served for those who want to maintain ancontent to ‘justfce’ and ‘truth’ andn’goodness’ out of the corpse that theynhelped to make a corpse.” In illustrationnof the point, Grant offers an extendednand devastating critique of thenlogic of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decisionnwhich eliminated abortion law. Hisnpoint is that the effort to distinguishnbetween a member of the species and an”person” is utterly arbitrary and intellectualhnvacuous once we havenabandoned—as Roe v. Wade does mostnexplicitly abandon—any understandingnof the good for which human beingsnare fitted.nEnglish-speaking justice could sur-nie. There are “the old and settlednlegal institutions which still bring forthnloalt from many of the best practicalnpeople.” But we do not have, he beliees,nthe tradition of thought whichncan reitalize for our time the truthsnfrom which those institutions emerged.nIn what is called higher educationntoday, “there is little encouragement tonwhat might transcend the technicallyncompetent, and what is called ‘philosophy’nis generally little more than anahticalncompetence.” Grant’s doleful conclusion:n”This lack of tradition ofnthought is one reason why it is improbablenthat the transcendence of justicenover technology will be lied amongnEnglish-speaking people.” English-nSpeaking Justice is a tour de force thatndeseres to be read widely and digestednslowK’.nOne can suggest, eer so tentatively,nsome reasons for hope that Grant overlooks.nFor instance, the regnant fatuitiesnof political philosophy could in comingnyears be challenged successfully by religiouslyngrounded intellectual alternaties.nFor another instance (althoughnthis is not an entirely happy prospect),nintensified international confrontationnwith the totalitarian alternative to democracynmight force English-speakingnintellectuals to a radical reexaminationnof their premises. Against all determinisms,nwe must insist that history isnmarked b’ the unpredictable, both tragicnand serendipitous. But those who donpropose more reasons for hope thanndoes George Parkin Grant must alsonlie with the suspicion that the’ may benwhistling in the darkness which he sonpowerfully describes. ccnRichard Neuhaus is the author of ThenNaked Public Square (Eerdmans) andndirector of The Rockford Institute’snCenter on Religion & Society in NewnYork.nDaringnModerationnby Steven HaywardnJames V. Schall: The Politics ofnHeaven and Hell: Christian Themesnfrom Classical, Medieval, and ModemnPolitical Philosophy; UniversitynPress of America; Lanham, MD.nFather Schall is a ery busy man. Henseems to publish another book beforenthe ink is dry on the last one. Wenshould be grateful for his limitless energy,nfor he clearly has assumed a Herculeanntask. Schall belongs to a religiousnorder—the Jesuits—that is notoriouslynradical at present. Schall’s mission,ntherefore, is not mere academic antiquarianism.nSchall seeks to recapturen.the classical and medieval understandingnof the limits of political action, nownabandoned by political ideologues whonignore the metaphysical nature of man.nThe glory of medieval philosophy isnthat it s’nthesizes the two great traditionsnin the West, that of Reason andnRevelation, or of Athens and Jerusalem.nClassical philosophy and Chris-nHan revelation both taught that man isnan “in-between” link in the chain ofncreation, that man’s soul has an eternal,ntranscendent dimension that could notnbe perfected solely through politicalnarrangements. Hence, the classical andnmedieval political message can bensummed up in one word: moderation.nModern thought has overthrown —nperilously, experience would suggest—nthis understanding of human being;nwith the Roman poet Horace, we mustnagain remind ourselves that howevernoften we try to expel human naturenwith a pitchfork, it comes back innthrough the window.nSo pervasive is the modern denial ofnman’s nature that even our conservativenPresident is given to quoting TomnPaine’s axiom of modernity: “We havenit in our power to begin the worldnanew.” We have power, it is true, butnunless we recapture the sense of moderation,nof the limits of politics, that thenclassic and medieval Christian philosophersninstinctively understood, man’snpower o er nature will only result in thenGulag. “Christian and medieval theory,”nSchall concludes, “is not merelynan historical account of certain outdatednphilosophers and theologians, but annessential foundation for politicalnthought itself” ccnSteven Hayward is an editor of PublicnResearch, Syndicated.nnnMocking thenBooboisienby Brian MurraynEdward A. Martin: H. L. Menckennand the Debunkers; The Uniersit}’ ofnGeorgia Press; Athens.nBetween roughly 1915 and the mid-n1930’s, H. L. Mencken was one ofnAmerica’s most widely read, widelynquoted authors. In addition to turningnout daily copy for the Baltimore Sun,nMencken produced several books asnwell as essays on a ‘ariety of subjects fornThe Smart Set and The American Mercury.nUndoubtedK’, Mencken’s wonderfulK’nwitty prose st’le contributednmuch to his appeal, as did his carefulK’ndeveloped persona. For throughout then20’s Mencken was the preeminent badnboy of American letters. He was outrageouslynarrogant, impatient, andncurmudgeonly.nOf course Mencken was also muchnmore than a wisecracking crankn— more, certainly, than the “brawlingnulgarian” that Paul Elmer More likednto make him out to be. He was one ofnthe most erudite writers of his generation,nand—though he himself sometimesnspouted nonsense—one of thenmost astute. As Mencken’s writings repeatedlynshow, he loathed those reformersnand ideologues who ascend to powernb’ placing to the baser emotions ofngullible blockheads. He understood thatnall sorts of horrors are possible whennlanguage is inflated, abused. To hisncredit, Mencken championed civilitynand rational inquiry; he attacked pretension,nquackery, schmaltz, and cant.nAs Edward A. Martin reminds us innH. L. Mencken and the Debunkers,nThe Sage of Baltimore was by no meansnthe onK prominent writer of his periodnto produce satire of a most pungentnkind. Ring Lardner, Nathanael West,nand Sinclair Lewis, among others,nregularly—hyperbolically—expressedntheir belief that American culture wasnbeing cheapened by the rampant spreadnof ugliness and banality. West, for one,npresciently identified the Hollywoodnmovie industr)- as the nation’s primenpolluter of culture. In his 1939 noelnThe Day of the Locust, West chillinglynshows how Hollywood has from thenstart prospered by selling “pruriencenand sentimentality” to a public that isnever eager for mindless escape andntitillation.nIn his preface. Professor Martin notesnthat his book is not so much “a surveynof the satire of the period” as a descrip-nAUGUST 1985127n