160
William Phillips replies:
I am sorry that Lionel Abel
thinks I was accusing him of trick–
ery. This was certainly not my in–
tention . It is simply that my re–
collection differs from his - and I
prefer my own. On the other hand,
he questions my motives in recalling
the circumstances surrounding the
publication of his review of Arendt's
book on Eichmann .
Lionel says I should have
known his views on Arendt, since he
had just published some of them in
New Politics.
This is a logical point.
However, I had not read that piece.
If
I had, it would have made no
sense to ask him to review the book,
as he claims I did, and let myself in
for the unpleasant situation and the
dilemmas that were bound to fol–
low. It now occurs to me after read–
ing Lionel's letter that it might have
been Philip Rahv, who lost no
opportunity to
knock
Hannah Arendt,
who urged him to write about her.
Anyway, I recall that Lionel phoned
me to say he wanted to review the
book, and I had the impression he
did not dislike it. When his piece
came in, I was surprised to find it so
totally critical, but I assumed he had
changed his opinion of the book .
Though I was not happy about the
situation, the overriding question
was one of editorial ethics, which
were more important than anyone's
feelings, including my own.
In any event, the incident is
not of momentous significance. It
was part of the story of my relation–
ship with Hannah Arendt at the
time, and I went into it to indicate
how small as well as big history can
be revised, and not to comment on
Lionel Abel's motives or character.
PARTISAN REVIEW
Obviously he wrote what he be–
lieved - and still believes. But I
cannot see how my memory is self–
serving- any more than his .
If
any–
thing, it reveals that I did not
always foresee the consequences of
editorial decisions.
