ett’s good-humored, if pompousnand condescending, tonenfails a bit when he contemplatesnthe “peace movement” in thenWest; but he seems to think thatnwhen the pressure is reallynturned on most people everywherenwill see the light and resistnevil. In Hackett’s “prewar” period,nthe dangerous endemic crisesnin both the Middle East andnLatin America are defused bynwise statesmanship. Hackett’snsolution fot the Central Americanncrisis sounds like a new andnimproved version of the Indiannrope trick. His view of the MiddlenEast is merely an elaborationnon the familiar line that the realnissue is the Palestinian problem,na notion that has been almost totallyndisproven. It is rathernamazing, however, to see Hackettnsuggest that Western Europencannot take up the “slack” innAmerican military support fornEurope created by the diversionnof effort to the Rapid DeploymentnForce, because it disagreesnwith our Middle East policies.n(That is, the Europeans can’t benexpected to pull their ownnweight and defend themselvesnbecause they don’t agree withnthe way we are defending theirninterests in the Middle East.) Itncan only be said that this is ansplendid example of the sort ofnargument, or excuse, that hasnbedeviled Western policy for de­nArteriosclerosis in InknKarl Marx-Friedrich En gelsnSelected Letters: The PersonalnCorrespondence 1844-1877;nEdited by Fritz J. Raddatz; Little,nBrown; Boston.nby T.L. BrinknRaddatz culled these lettersnout of the collection of Marx-nDr. Brink is editor o/ClinicalnGerontologist.n42inChronicles of Colttirencades ; in any other guise it wouldnprobably be rejected vehementlynby a man like Hackett.nThe extent to which Hackett’snview of the world is unduly infectednby optimism is suggestednby two aspects of his postwarnworld. The two Geimanys graciouslynagree not to reunite—anprospect most Europeans dread,nbut something virtually cettainnin the event of a Soviet defeat.nAnd the Chinese make no attemptnto grab Soviet territory—notneven those areas tonwhich they have already laidnclaim. Everybody is so nice, innfact, that one almost wondersnwhy there was a war in the firstnplace. Sir John Hackett’s book isnvery largely an example of WesternnEuropean “moderate to conservative”nwishful thinking. Itnis, no doubt, better than thenwishful thinking of the far left.nBut it is not all that much better.nEngels correspondence whichncovers almost 4,500 pages in thencomplete Marx-Engels works.nEven though this book was writtennin German, and then translatedninto English by EwaldnOsers, the original English in thenletters has been preserved, evennthe terms that are a bit dated.nRaddatz wiites brief introductorynpassages to each group ofnletters and provides additionalnbiographical and historicalninformation.nThe editor says that he undertooknthis project to make thenMarx-Engels letters available to anbroader readership. Only thenmost devoted scholars are willingnto wade through the minutiae ofnthe complete collection, andnRaddatz has made an honest effortnto assemble the most excitingnand representative correspondence.nHowever, there is stillntoo much detail and irrelevancy.nAnd since articles and booksnwere the primary vehicles for thenexpression of ideas about Marxistndoctrine and world developments,nthe letters have the banalntone and content of 20th-centuryntelephone conversations.nAbout Friedrich Engels wenlearn that he was a pamperednscion of a wealthy family. He feltnashamed of his wealth and luxury,nbut not so ashamed that hengave it up. He enjoyed a foxnhunt and the camaraderie ofngenteel society. He resented thenpower that his family’s wealthnhad over him, but he willinglynsuccumbed to it. Marx’swife wasnapparently cool to Engels, probablyndue to the latter’s unmarriedncohabitation with women.nThe most interesting theme ofnEngels’s letteis is that he is clearlynthe more devoted member ofnthe Marx-Engels friendship.nThe correspondence revealsneven more about Marx. He wasnnot famous during his life. Henstruggled to get a series of articlesnpublished in the New YotknHerald, He was positively enviousnof the success of othernradicals. He deprecated demociatsnand believed that Russiannpeasants were idiots. Marx andnEngels laced their correspondencenwith profanity and exhibitedna strong disdain fornhomosexuals.nThe most pervasive themesnare poverty and disease, real ornimagined. Marx is always beggingnEngels for enough moneynto pay the back rent and thengrocer’s bill or to redeemnnnsomething from the pawnbroker.nEngels frequently urgednMarx to complete a given writingnassignment, and although Marxncould write with great speednwhen he was inspired, he couldnbe months or years late when henwas not. Marx complained aboutnhis “liver” and went to greatnlengths to describe his sufferingnand how it utterly preventednhim from writing, even by dictation.nOn the basis of these lettersnit is tempting to diagnose Marxnas a depressive who used somaticncomplaints to deny a sense ofnfailure and to flee from what fewnresponsibilities he had. The laternletters also indicate a mild senilendeterioration of Marx’s cognitivenfaculties. DnUnraveling thenMeaning of MeanynArchie Robinson: GeorgenMeany and His Times; Simon &nSchuster; New Yotk.nAccording to the wisdom ofnCalvin Coolidge, wJiat thisncountry really needs is a good 5*^ncigar. According to ArchienRobinson, the national benefitsnderiving from a good, inexpensivenstogie may be remarkablenindeed—especially when it protrudesnfrom the face of onenGeorge Meany. As he appears innthe pages of Mr. Robinson’snbiography, America’s mostnprominent labor leader for anquarter of a century is an admirablenrepresentative of thenAmerican ethos. Like a characternout of some Hotatio Alger plot,nMeany (a dropout from a Bronxnhigh school) parlayed a keennnative intelligence, strength ofncharacter, rough folk eloquence,nand a deep commitment to thenlabor cause into national prominence,nbecoming the voice fornmillions of American traden