COMMENT
189
this issue as on others. Some of us have argued that the content of
the symposium remains pertinent and that it might still be printed;
others hold that this particular symposium did not belong in the
magazine to begin with; while the majority agree that it has now
been thoroughly outstripped by the movement of historical events. It
goes without saying that this magazine had not the slightest connec–
tion with the Iran affair.
Our internal discussions have abundantly demonstrated that
the opinions of individual editors are not to be confused with implied
editorial positions taken by the magazine. Signed articles, even
signed editorials, represent the views of individuals. The future of
the magazine does not depend on one symposium, or on inaccurate
press accounts of unpublished manuscripts and behind-the-scenes
controversies. As always, it will depend on the quality of the writing
that we print.
Just fifty years ago, in 1937,
Partisan Review,
which initially had
been close to the Communist Party, was reorganized as an indepen–
dent journal of opinion, open to the best literary and political cur–
rents of the age. This was the theme of its opening editorial state–
ment, which we here forcefully reaffirm. Now, as then,
Partisan
Review
"will not be dislodged from its position by any political cam–
paign against it." Now, as then, "conformity to a given social
ideology or to a prescribed attitude or technique will not be asked of
our writers. On the contrary, our pages will be open to any tendency
which is relevant to literature in our time."
The Editors
March
11, 1987
P.S. William Phillips has been in the hospital with pneumonia since
the beginning ofJanuary and was unable to participate in the draft–
ing of this statement. Just before he got sick he was interviewed by
Steven Marcus. The interview, which will appear in the next issue of
Partisan Review,
will clarify many of the assumptions behind our
statement.
