the American Committee but to her
role in Berlin in 1960. (She was a par–
ticipant, as well, in the Congress's Milan
conference of 1955 and a frequent
contributor to Congl'ess magazines
such as
Preuves, Tempo Presente,
and
En–
counteL)
But in facl she also joined in
some of the Amel'ican Committee's
debates, for example, the public one
called " In Defense of Free Culture" in
March 1952.
Peter Coleman
Woollahra, Australia
William Phillips replies:
I am sorry to see Mr. Coleman re–
peating some of his errors and inter–
pretations.
I. The Congress for Cultural Free–
dom informed us that it would like to
send a couple of hundred subscriptions
to
Partisan Review
and the other
American literary magazines to vari–
ous people in Europe and Asia . As I
recall, they sent us a list of people
whom they wished to receive the
complimentary subscriptions, and this
lasted for a year or two. It is surely
disingenuous of Mr. Coleman to indi–
cate that this constituted support by
the Congress. Does he mean to imply
that all the American literary maga–
zines were thus "supported"?
2. I cannot follow the logic of Mr.
Coleman's point. He says he did not
give an account of the incident at the
Berlin Conference because it is given
in my book,
A Partisan View.
3. On the question of Dwight
Macdonald's resignation from
Partisan
Review,
Mr. Coleman again presents a
strange mode of reasoning. He cites
other commentators to back up his
erroneous statements. Surely, he
might have consulted me, since I was
the only one besides Dwight
Macdonald and Philip Rahv who knew
all
the facts . Why didn't Mr. Coleman
ask me about this before publication of
his book?
4. Mr. Coleman cleverly avoids the
substance of my questioning his char–
acterization of Mary McCarthy, John
Kenneth Galbraith, and myself as "new
left" by saying the differences were
exhibited at the Berlin Conference and
not in the American Committee.
5. Mr. Coleman's complaint is a
repetition essentially of the previous
point.
