ordinary to anyone who is a little betternread. A Parisian is startled whenninformed that the Hottentots cut o£fnone testicle from a male infant. ThenHottentots are likewise astonishednthat the Parisians keep both of them.nThat is Voltaire’s trump card, anmesmerizing, inimitably wise lightnessnof touch which, in perennial ideologicalntournaments, converts admirers intonsupporters and followers. Voltaire, likenSocrates (his sad grandeur notwithstanding),nbelongs to the rare breed of funnynphilosophers who implant truthsnthrough exhilaration of mind. This isnperhaps one of the reasons why theirnpresences linger in cultural and intellectualnecosystems forever. Their ideas maynHitchcockncontinuedjrvm page 6nbeing, comfort, effrontery, epitaphs,ngenius, intimacy, metaphor, old age,nsnobbism, uncertainty, and wit. As thenentries suggest, some of them arenperhaps self-indulgent pet “prejudices”nwhich the author has been wanting to getnoff his chest. But none are dull, and nonentrivial. Only a well-stocked, penetratingnmind could get away with ringing thenchanges on these almost random topicsnand still make them interesting. Thenconsidered judgments of nearly fivendecades of the best kind of thinkingnabout human society are not to benignored.nObviously there is much here to warmnthe heart of the conservative, part of itnNisbet’s concise and illuminating discussionnof what “liberalism” and “conservatism”nreally are. He argues that the seeminglynundeniable drive toward enforcednequality in modern society is at the rootnof most other social pathologies, sincensuch egalitarianism inexorably levels allnmeaningfiil spiritual and cultural standardsnand arouses envy in those who fallnshort of those standards. Nisbet hasndevastating things to say about fashionablenattitudes toward criminals, aboutnbecome discredited—their spirits willnnever fade.nJuven if he has not produced annEcrasez I’infame! (which, alone, wouldnhave assured Voltaire a top spot in anynMadison Avenue firm), Professor Nisbetnhas come up with a magnificent andnmomentous dissection of some of thenmost troubling quandaries of the modernnmind. He possesses an acumen for lenmot juste which is rarely found in ourncorner of the ideological ball park. WithnPrejudices, he has entered the big game,nwhere we play with words and notions fornthe highest stakes—the survival of ourncivilization. His valiance will not benforgotten. Dnenvironmentalism, about the state ofnacademia, and numerous other subjectsnwhere egalitarian dogma has done itsnwork. G)rrespondingly, he also traces thendecline in our regard for liberty, as an inevitablenconcomitant of the spread ofnequality. The observations are oftennbiting and, faithful to the author’s characterizationnof his book, may strike unsympatheticnreaders as unfair, merely thendicta of a self-conscious curmudgeon.nThe nature of the book means that nonsubject can be argued thoroughly, althoughnthe interested reader can refer tonNisbet’s numerous other magisterialnworks. Even when he seems flippant, hisnopinions are obviously based on years ofnconsidered reflection. (His most savagenremarks are reserved for his fellownacademicians, whom he has been able tonobserve at close range for many years.)nThe book is genuinely philosophical,nbased on wide reading and, at everyncmcial point, not merely content to expressna personal opinion but able to laynbare the essential issues. Part of thenbook’s worth, like the worth of all realnsocial thought, is found precisely in its attemptnto show how events of seeminglynrather minor significance reveal deepnstrains in the entire civilization.nXhe lead article in the volume, whichnnnfollows an alphabetical arrangement, isn”abortion,” and there can be little doubtnthat the author picked it not merelynbecause it comes close to the beginningnof the alphabet but also with a full sensenof its provcKative effect. Any stereotypesnreaders may have about Nisbet’s conservatismnare immediately shattered. Thenentry on abortion is an argument in favornof at least the limited permissibility ofnthe practice, along with a rather harshndenunciation of those who would ban it.nAlthough at first glance this seems out ofnstep with the conservatism of the rest ofnthe volume, in fact it is a fitting frontispiecenfor it.nHis chief argument against the antiabortionistsnis that throughout historynthe practice has always been tolerated tonsome degree: legally in the ancientnworld, illegally throughout most ofnChristian history. Thus, he argues in effect,nthose who would now restore thenlaws which previously forbade the practicenare not being genuinely conservativen. It strikes me that there is a good dealnof speciousness in this argument. For example,nthe famous clause in the HippocraticnOath is read by Nisbet as forbiddingnthe physician on/y to give a womanna “pessary” (suppository) for the purpose,nnot as forbidding other methods,nalthough there would be little purpose innsuch a partial prohibition and ancientnlaws frequently used specific cases tonstand for whole categories of actionsn(e.g., “Thou shalt not bear false witnessnagainst thy neighbor” as forbidding allnlying). He also seems largely unaware ofnthe realities of contemporary abortionnpractice, implying that prolifers arenmerely dogmatic in wanting to forbidnabortions in the early stages when thenfetus is not recognizably human andnciting the familiar hard cases (rape, incest)nwhich all authorities admit are rare.nBut as even the proabortion press nownadmits, it is not unusual for crying, starvingnbabies to survive unsuccessful abortionnattempts, and they are commonlynleft to die. The point of antiabortionists’ntrying to show people those gruesomenphotographs is precisely to show thatn•••MilnApril 1983n