way that was understandable if not excusablenthey (the younger veterans of then”movement”) were taking on the worstnfeatures of the very people we were opposing.”nIt would be grossly unfair and misleadingnto dismiss this book as a mish-mashnof hypocrisy and sentimentality. Therenare in it passages and chapters of interest,nhonesty, wit and insight. Most revealingnis his chapter, “On a More Intimate Note,”nin which honestly and courageously henfaces the agony of his first divorce fromnhis wife Eva, daughter of ArthurnRubinstein. Here we feel the real privatenman emerges, shorn of his role-playingnand the divided self at last coalesces innself-recognition. Having admitted to thenfault, common to many of us, of possessingnthe “courage” to be (according tonour lights), fearless in confronting then”wrongs” we see in our nation and in thenworld, he admits to being powerless tonmuster another kind of courage, that ofncoping with difficulties at home: “Ofnwhat was I afraid.’ Of failure itself. I hadnnever been taught to deal with failure.”nThen comes the ultimate and stunningnrevelation: “I never got mad at Eva; Insaved my wrath for the ‘great issues’—nsegregation, the insanity of the arms race,nthe stupidity of the war, KingmannBrewster.” Many have known the hellnthat comes from devoting their energiesnand talents to the realm of global abstractionsnwhile shying away from the morenintimate and ultimately the most importantnbusiness of all—the grappling withnthe small, “insignificant” problems ofnliving with, and loving totally, one othernsingle human being. It is so much easiernto love (or hate) humanity in the abstract,nwhich is perhaps why so many men andnwomen of undoubted passionate publicnzeal lead such disastrous private lives.n”To cultivate one’s own garden,” maynseem, superficially, a selfish ethic, but ifnuniversally neglected, the weeds and taresnfrom one’s own garden and everyonenelse’s would quickly contaminate andnexterminate all horticulture and agriculture.nJjelieving, as I do, that civilizationnis a fragile, and of necessity, self-imposednveneer, preventing us individually andncollectively from lapsing into barbarism,nthen with the wisdom and understandingnof hindsight, one realizes that a commitmentnto law and order is not simply anbourgeois, squeamish defense of thenstatus quo but our sole defense againstnanarchy, historically the inevitable precursornof some dictatorial tyranny. Coffinnused the very laws which protected himnand his ilk to subvert the Law andnalthough his courage in action is indisputable,nhis motives are more suspect thannperhaps he consciously realizes. Thenopinion given to him by a friend that henshould have gone into politics and notnreligion is revealing, as were the wordsnof Kingman Brewster, the long-sufferingnPresident of Yale, when he publiclynremarked, more one feels in sorrow thannin anger:n”The chaplain’s (Coffin’s) efforts to devisen’confrontations’ and ‘sanctuaries’ in ordernto gain spot news coverage seems to me tonbe unworthy of the true trial of consciencenwhich touches most of your sons andnpreoccupies so many… This is especiallyndistasteful when those who urge thenresistance are too old to be able to sharenfully the personal and moral consequencesnof refusing to serve.”nAlthough Coffin angrily rebuts this,ninsisting that he and his cohorts tried tonshare the consequence, yet buttressednby his rich and influential friends, bail isnalways forthcoming, legal advice tenderedn(“One of the great luxuries of life at Yalenwas to be surrounded by people who knewnso much about so many different things”),nArthur Goldberg’s fees are met by variousnsubscriptions and finally the JusticenDepartment, after Goldberg’s unsuccessfulnappeal, quietly and, probably wisely,ndrops the case.nI believe, however, that my true objectionsnto the anti-war movement althoughngrounded in philosophical and historicalnreasons were reinforced by an indefinablenrevulsion against the whole “show biz”naura that increasingly came to surroundnnnit and gave it all an atmosphere ofninappropriate and indecorous carnival.nNowhere is this better displayed thannin the unlikely juxtaposition of suchnfigures as Coffin, Dr. Spock, Jane Fonda,nNorman Mailer, various rock-groups,nRobert Lowell, and a myriad others.nMitchell Goodman, the writer, rang upnCoffin who realized that after signingnthe statement (“The Call to ResistnIllegitimate Authority”) the signatoriesnwould be “itching for something concretento do” and tells him that he has enlisted,nfor a march to the Justice Departmentnto turn in all the draft cards, “five hundrednwriters, artists, professors and clergy—nthe kind of people,” he adds revealinglyn”who don’t mind going to jail providednyou can give them endless assurance thatnthey’ll get there in dignified fashion.” Henthen adds, and it would be comic were itnnot rooted in serious, historical events:n”I’ve never seen such individualists.”nIt is this combination of moral rectitudenand arrogance which haunts me.nHow would these “individualists” havenfelt had the Secretary of State, the Pentagonngenerals, or for that matter the fournsuccessive Presidents of the United StatesnOther Viewsn”. . . because so much of Coffin’s lifenhas been of a public nature, the tellingnof his own story becomes a lively andnuseful commentary on society, religionnand education.”n—Higher Education News Notesn”It is the tale of one of our greatndissenters, dealing not only with socialninjustices but also with those innernimperatives that propel one forwardninto a revision of priorities, into anshifting sense of self, into growth.”n— Psychology Todayn” ‘ Once to Every Man’ is a perceptivenand revelatory political history ofnAmerica since World War II, for thentwists and turns are mirrored innCoffin’s life. And as such, the reflectionnhelps make sense of the reality.”ni —New York TimesnV^ Book Review 4n9nChronicles of Culturen^n