BOOKS
517
(2) Dos Passos wrote
it
quite consciously as a Tract for the Times,
and here
it
seems to me entirely a failure. He seems to think the liber–
tarian tradition of these 17th and 18th century rebels has come down to
the present essentially intact, and that the post-Civil War America of
Rockefeller, Mellon and U. S. Steel stands on the ground of Sam Adams.
He scolds the Marxist sceptics who deny the historical continuity of this
tradition, and he has come to think that
"in
contrast to the agony of
Europe . . . our poor old provincial American order" is "standing up
pretty well.'' Thus Dos Passos, personally as honest and courageous a
liberal as still remains in this grim age-witness 'his sticking his neck out
to defend the indicted Minneapolis Trotskyists-turns his back on his post–
war rebelliousness and becomes "responsible." It is an intellectual, not a·
moral, failure, whose root Dos Passos himself uncovers when he writes
here, "Americans as a people notably lack a sense of history." This lack
makes his book ineffective propaganda, since his thesis of continuity is
too blatantly in conflict with the observable facts. It also makes Dos
Passos a tame and misleading chronicler. His bourgeois revolutionists
behave like so many paid-up members of the American Civil Liberties
Union. Their struggles take place not in a context of bloodshed and class
war and money and trade, hut on a high idealistic plane of abstract "prin·
ciple." Such an approach produces tableaux, not history.
D.M.
Letters
IN DEFENSE OF BARZUN
Sirs:
It is interesting to note that Mr. White
in reviewing Mr. Barzun's book fell into
the same error as that into which fell the
followers of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner
according to Mr. Barzun, i.e. misinter–
preting the author. After reading Mr.
White's review we are forced to wonder
whether Mr. Barzun has fallen into the
error of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner, i.e.
of having through faulty emphasis con–
fused the reader. For it is obvious that
Mr. White has been confused. Mr. White
states that Earzun "tries to cast doubt
upon the truth or beauty of what they
[Darwin, Marx, Wagner] created." This
is not what Barzun is trying to do. He
does not deoy the truth or beauty of their
works, he denies the truth and beauty of
their followers' distortions. His book is
a critique of a heritage and a heritage is
which passes from heir to heir. The criti·
cism is levelled at the heritage as it
passes into our hands, not as it left theirs
eighty years ago. Barzun questions their
value as teachers, not their value as crea–
tors. On readin& Mr. White's review
WI
are therefore led to question Barzun's
value as a teacher. We do not question
it very seriously however for we hardly
think that many of Mr. Barzun's readers
will prove as elaborately obtuse as Mr.
White.
MARY AND ARTHUR SHIPMAN
HARTFORD, CoNN.
OUR DRAFTEE DEFENDED
Sirs:
Laura Wood's letter, in your Septem–
ber-October issue, struck me as being
decidedly superficial. She criticizes your
draftee correspondent for his anti-social
sentiments-not realizing that a sincere
belief in the necessity of socialism may
go hand-in-hand with a positive distaste
for some of the warped examples of
humanity that live under the present sys–
tem.... Outside of a few naifs, the only
people one can possibly like in modern
society are the heroes-i.e., the excep–
tions to the rule.
From what I have heard of the draftees
in general, there are very few of them
who can be rated as heroic exceptions.
Sincerely,
GILBERT GARNETT
P.S. More Victor Serge, please. He's
splendid.
NEW YORK CITY
