divorced from Anaide when he marriednPatricia Kelley, but this marriagenwas essential if he were to obtainnpermanent resident status in the UnitednStates. In order to change his status,nhowever, De Man had to exit thenUnited States and return. When henapplied for a new Belgian passport,nword of his past reached America andnHarvard.nYears later his friends at Yale insistednthat they had had no idea about hisnpast. If they had said that they hadnheard rumors, but had dismissed themnas idle gossip, we might believe them.nStories of De Man’s past had reachednthe Society of Fellows at Harvard andnhe wrote a letter, dated January 26,n1955, to professor of comparative literaturenRenato Poggioli. Most of whatncan be checked in the letter is false. Hencalls Hendrik de Man his father andnsays that he contributed “some literarynarticles” to Le Soir in 1940 and 1941n(in fact, there were 170), which henstopped doing “when nazi thoughtcontrolndid no longer allow freedom ofnexpression.” He implies that he wasnmarried to an American citizen whennhe entered the country in May 1948nand, oh yes, he had no idea how hisnfamily business was doing. “Sincen1950 or 51 I have not heard from thenfirm. This made me assume that thingsnwere not going well but, since I hadnother things on my mind, I did not givenit much thought.” The firm wentnbankrupt in 1949. That Paul’s realnrelationship to Hendrik was known atnYale is clear from an article StanleynCorngold, De Man’s student, wrotenabout De Man in 1982. In it Corngoldngives a very misleading description ofnHendrik’s career, with no hint of hisncollaborationist activities. (Corngold’sn1988 piece in Responses is an unrelentingnattack on De Man.) Therenneed be little doubt that the ignorancenof De Man’s past at Yale was what DenMan called in a Le Soir article ofnMarch 16, 1942, an ignorance factice,nan artificial or made-up ignorance.nIs there a connection between DenMan’s wartime collaboration and hisnlater literary theory? Jon Wiener, in an1988 piece for the Nation, has a simplenanswer. He is sure that a number ofnprominent theorists are anti-Semitesnand Nazis. For Deconstructionist J.nHillis Miller, De Man’s now famousndiscussion of “Jews in Contemporaryn30/CHRONICLESnLiterature” is neither anti-Semitic nornNazi, but an attack on “vulgar anti-nSemitism.” Christopher Norris andnGeoffrey Hartman have explained DenMan’s later work as an implicit attacknon his 40’s attitudes. The questionnarises, in a world where all sorts ofninnocent people are smeared as Nazisnand Fascists, why is one person fornwhom there is documentary evidencenfor his Nazism defended in places likenthe New Republic?nOne place to start looking for annanswer is with a quotation fromn”Criticism and Crisis,” the first essay innBlindness and Insight (Oxford UniversitynPress, 1971; Second, ExpandednEdition, University of MinnesotanPress, 1983). In it De Man castigatesnan essay written in 1935 by thenGerman philosopher Edmund Husserlnand comments on “the numerous sectionsnin which philosophy is said to benthe historical privilege of Europeannman.” He ends by noting, “Husserl’snclaim to European supremacy hardlynstands in need of criticism today. Sincenwe are speaking of a man of superiorngood will, it suffices to point to thenpathos of such a claim at a momentnwhen Europe was about to destroynitself as center in the name of itsnunwarranted claim to be the center.”nWhat is the meaning of the languagenused? Conventional Nazi rhetoricntalks about the Master Race asnbeing the highest stage in human evolution—nvocabulary that pretends tonsuperiority in time and quality, but thatnsays nothing about “centrality.”nIn Le Soir for March 16, 1942, DenMan discussed an exhibition on “Germany’snGreatness” (the translationnhere is mine).nThere is another reason whynGermany’s historical destiny,npast and future, cannot leave usnindifferent. We depend on itndirectly. First of all becausenthere exists between Germanynand Belgium a profoundninterpretation [sic; relationship?]nthat reveals itself through thencenturies by constant politicalnand artistic contacts. Besidesnthat, because no one can denynthe fundamental significance ofnGermany for the life of thenWest taken as a whole. Wennnmust see in that stubbornnrefusal to let herself benconquered more than a simplenproof of national faithfulness.nThe entire continuity ofnWestern civilization depends onnthe unity of the people who arenat its center. That is why thenfacts that determine the coursenof German history touch usntwice: because we are Belgians,nsince they affect the values wenshare with it and because wenare Europeans, since Europe’snstrength depends on it. Thenartificial ignorance of Germannaffairs in which we havenremained during the recentnpast has separated us from anliving source of our civilization.nNow we know where the language ofnthe “center” comes from in De Man’snreview of Husserl. It was De Man’snmemory of the way he and other youngnQuislings used to talk back in the 40’s.nWhy did no one question this languagenwhen “Criticism and Crisis” was firstnpublished in 1967? For the same reasonnthat Geoffrey Hartman quotes this passagenas part of his defense of De Man innthe New Republic in 1988. It soundednto him like the kind of thing that angood, non-Eurocentric leftist shouldnsay—though I know of no reason whynleftists should feel that the defeat ofnNazism and the introduction of constitutionalngovernment into more thannhalf of Europe was a defeat, even andestruction of Europe. Why did nonone at the University of Texas (wherenthe talk was first given) ask De Mannwhy he said “Europe” when he meantn”Germany”? Why did no one ask DenMan why he saw the defeat of NazinGermany as the destruction of Europen”as center”? I know why a Nazi wouldnsay such a thing, but who else would?n(I shall pass over the impossibility ofndestroying yourself as center by annunwarranted claim to be center. Logicnis not one of Deconstruction’s strongnpoints.)nIt is striking that the De Man of then40’s admires Germany for comingnback from defeat. He had no suchnambitions for himself He wanted to benwith the winners at all times and at allncosts. When Germany was winning,nshe was the center. When Germanynlost, it was time to emigrate to then