kowsky’s propensity to make somethingnout of nothing. For example, herncomment concerning the Tates’ argumentnwith their live-in guest, HartnCrane, is totally unwarranted. Because,naccording to Crane, Gordonnhad accused him of spreading himselfnand his “possessions all over the house,ninvading every corner,” Makowskynconjectures that: “Caroline may havenbeen demonstrating her territorialnrights over Allen to the homosexualnCrane since her words and actionsnBRIEF MENTIONSnconcern the warding off of an invader.”nWaldron’s more credible accountnis that Gordon was trying to conserventime and space for her writing, not fornher husband. On other occasions,nwhen the need for authorial commentnis apparent, Makowsky is restrained,nand even silent. Both biographies addressnthe subject of Caroline Gordon’snrumored single abortion (a possibility,naccording to Makowsky; a fact, accordingnto Waldron), but, curiously, neithernbiographer is able or willing to com-nOUTSIDERS IN THE GREEK CITIES IN THE FOURTHnCENTURY B.C. by Paul McKechnienLondon and New York: Routledge; 231 pp., $45.00nThe social-political problem caused by large numbers of aliens is nothing new innthe world. Juvenal complained bitterly against the influx into Rome from thenMiddle East, and England more than once witnessed riots of apprentices risingnup against “strangers.” In the early classical period aliens were not regarded as anserious threat in most Greek city-states, where they arrived either as merchantsnor political exiles. However, in the view of Paul McKechnie, the proportion ofnaliens in the population increased dramatically in the fourth century, asnmercenaries, pirates, traders, and itinerant craftsmen changed the shape of life innthe Greek polis. Part of the increase was due to the disruptions caused bynAlexander, but accompanying these political changes was a new social ideologynthat regarded the city-state as a bit old-fashioned and as something less thannnormative. The political consequences, he seems to argue, were significant. Itnwas the availability of mobile and deracinated professional classes that enablednAlexander and his successors—the world’s first globalists — to create andnsustain empires out of what had been independent city-states.nOutsiders was originally a dissertation, and its disjointed chapters still bearnsome traces of their origin. This lucid and original work was the 1986 recipientnof the Croom Helm Ancient History Prize. (TF)nFUNDAMENTALISM: HAZARDS AND HEARTBREAKSnby Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. BerentnLaSalle, IL: Open Court; 175 pp., $11.95nIn the preface to this sensible and often fair-minded discussion of fundamentalism,nIsaac Asimov compares literalist interpreters of Scripture with the BakernStreet Irregulars, who treat the Shedock Holmes stories as history and exercisentheir wits in discovering ingenious ways of upholding the recorder’s inerrancy.nEvans and Berent are perhaps kinder to their subject than Asimov, but theirnclear intention is to provide a critique of the less wholesome aspects ofnfundamentalism.nTheir purpose is in itself unexceptional, and even (or, especially) fundamentalistsncould derive profit from their arguments. Unfortunately, the book isnmarred by its front-matter from Asimov and Steve Allen, neither of whom hasnanything useful to say on the topic, and by the blurbs from Robert SchuUer,nThomas Szasz, and Alex Haley. Worse, the bibliography is thin and trendy,nincluding Stephen Jay Gould (three titles!), Cad Sagan, Elaine Pagels,nand—worst of all — Harry Emerson Fosdick. It is one thing to challengenbiblical accounts of astronomy, since Genesis is not a work of science, but quitenanother thing to doubt Herod’s slaughter of the innocents on the grounds thatn”Herod’s reign is well documented.” That will come as good news for thenancient historian. Of course, no Christian possessed of a critical intelligence cannswallow biblical inerrancy whole, but the fundamentalists are a lot closer to thentruth than the half-educated religious liberals who believe only in the spirit ofnreligion. (TF)n44/CHRONICLESnnnment on what, if true, must have beennthe source of subsequent distress, innlight of Gordon’s later conversion tonCatholicism.nAccording to Waldron and Makowsky,nCaroline Gordon had two passions:nliterature and Allen Tate. Yetnwhile both of her biographies managento convey a sense of their subject’snwriting, they fail to elucidate the depthnand degree of her love for Allen Tate,nor even to render the essential naturenof that relationship, despite their closenattention to Tate’s infidelities andnGordon’s steadfast patience, as well asntheir two marriages and several separations.nUltimately, both Makowsky andnWaldron lack real sympathy with theirnsubject. Tellingly, both establish annimplied contrast between Miss Gordon’sn”Southern” qualities (which theyndisparage) and her “feminist” onesn. (which they approve). They offer annoversimplified explanation of MissnGordon’s gregarious hospitality andnuntiring efforts to help other writers asn”compensations” for difficulties withinnher marriage. While this explanationnmay be true in part, surely her generositynof spirit was also inherent in hernpersonality and was nurtured duringnher early years spent among the extendednfamily that congregated at herngrandmother’s farm.nWhat Veronica Makowsky does offernthe reader is a clear appreciation ofnGordon’s classical education and itsnimportance to her work, and she providesnalso an appreciative evaluation ofnthe artist’s talents as a teacher of writing.nAnd, if we exempt the incomparablenAleck Maury, Sportsman, which isnfull of wit and humor, her followingnobservation on Gordon’s fiction is astute:nHer works are often beautifulnexamples of technical mastery,nbut the thoughts, the feelings,nthe wit, and the humor thatnenlivened her letters and hernconversations are absent fromnher characters and her authorialnvoice. In some ways the verynseriousness with which shenregarded the art of fiction barrednher from the serendipitous,nimpulsive plunges into thenhuman heart that often makenfor great fiction.n