having, and the principles not sonmuch.nAs much as Thurber lived and achievednin New York City, he seems to have considerednlife there a kind of manic existencenwhich could ultimately destroynhealth, happiness, sanity, and finallynhumor. He describes it as:nA city made of steel and cement, withnvery few trees, and such trees as theynare, paltry and vulgar, sad and almostnsordid, a city in which it is possible tonlive for weeks and move around fornmiles without seeing gieen grass andnblue sky and never to hear crickets ornfrogs or silence can have the samenunavoidable effect as a shell from angun.nHe goes on to compare New York to thenbattlefield of Verdun and concludes thatnit is “imperative not to live there,” if fornno other reason than such a life is fiannynonly when viewed as abnormal—fromnthe outside and at a distance.nAlthough Tolkien, the famousncreator of the Lord of the Rings trilogynand a sometime don at Oxford, nevernlived in New York, he too was well awarenof the difficulty of protecting culturenamidst the megapolitan technocracy. Hisnlife’s vocation—the study of “dead”nlanguages and of Nordic and Anglo-nSaxon literature—attests to his dismay atnthe modern tone in the arts. His deepnadherence to the Catholic Church andnhis belief in the sacraments betokens hisnaversion to a laissez-faire morality. Butnmost of all, Tolkien’s creation of annentirely original fantasy universe indicatesnnot only his distaste for thenmodern condition but also his absolutenbelief in the necessity of a cultural contextnfor the creation of a great literarynwork.nFor Tolkien, as for Thurber, the chiefncriterion of a cultural context was a moralnframework. The former believed thatnthere could be neither fruitful life norngreat art without at least an attemptednadherence to a strict code of behavior. Forn16inChronicles of Culturenhim, concepts like love, honor, loyalty,nand self-sacrifice were not the beliefs ofndupes but the armor of saints, the virtuesnof heroes, the heart of all great stories,nand the food of the soul’s imaginings.nTolkien believed that the heart of allngreat stories was not simply a moral, ethical,nor even Christian context; he wasnconvinced that the paradigm for allnstories, and therefore for all lives, wasnthat of man’s fall from grace. He asserts:n”There cannot be any ‘story’ without anfall—all stories are ultimately about thenfall—at least not for human minds as wenknow them and have them.”nThe fall, however, is not the wholenstory. Tolkien believed that thenparadigm was completed only with thenredemption of man after the fall.’Tondesaibe the “key” to life and literaturenhe coined the term “eucatastrophe,”nmeaning a good catastrophe. The authorndefined this word as “the sudden happynturn in a story which pierces you with anHonest & Dishonest ConfusionnBrian Crozier: The Minimum State:nBeyond Party Politics; Hamish Hamilton;nLondon.nEdward S. Herman: The Real TerrornNetwork: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda;nSouth End Press; Boston.nby Samuel T. FrancisnDrian Crozier is known to British andnAmerican readers as a writer on the problemsnof political power and conflict,nproblems that he has explored in a seriesnof books launched in the 1950’s. Sincen1978 he has become better known tonAmericans as a commentator on foreignnaffairs, succeeding James Burnhamn(whom Crozier acknowledges as his phil-nMr. Francis is a legislative assistant for nationalnsecurity to Senator John P. East ofnNorth Carolina and Washington editorno/The Southern Partisan.nnnjoy that brings tears… [a] Christian joynwhich produces tears because it is qualitativelynso like sorrow, because it comesnfrom those places where Joy and Sorrownare at one, reconciled, as selfishness andnaltruism are lost in Love.”nBut Tolkien, who was vitally concernednwith literature, and Thurber,nwho devoted his life to humor, werenpoignantly aware that man can neithernlaugh nor cry in a world without a richncultural Context. Moreover, as their lettersnshow, they realized that the richest ofncultural contexts grows only out of a strictnethical code. For Thurber this code wasnthe backboard against which he bouncednhis salvos and volleys of outrageous wit.nFor Tolkien it was a mold which gavenshape to man’ s otherwise formless sufferings.nFor both men, morals gave morenthan shape: they also gave (in observancenas well as in the breach thereof) laughternand—after eucatastrophe—ultimatelynjoy. Dnosophical mentor) as the author of “ThenProtracted Conflict” in National Review.nIn his most recent book Crozier departsnsomewhat from his usual theme of internalnand international conflict in order tonexplore the desiderata of political theorynand the causes of our present discontents.nThe results of his effort are mixed.nThe political ideal that Crozier expoundsnas the “minimum state” consistsnof a government that is able to ensurenthree conditions: “the safety and securitynofthe people,” “defense against internalnenemies,” and “the preservation ofthenvalue of money.” His selection of thesencriteria as the sine qua non of good governmentnis justified on the grounds that,nwhile other conditions provided by governmentnmay be desirable, no others arenpossible if these three are not provided:n”A government which delivers suchnitems, yet neglects security, defense, andnthe currency, is a bad government.”nMoreover, Crozier argues, a governmentn