writes about himself years later.nIt is easy to forget in Moscow. Paltielnmarried the woman who would givenhim his only son, and he stayed in Stalin’snRussia, ally of the new Israel, afternthe war. Wiesel depicts neither evil nornstupidity here—simply life, ordinarynlife with its conveniences and compromises,novercoming memory.nStalin, however, preferred extraordinarynlife for his subjects. The Party linenchanged, and “a new-style pogrom” began,ndirected against Jewish writers.nI could not accept that the Party couldncondemn an entire culture, annihilatenan entire literature. . . . Why attackna language.’ Why would anyone wishnto exterminate Yiddish.’nReturning to his native city, Paltiel Kossovernalso returned to Judaism beforenhis inevitable arrest and torture. Sustainednby his memory of family (particularlynhis father and his son) and friends,nhe overcame the fear that began in childhoodnin this city with some, if not all,nof the faith he learned there and wasnpunished for there, at the beginning andnthe end of his life. He answered his ownnPolitics Versus ReasonnMargaret Canovan: Populism; Harcourt.nBrace, Jovanovich; New^nYork.nEllen Willis: Beginning to See thenLight; Alfred A. Knopf; New York.nby Edward J. LynchnXJ-istoricism is one technique ofnstudying the past that refuses to examinenthe particulars. The historicist ignoresnthe individuals who played partsnin events and attempts to depict thenDr. Lynch is a free-lance writer in Baltimorenand a frequent contributor tonthe Chronicles.nquestion of the Party in words he spokenbefore his executioner’s bullet could silencenhim: “You must understand,” hentold a jailer, “the language of a peoplenis its memory”; totalitarianism, as Orwellnknew, as Solzhenitsyn knows, findsnmemory radically inconvenient. It thereforenpermits only its own constantlynmanipulated antilanguage.nWhat could Solzhenitsyn say tonPaltiel Kossover.’ For the most part henis silent on the Jews. His Russia mistreatednJews before Stalin did—lessnsystematically, it is true, but the factnremains. The wanderer David Aboulesiantells Paltiel, “if you believe younmust forsake your brothers to savenmankind, you will save nobody, you willnnot even save yourself.” He speaksnagainst the communists, of course. Butnwhat of the Christ Solzhenitsyn reveres.-*nBeyond the dialogue between internationalnJudaism and internationalncommunism, we hear the dialogue betweennthe Jewish nation and the Christiannnations. And beyond it we hearnanother dialogue: the dialogue betweennJesus and his fellow Jews. Is there anwriter today who can renew it.” Dnphenomena being studied as the resultnof various “historical forces,” mostlynthe social and economic conditions surroundingnthe topic being considered.nMarxism offers one of the paradigmaticncases of historicism, with its originator’snfaith that all of history is determined bynan inevitable progress of economicnclashes.nMargaret Canovan and Ellen Willisngive us somewhat neutered versions ofnhistory in the process of demonstratingnthe inadequacies of historicism. Bothnfloat around political questions, althoughntheir tomes presuppose answersnto all legitimately political questions.nBoth volumes are products of prestigiousnpublishing houses and reflect dogmasnnnthat dominate fashionable Americanncircles. They look at different aspectsnof our past, but still leave us in touchnwith the modern spirit of leftism.nMargaret Canovan’s exercise fits intonthat category commonly called the “historynof ideas,” although an idea is thenlast thing that would ever penetrate hernivy-bound mind. Her book is a cataloguenof the different forms of life that havenbeen dubbed “populist” over the lastncentury or so, accompanied by a surveynof the characteristics that enable eachnof these phenomena to fit into the generalnform. The result is described morenproperly as a list than as a book, salvagednonly by means of a concludingnchapter in which the author groups severalncharacteristics that have beennshared by all claimants to the namen”populist.”nProfessor Canovan sustains an august,nlearned tone throughout the essay andnrefuses to descend to the sometimesncrude stances taken by her subjects.nTeddy Roosevelt once noted of thenSouthern populist, “Pitchfork Ben”nTillman, that the hallmark of his wardrobenwas that he never wore an overcoatnor an undershirt. Margaret Canovannnever noticed that trait, nor doesnshe pick up any other characteristic thatnmight have given her subject life. Onenleaves the volume with no sense of thenoratorical tone of William JenningsnBryan, and even less idea of anythingnthat he had to say. The book is writtennas if ideas did not matter, especially anyncritical consideration of them. Whatnideas hold populism together.” Are thenpopulists’ cries against monied interestsnthe result of rational economic calculations,nor are they the unreasoned ravingsnof people whose minds are too small toncomprehend a complex world.’ Shenclearly favors some kinds of populistsn(the ones she labels “progressives”)nover others (whom she labels “reactionaries,”nand combines into Usts, such as:nHuey Long, Hitler, de Gaulle andnGeorge Wallace). The analytical frameworknthat enables the author to appointnone contingent as the forces of “prog-nIVovcmbcr/Decembcr 1981n