beled paleoliberals. Incidentally, if nonone seems to know quite what to makenof “liberal” when used as an adjective,neveryone seems pleased with the “democratic”nlabel — despite the fact thatn”democracy” has little if any concretenmeaning these days, having becomenalmost pure abstraction; even more abstractnthan the word “freedom,” whichnat least retains a residue of concretenmeaning.nOf far more interest, to me anyhow,nare the following chapters on the threencritics and their pronouncements pronand con — especially con. Indeed, theynare all more than a little touchy andnquick to take offense, and they all enjoynnothing more than the controversy thatnallows them to vent their spleen. Thenmost common enemy for NormannPodhoretz, who has been editor ofnCommentary since 1960, has beennMarxism in general and American leftistsnin particular. Winchell also touchesnon various disputes Podhoretz has hadnwith such writers as Hannah Arendt,nNorman Mailer, and Gore Vidal. Henchastised Arendt for being too harsh onnthe Jews and too soft on the Nazis innher book Eichmann in Jerusalem; henfelt betrayed by Mailer, a good friend,nwho wrote an unfavorable review ofnMaking It, which ironically was inspired,nWinchell says, by Mailer’s Advertisementsnfor Myself; and he accusednVidal of being anti-Semitic fornhaving attacked him (Podhoretz) andnother Jewish supporters of Israel. Notnhaving read Vidal’s article I cannotncomment on its content or its allegednanti-Semitism, but the following curiousnstatement leaves no doubt ofnWinchell’s position: “What [Podhoretz]ndiscovered was that left-wingntolerance of anti-Semitism has grownnso widespread that very few prominentnliberals bothered to criticize Vidal,neven when Podhoretz urged them tondo so.” I say curious since I can see nonreason for writers of any persuasion tondo Podhoretz’s bidding unless theynhave their own reasons for doing so.nOne surely doesn’t have to be a racistnin order to find fault with Israel. Thenreader deserves a better briefing in thisnmatter than the little that Winchellnprovides.nIf Podhoretz’s animadversions arenmainly political, those of KennethnLynn and Joseph Epstein are morenstrictly literary in nature. What binds •n38/CHRONICLESnthe three together, as I say, is theirnrancor. They are forever riding forth tondo batrie against their erring fellowncritics, correcting the misinterpretationsn(and misreadings), as they seenthem, of their peers — and therebynperforming one of the critic’s noblestnfunctions. Critical disputes, it seems tonme, are always salubrious. Moreover,nthe best criticism will invariably benjudicious — that is, judgmental. Andnjudgments, in turn, beget disagreements,nwhich are not only beneficial tonour understanding but are entertainingnto the reader or observer. And sincencriticism is an art rather than a science,nthe critic must entertain in order toncapture and hold an audience. Lynn,nfor example, satisfies all those criteria innhis The Air-Line to Seattle, a collectionnof essays on literary and historicalnwriting in America that is almost entirelynnegative in its assessments. Thatnis, negative in its assessment of this ornthat historian’s or critic’s assessment ofnHemingway, or Thomas Jefferson, ornWalt Whitman, or whomever. (Incidentally,nmost of the articles in Air-nLine first appeared in Podhoretz’snCommentary and in the AmericannScholar, which is edited by Epstein.)nLynn will probably be best rememberednfor his exhaustive study of Hemingway’snlife and work, published inn1987, which, despite its psychoanalyticalnapproach (only a humorless Freudianncould swallow it whole withoutnchoking and begging mercy), both debunksnthe myths that have grown upnaround the man and corrects variousninterpretations of the work that havengone unchallenged.nIn the chapters devoted to Epstein,nWinchell concentrates almost as muchnon the personality of his subject as onnhis oeuvre; this is understandable, sincenEpstein is much more confessional, sonto speak, than his two fellow critics. Henis also more the stylist, as evidenced bynthe essays he writes under the pseudonymnAristides for each issue of thenAmerican Scholar. Winchell is at hisnbest in examining that style. In payingntribute, however, he sometimes descendsnto the merely feckless — asnhere, for example: “But Epstein isnnever more appealing than when he isnwaxing nostalgic or introspective. Fornthose who share his dislikes, it is comfortingnto know that the smirking polemicistnis also an honest-to-God hu­nnnman being. For those who want to gonon hating him, that revelation is probablynas disconcerting as being charmednby your ex-wife’s current husband.”nBut all in all, this little book isnamusing enough. Any reader interestednin the current literary scene willnenjoy the gossip, if nothing else.nWilliam H. Nolte is an emeritusnprofessor of English at the Universitynof South Carolina.nFiddling Aroundnby/.O. TatenMischa Elman and thenRomantic Stylenby Allan KozinnnNew York: Harwood AcademicnPublishers; 405 pp., $42.00nFrom Russia to the West: ThenMusical Memoirs andnReminiscences of Nathan Milsteinnby Nathan Milstein andnSolomon VolkovnTranslated from the Russian bynAntonina W. BouisnNew York: Henry Holt andnCompany; 282 pp., $24.95nAll of the enchantment of the violinnand its repertory, the provenancenof Russia and specifically of Odessa, thenpedagogy of Leopold Auer (who alsontaught Jascha Heifetz, Efrem Zimbalist,nand Toscha Seidel), and decades ofninternational celebrity—that’s a lot inncommon. But these books, one aboutnMischa Elman and one by NathannMilstein, are in no way a matched set.nThey don’t even belong on the samenshelfnAllan Kozinn’s study of Elman givesnhis subject the benefit of research,nknowledge, and perspective. MischanElman (1891-1967) was a child prodigynwho emerged from a humble backgroundnto achieve towering success innonly a few years. By 1904, he had madena successful Bedin debut. In the nextnyear, he caused a sensation in Londonnand was asked to play for the kings ofnEngland and Spain. At the age of 17,nMischa Elman was already “the king ofnviolinists”—but not for long.nHe was soon to be the victim of an