cient even to gain that extrandollar, much less to attain salvation.nIn short, he is a conservative.nThus, he writes:nThe calm and admittedlynnecessary liberal vision . . .nstill has failed to grasp thenreasons for its own crisis innthe contemporary world.nThis is the flaw of all classicalnliberal thought. It isntheoretically indifferent tonends, the belief that suchnthings are merely a reachingnfor the stars. The importancenof method andnmeans has left the notionnof God and vision to others.nMan… I think, does not livenby means alone… We vastlynmisinterpret our times if wenassume that the essentialnquestions, political or religious,nare not about ultimatenmeaning. They arenabout a gloria to be searchednfor and, hopefully, found.nWhere thsgloria is and how itnis to be found constitute the purposenof this book. Both the selectionnand the organization of hisntopics are idiosyncratic. The argumentncirculates like a whirlpool,nfinally drawing the readerninto a vortex by way of skillful repetitionnand re-vision, by a re-seeingnrather than a strictly logicalnstructure. At first it may seemndifficult to ascertain any intrinsicnconnection between the book’snpurpose, quoted above, and itsnchapter headings: “On BuildingnCathedrals and Tearing ThemnDown,” “On the Christian Lovenof Animals,” “On Boredom,”n”On Sadness and Laughter,” “OnnOfficially Praying,” “OnnWorship.”nThe vortex into which Schallndraws all these seemingly disparatenideas is his conception of thenproper relationship between Godnand man, a concept soundlyngrounded in G. K. Chesterton,nC. S. Lewis and other apologistsnfor Christian orthodoxy. Thenlove between God and man is,naccording to Schall, the most im­n38inChronicles of Culturenportant relationship in the universe.nIt tinges everything in humannlife with its peculiar radiance.nBeside it all earthly ideologiesnare no more than insubstantialnshadows. This peculiar gloryninevitably arouses the enmity—npolitical, philosophical and psychologicaln— of the powers of evil.nThis right relationship betweennGod and man can be fostered bynmany seemingly unimportantnthings: silence, play, laughter,nloneliness and the regular readingnof the New Divine Office ofn1970 by religious and lay Catholicsnalike. All these are to be encouraged,nfor each contributes tonthe true work of God, who con­nHollywood SquaresnLarry Ceplair and StevennEnglund: The Inquisition innHollywood: Politics in thenFilm Community, 1930-1960;nAnchor Press/Doubleday; NewnYork.nReasonable folk would agreenthat a society has the right tondetermine its own destiny andnprotect itself from the encroachmentnof others, at least accordingnto the sacred principles setndown in our founding documents.nBut who is to determinenwhich point of view dominatesnand dictates destiny and definesnthose dangers that threaten thenexisting order? Further, how isngenuine dissent to be protectednand opposing philosophies andnprograms mediated so that bothnour principle of minority rights,nguarded by the First Amendment,nand our need for the testingnof competing constructs andnsolutions can insure the continuednfreedom and vitality of ournsociety? The ongoing workingntinually recreates the love existingnbetween Him and His creatures.nPolitics, no matter hownwell-intentioned, obscure thatnrelationship, for political historynconcerns itself exclusivelynwith a second-rate history of man.n”The true order of history is ansalvation history. Aside fromnthis, all political action is by itself.nIt has no order intrinsic tonit nor any interior meaning.”nLikewise, this book has no meaningnapart from the religious visionnit presents. It must be readnand reflected on at leisure, reread,nperhaps even rethought,nand each reading will have somennew insight to offer. Dnthrough of these tensions reflectsnthe real history of ournrepublic.nThe Inquisition in Hollywoodnfocuses on the events surroundingnthe Hollywood Ten, whomnthe government dutifully jailednas a result of their refusal tontestify appropriately before thenHouse UnAmerican ActivitiesnCommittee hearings of Octobern1947, but its larger concern,nas its subtitle suggests, is withnpolitics in the film communitynduring the years 1930 to 1960.nIt is this wider perspective thatngives the book a certain value asnit helps us in 1981 to understandnjust why these ten mennwere judged such a threat to thenbody politic that they needed tonbe legally punished and professionallynblacklisted. In an attemptnto understand the contextnthat led to the singling out ofnthe Hollywood Ten, authorsnCeplair and Englund have paintednan even larger canvas to includenthe ups and downs of thennndeveloping politicization ofnHollywood that predated 1947.nSome basic historical realitiesnappear to bear on any accountnof the ultimate fate and judgmentnof Adrian Scott, JohnnHoward Lawson, Dalton Trumbo,nAlbert Maltz, Alvah Bessie,nSamuel Ornitz, Ring Lardner,nJr., Lester Cole, HerbertnBiberman and Edward Dmytryk.nThe most important reality,nof course, was the rise and fallnof the credibility of the communistnmovement, for in thenfinal analysis that was what thenwhole HUAC-McCarthy eranwas supposed to be about: wouldnAmerica sanction the acts andnthoughts of citizens who tookntheir orders from a foreign power,none which championed a socialnsystem totally inimical tonAmerica’s? Regardless of thenconsequences to the lives of privatencitizens, was it not betternto nip this spreading flirtationnwith communism in the budnand banish our domestic agitationnonce and for all? And indeed,nwith their treacherous recordnduring the decade prior ton1947, the communists had leftnthemselves vulnerable. AsnCeplair and Englund note:nHowever much the ideasnand ideals of socialism andnprogressive action meant tonindividual Communists, thenfact remained that the politicalnorganization to whichnthey adhered took its instructionsnfrom the ExecutivenCommittee of the CommunistnInternational,nwhich was entirely controllednby the Soviet governmentnand subservient tonRussian national interest.nIronically, the HUAC effortsnled to the final triumph and subsequentntyranny of liberal culture,nrather than to the dominancenof a persuasive and responsiblensocial response whichnwould preserve all the virtuesnof democracy and pluralism.nMcCarthyism died and new po-n