point of
view of the "lesser evil"? I did not think
such a muddled and equivocal piece of
thinking would have found a place in
your magazine. Or do you publish it for
the interesting ideas on music, art and
life, and so on? In other words, are you
becoming eclectic and do you think, as
one of your readers suggests, that the
title of the magazine ought to be changed?
It is a pity, because I liked so much the
tone of last year's issues....
Yours faithfully,
JEAN ••••••
Savoie, April
28.
- The omission of the editorials in the
first two issues of this rear was due to
technical, not principled, reasons. We cer·
tainlr do not agree with Mr. Spender
about the "lesser evil." See editorial by
D. M. in last issue. Yes, we did publish
Spender's "Journal" for its ideas on art
and music (and Germany) and for its lit·
erarr quality. The sort of eclecticism
which prints things for their literary
value, even if politically they disagree
with one's own views-this sort of com–
promise, if you want to call it that, we
feel to be necessary
in
putting out a cul·
tural magazine like
pARTISAN REVIEW.
We have always been "eclectic" in this
sense.-
En.
ON EDITORIAL CONSISTENCY
Sirs:
Independent judgment is a great virtue
in editors; but it seems to me that
Mr.
Rahv and Mr. MacDonald ought to get
together and have a talk.
In his last editorial, Mr. Rahv observed,
sensibly
if
belatedly, that orthodox Man:·
ists have grossly overrated the vigor and
virtue of the proletariat
per se.
He con·
eluded as sensibly that "the question of
leadership has become so central that it
requires a complete theoretical overhaul·
ing." And of course he doesn't like at all
what has happened to the revolution
in
Russia.
In his editorial Mr. MacDonald pointed
to the "social revolution" as the "only
way out" of our present nightmare; he
criticized, as an example of the notorious
unrealism of liberals, Stephen Spender's
decision to support the "Chamberlain
system" against Fascism as the lesser of
two evils. Now, one might remark that
in this imperfect world the choice of the
lesser evil is a very realistic one; it is
the choice actually and necessarily made
by most men in most of their affairs. One
might add that the "Chamberlain sys·
tern" (even before the resignation of its
figurehead) was a much less accurate or
comprehensive definition of England than
"Fascism" is of Hitler's Germany. But
if
MacDonald wants us to put our faith in
the revolution, he ought to begin at least
some theoretical overhauling. How does
he expect to meet this central problem of
leadership? Even granted that the masses
of England, France, Germany, America,
etc., are ripe for the revolution (a highly
dubious assumption), where are their
leaders? And what is to be done mean·
while about the not at all theoretical
problems raised by Hitler? In other
words, precisely what does Mr. Mac·
Donald propose to do, and how does he
propose to do it?
By the time your next issue appears, it
is of course probable that Hitler will
have created some new nightmares, and
made these questions a little academic.
Meanwhile, however, our advanced social
thinkers might display some of the real·
ism they are always appealing to. As it
is, their reliance on the old slogans and
