“pmdent statesmen” and’ ‘clear-headednintellectuals”? Or is Stone denouncingnthe moderate left of the 50’s for supportingnthe Cold War? In either case, hisncomments are pompously self-righteousnand have nothing to do with the historian’sncraft as it is properly understood.nIt is comforting to think that conservativenjournals these days call attention tonthe vacuous pieties uttered by Stone andnhis ilk. It would be even nicer, however,nif Stone and his cohorts felt accountablento nonleftist critics. A double standardnstill reigns in the academy. Rightistnaffiliations are often ruinous to scholarsnat prestigious universities, while associationnwith explicitly leftist causes andnjournals brings professional advancement.nWhile these trends may be difficultnto reverse, there can be no excusenfor our treating pohtical posturing asnserious scholarship. Stone and others ofnhis breed should be castigated not onlynfor their vacuities, but also for setting anwicked example. They are guilty of thencrime for which an Athenian jury oncenwrongly condemned Socrates: corruptingnthe young. Stone’s professorial successncombined with his self-serving partisanshipnmay have the unhappy effect ofninviting further professional dishonesty.nBetween Metaphysics & HoroscopenMichel Tournier: Gemini; Doubledayn& Co.; New York.nby Maura Dalyn1 he recent translation and publicationnof Michel Tournier’s novel LesnMetgores under the English title Gemininwill undoubtedly prompt some Americanncritics and literati to wonder whonMichel Tournier is and what has causednhis phenomenal success in France.nBorn in Paris on December 19, 1924,ninto a family of musicians and Germanists,nMichel was a rather poor student innhis early years, but he did excel in Germannand theology. As the years went on,nhe became an excellent student andneventually majored in philosophy at thenUniversities of Paris and Ttibingen.nUnfortunately, like his classmate MichelnButor, Tournier did not pass the agregationn(the equivalent of a Ph.D. exam innphilosophy) and hence had to change hisncareer plans. He worked as the head of antranslation section for a major Frenchnpublisher for many years, and he believesnthat this experience was invaluable train-nProfessor Daly teaches French literaturenat the University of Notre Dame.n22inChronicles of Culturening for his own writing career.nAlthough Michel Tournier is undoubtedlynan important contemporarynFrench novelist, he was almost unknownnin French literary circles prior to the 1967npublication of his first novel, Vendredinou les limbes du Pacifique (Friday). Fornthis work he was awarded the prestigiousnPrix du roman de 1’Academie Francaise.nHaving once attracted the acclaim of literaryncritics and the general public, Tourniernhas never relinquished it.nThe author’s increasing renown is perhapsnaccounted for by several factors: hisnextraordinary handling of language, thenstrong philosophical and mythic componentsnof his novels, the variety ofnnntopics which he explores and the amazingnspeed and quantity of his literary production.nHis prolific output is attested tonby the fact that six of his fictional worksnappeared between 1970 and 1980:1970,nLe Roi des Aulnes (The Ogre), a unanimousnchoice for the Prix Goncourt;n1975, Les Meteores (Gemini); 1977, hisnliterary autobiography, Le Vent Paracletn(The Wind of the Paraclete); 1978, LenCoq de Bruyere (The Wood Grouse), ancollection of short stories; Des Cles et desnSerrures (Keys and Locks), a book onnphotography; 1980, Gaspard, Melchtorn& Balthazar.nThe literary and philosophicalninfluences which shape Tournier’s workncan be divided into three principalngroups: fairy tales, philosophical ornmetaphysical essays, modern French andnGerman firtion. Tournier has a particularnaffinity for fairy tales andnphilosophical essays because he believesnthat the multiplicity of interpretationsnwhich they not only allow but invitenmakes them the perfect vehicles for symbolicnand metaphorical writing. As fornmodern French and German fiction,nTournier feels a particular debt to PaulnVal6ry, Jules Verne and Thomas Mannnbecause of the profoundly philosophicnaspect of their works. Interestingly, thenTournier novels have little in commonnwith those of 20th-century French novelists,nin particular with the nouveauxnromanciers who are closest to himnchronologically. Neither the politicalndesperation and anguish which characterizenMalraux’s early fiction nor thenguilt-obsessed dramas that are the earmarknof Mauriac find the slightest echonin Tournier. Tournier’s characters do,nhowever, share the sense of alienation,nseparation and solitude which characterizesnmany of the protagonists of Gidenand Camus. But the latters’ protagonistsnremain at least marginally attached tontheir societies, whereas those of Tourniernare obsessed with creation, which usuallyntakes the form of an elaboration of a newnmetaphysical system. Tournier’s originalitynlies in his masterful blending ofnmythical themes with the satire of then