the Boy Scouts in 1910. (It’s remarkablenthat Fussell doesn’t note that Baden-nPowell, with his sister Agnes, alsonfounded the Girl Guides.) A Scout—asnall who were lucky enough to be onenremember and as most who weren’tnsomehow seem to know—is, amongnother things, courteous, kind, and cheerful,nparadigms of behavior that Fussellnaims to achieve. However, there isnanother specter haunting the book, onenwho is never named. It’s Herbert Croly,nthe man who founded The New Republicnin 1914. Because of that ghost,nFussell’s before-mentioned discerningneye glazes over. For example, Fussellnwrites: “In the [he specifies a time period],nwhile American boys were preparingnto bomb women and children, theirnmoral purity was still under the guardianshipnof the Postmaster General.” Thencombination of “moral purity” andn”Postmaster General” brings to mindnpeople like Anthony Comstock and JohnnS. Sumner, men who made the mails difficultnin Croly’s day. But Fussell is talkingnabout the “early 1940’s.” His specificnsubject is “the astonishing chastity of thenfull-page pinups in Yank. “The sentencenabout “moral purity” opens a paragraph.nBefore he closes it, the PostmasternGeneral disappears and Fussell explainsnthat the reason why more skin was notnshown was simply because Yank’s “functionnwas to soothe, not to excite.” ThenPost Office Department had nothing tondo with editorial policy in this case, and ifnit did, Fussell never mentions it. Blamenthe gratuitous barb in that opening sentencenon Croly the poltergeist.nVJenerally, Fussell opposes cant andnpraises precision. This is most evident innhis review of The Letters of EvelynnWaugh, wherein he laments Waugh’snlack of popularity in America (this is pre-nPBS Brideshead Revisited) by saying,n”It’s as if Waugh were too clever, as wellnas ‘too hard,’ forus. Apity, because he isnmuch needed as an antidote to the currentnearnestness, literal-mindedness,nand verbal slop.” Oftentimes, particularlynwhen examining photographs.nFussell immediately gets to the heart ofnthe matter—which may be an unfortunatenmetaphor in light of an includednessay: “Can Graham Greene WritenEnglish?” Still, the Croly problem remains,nand it is a problem with suchnmagnitude that it undercuts any trustnone might develop for the essayist. GoodnScouts are supposed to be trustworthy.nFor example, in the opening essay,nFussell lauds The Official Boy ScoutnHandbook, About the culture of thenScouts he writes, ” the right sort of peoplendon’ t know much about it. The right sortnconsists, of course, of liberal intellectuals.”nLiberal intellectuals are illinformedninnocents. There are others, ofncourse, whom he doesn’t explicidy define,nbut the likes of which can be determinednfrom the following:nActually, there’s hardly a betterngauge for measuring the gross officialnmisbehavior of the seventies than thenethics enshrined in this handbook.nFrom its explicit ethics you can infernsuch propositions as ‘A scout does notntap his acquaintances’ telephones,’ orn’A scout does not bomb and invade anBrothers on the BenchnG. Edward White: Earl Warren: AnPublic Life; Oxford University Press;nNew York.nMichael E. Parrish: Felix Frankfurternand His Times; The Free Press; NewnYork.nby John C. CaiazzanjTederal judges form the priesthoodnof the secular state. Like priests, theynwear black robes, preside from an elevatednplatform, and expect the peoplento rise when they step upon their altarnof justice. Above all, their words havenpower—immediate, solemn, andmys-nDr. Caiazza is a frequent contributor tonthe Chronicles.nnnneutral country, and then lie aboutnit,’ or ‘A scout does not prosecute warnunless, as the Constitution provides,nit has been declared by the Congress.’nNot to mention that because a scout isnclean in thought, word, and deed, hendoes not, like Richard Nixon, designatenhis fellow citizens ‘shits’ andnthen both record his filth and lienabout the recordings (‘A scout tellsnthe truth’).nIn an essay about the effect of modernnwarfare on the psyche, “Battle Traumanand the NATO Problem,” he writes ofn”Henry Kissinger, the war criminal whonmanaged never to hear a shot fired innanger; and Alexander Haig, the BrownnShirt presidential aspirant.” All of this isnwell below the tenor of most of Fussell’snwork. Yet there they are, right in thenmiddle of essays that originally appearednin The New Republic. Just as Banquo’snghost led to extremes, so has Croly’s.nOrwell wouldn’t take such cheap shots.nNor would—perish the thought—nBaden-Powell. Pound would—and did.nHis subsequent condition should serve asnthe basis of a cautionary tale for Fussell.nterious. While one may appeal anjudge’s ruling, it is only to anothernjudge or panel of judges, for they represent—theynare—the sole voice of thenlaw by which our society chooses tongovern itself. They claim, further, likenany priesthood, to alone have knowledgenof a set of sacred texts which thosenoutside the priesthood can neithernmaster nor interpret. These sacred textsnare, of course, the laws: the Constitution,nall the laws written by the Federalnand the state governments, the decisionsnof long-ago judges set down asnprecedents, and finally case commentarynwritten by scribes who interpret the interpretationsnof the judges. Whilenanyone may read them (U.S. and statencodes and digests of recent decisions arenavailable at any law library), only thosenmmmmm^WnMarch 1983n