considers that no major objection since,nas he observes, we already have a greatndeal of socialism anyway. What harmncould there be, after all, in throwing justnone more shovel of dirt on a person whonis in the process of being buried alive?n1 think he is overlooking some relevantndetails. The move that he is suggestingnwould be in the direction ofnundermining the adversary system. Innour legal system, lest Mr. Rembar hasnforgotten, the government prosecutes,nis one of the adversaries, and the accusedndefends himself, usually throughnan advocate, and is the other adversary.nThe government’s role is to maintainnthe peace by seeing to it that the guiltynare punished and that the occasion fornprivate vengeance is avoided. Governmentnis also interested in seeing thatnjustice is done. To that end, courts arenprovided, and judges and juries are appointed;nthese are no part of the adversarynsystem but are supposed to be impartial.nThe assumption is that thenaccused has a primary interest in beingnfound not guilty, especially if he is not,nand that it is his right to defend himselfnin the manner which he thinks best,nwithin the frame of the legal system,nof course. To that end, normally thenaccused will adopt an adversary positionnif he thinks best—it h pro forma now,nin some instances—and provide for hisnown defense. For the state automaticallynto come to his defense is to make everynperson who is accused a ward of thenstate.nBut my main concern here is whatnthis innovation would do to the adversarynsystem. How would criminal casesnbe styled? The State of New York v.nthe State of New York, in the case ofnJohn Doe? Or, the People of the Statenof Wisconsin v. the People of the Statenof Wisconsin? My concern is not merelynstylistic or formal. Lincoln said that anhouse divided against itself cannotnstand. Surely, if government were tonregularly adopt an adversary standnagainst itself, it could not stand. Eithernthe adversary system would have to go.nse^MM^^KKHnChronicles of Culturenor the government would fall. I wouldnbet that it would be the adversary system,nbut nowadays, who knows?nIt is not my point that Mr. Rembarnwrote this large book to advance thisndubious scheme. That is most doubtful.nOne does not use an infantry divisionnto arrest a bicycle thief. Besides, thenproposal is accorded little space and, asna lawyer would say, he had presented toonlittle background to carry the weightnof it. But these comments get us nearernto grasping his purpose, so far as henmay have had one.nThe use of “evolution” in the titlenis suggestive, too. Mr. Rembar has annimplicit linear theory of historicalnprogress. That is, he assumes, or thinksnhis readers assume, that there has beenna straight line of progress upward fromnthe Middle Ages to the present, and possiblynmuch further back than that. (Notnin the law, of course, because he recognizesnthat law in the early Middle Agesnwas much inferior to Roman law.) Ifnthat were true, it should follow that ournsystem is superior not only to that ofnthe Middle Ages but also to that whichnprevailed 50 years ago, which was betternthan that of 150 years ago, and so onnbackward into the mists of history.nIf so, this makes his focus on medievalnhistory understandable. It is muchneasier to demonstrate, at least to thencontemporary mentality, that our presentnsystem is superior to that of thenMiddle Ages than it is to that of 7 5 yearsnago. Anyway, he doesn’t think verynhighly of medieval culture. He thinksnit was barbaric, and that recent historiansnhave greatly exaggerated its felicities.nPerhaps. And perhaps ours is anbarbaric age, a statement I am preparednto defend with a great deal more evidencenthan he has examined about thenMiddle Ages, judging from his bibliography.nEven so, I remain open to the propositionnthat Mr. Rembar had no verynserious purpose in mind in writing thisnbook. I hope not. Further, I hope thatnthose who read it are the kind of folknwho revel in the quaintness of the odd,nstrange and curious doings of our ancestors,nwhich they would not go to thentrouble of understanding but aboutnwhich they would enjoy parlor speculations.nMr, Rembar has provided a feastnfor such incognoscenti. He is, of course,nmuch too urbane to be one of them. DnA Captivating Jeremiah Amidst UsnSolzhenitsyn at Harvard; Edited bynRonald Barman; Ethics and PublicnPolicy Center; Washington, D.C.nby Philip F, LawlernIs there, in social life, a grosser incivilitynthan that of thinking aboutnthe man who addresses us instead ofnthinking about what he says.’n— C. S. LewisnThe Personal HeresynUnlike the standard commencementnaddress, which generates at best a pass-nMr, Lawler is managing editor of PolicynReview.nnning reference in the local paper, AleksandrnSolzhenitsyn’s speech at Harvardnin 1978 stirred up a storm of editorialnreplies. Almost without exception, thenpundits began their responses by bowingnto the obvious personal heroism ofnthe Russian exile. “If anyone has earnednthe right to call the West to a moralnreckoning,” began the New YorknTimes, “it is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.”nBut alas (the editorials continued), innhis attacks on Western secularism Solzhenitsynnhad betrayed some rather unpleasantnideas of his own.nClearly, then, the editorialists werenattacking not Solzhenitsyn the man, butnonly his ideas. Or so they claimed. Butnimmediately after making that demurn