518
PARTISAN REVIEW
DECISION AND "FREE CULTURE"
11'
e
sent the letter below to Klaus
Mann editor of "Decision," asking if he
wished to make a reply. He wrote back:
"It
was very kind of you to let me see the
poignant statement of Professor Etiemble.
I do not wish to comment."
11'
e don't
think any comment on the episode is
necessary, either.-
THE EDITORS.
Sirs:
In its No. 6 issue,
Decision
published
(under the title: "The City of Man-Pro
and Con") a group of commentaries on
the book in question. In his reply to my
criticism, Mr.
G.
A. Borgese accused me
of not having read the book I wrote about
and of yielding to French chauvinism.
The
unini~iated
reader would, of course,
believe Mr. Borgese, for everybody knows
him at least by name. Those among the
readers of
Decision
who also read PART!·
SAN REVIEW should know that Mr. Bor·
gese's two chief points could not have
been made if Mr. Klaus Mann, the editor
of
Decision,
had condescended to publish
my commentary as
it
was written. He
deleted the paragraph which indicated
my repugnance to all forms of national·
ism, and he deleted all my parenthetical
page references to the book.
Since Mr. Mann has refused to make
amends by restoring the text of my ar–
ticle, I am forced to conclude that he has
acted in this matter quite deliberately,
and that "free culture," to the editors of
Decision,
is closer to the solidarity of a
family, or of a tribe, than to what a
simple professor like myself has always
un rlerstood the words to mean. These are
methods I would expect in Hitlerian
Europe.
Cordially yours,
CHICAGO, ILL.
EnEMBLE
P.R.'s UTERARY PRINCIPLES
Sirs :
I have read. with much enjoyment, and
slight irritation, the recent numbers of
pARTISAN REVIEW. It is almost wasting
typewriting, and is ·not very much praise,
to say that P.R. is better than anything
we have in England now. My irritation
springs from what I find is a gap between
the creative and political-theoretical sides
of the paper: a gap which is perhaps in·
evitable, but which I have never seen
recognized.
Briefly: your editorial attitude is (bat·
ing the rigidities of dialectical material–
ism-ignoring the S.W.P. controversies
which don't immediately concern this let·
ter) Marxist; your reply to Spender in
the September-October 1940 issue is an
admirable illustration of the differences
between the radical liberal petty-bour–
geois and the revolutionary attitude: but
much of the matter which appears on the
creative side of pARTISAN REVIEW is by
implication anti-Marxist. I do not wish to
seem to insist that you should print
"Marxist" or "proletarian" literature. It
is not so simple as that. But surely the
merits of "East Coker" are from your
point of view incidental, secondary?
Surely the poem as a whole is to be re–
garded as reactionary, and Eliot as a self.
confessed reactionary writer? And Eliot
is an outstanding example merely.
I don't wish to seem captious-! am
not trying to bait you: but I have never
been able to discover any principle, other
than a sharp empirical apolitical intelli·
gence, at work in the selection of the
creative writings which appear in PART!·
SAN REVIEW. I have myself much respect
for that empirical intelligence, but do not
suppose that
you
regard it as an ideal
in·
strument of selection. It may be that you
regard PARTISAN REVIEW as conditioned,
upon the creative side, by the present
state of society-that you shrug your
shoulders and say, "Eliot, Tate,-they are
reactionary thinkers, but they are the best
poets we have." That would be compre·
hensible, though, to me, unsatisfactory.
But I believe that some of your other
l-eaders would agree that a statement of
editorial attitude, with regard to the rela–
tion between your political views and the
creative work you publish, would be
useful.
If
this
does
seem captious, put it down
to London bombing. This isn't the best
place for thinking- though one gets used
to bombs. I've lived in London since the
beginning of the war and I've never seen
a case of hysteria, or even real fright,
yet. . . . All good wishes.
LONDON, ENGLAND
JULIAN SYMONS
-Mr. Symons' question has always been
a hard one for us to answer.
11'
e
luwe
printed the work of writers like T. S.
Eliot because it has often seemed to us
better, more serious and profoUJtd, tlw:n
