34 / CHRONICLESnGrossman’s characters, however,nare not as hfehke as Tolstoy’s. CountnBezukhov, Prince Andrew Bolkonski,nDolokhov, “the beautiful Helena,”nand all the others, even very minorncharacters, are so real that we want tonknow what happened to them after thenevents covered by the story. Tolstoyntries to satisfy this desire with twonepilogues, but we still want to knownmore. This cannot be said of Grossman’sncharacters.nAnd what of Grossman’s philosophy?nHe believes in freedom and kindness.nEvil is often brought about bynpersons who believe in their ideas ofngood. So Stalin and the Communists,nand Hitler and the Nazis, each accordingnto their notions of good, inflictntheir concepts on the world. Grossmannalso attacks religions as being guilty ofnthe same fault. In this, he distinguishesnbetween the founders of religionsnand their institutional descendants.nFor him, good is typified by irrationalnand spontaneous acts of kindness.nGrossman dramatically illustrates thisnbelief with a vivid scene in which anRussian woman offers a cup to a defeatednGerman soldier surrounded bynangry Russian citizens in their destroyednneighborhood.nTolstoy, for his part, reveals hisnphilosophy of history in greater detailnin N^lar and Peace. It is a combinationnof Christian mysticism and fatalismnwhich has more depth and texturenthan the ideas of Grossman. Grossmannhimself is conscious of Tolstoy’s visionnto which he refers throughout thenbook. Indeed, the character Ikonnikov,nwho plays the Russian fool in anGerman concentration camp, typifiesnmuch of Tolstoy’s thinking. Grossman’snperspective, nonetheless, isnmore social and less historical andnmystic than Tolstoy’s. Given the era innwhich he lived and his experience,nperhaps this more modest and downto-earthnview is to be expected.nLife and Fate is not as overpoweringnas War and Peace and does not overshadownSolzhenitsyn, Pasternak, andnothers. Nonetheless, it is a significantnwork which helps us to understand thenexperiences of those who lived in thenSoviet Union during and after WorldnWar II.nMichael Warder is executive vice presidentnof The Rockford Institute.nInstitutionalizednMusicnby John VaionThe House of Music: Ait in an Eranof Institutions by Samuel Lipman,nBoston: David R. Godine; $22.50.nSamuel Lipman’s pieces on musicncame out originally in magazines,nchiefly in Commentary and The NewnCriterion. The obvious question arises.nAre enough of these essays of sufficientninterest and importance to justifynrepublication? The answer is happilynyes. Lipman’s candor, taste, and intelligencenas well as the wide range of hisnmusical interests make him one of thenmost consistently interesting musicncritics in America.nWhat is especially worth noting isnthe stern assessment of performancesngiven under the most august auspices.nToo often after attending a celebratedndisplay of astounding mediocrity onenreads with amazement sober approvalnand commendation in the daily press.nLipman’s ruthless honesty comes as anrelief. Admittedly, almost all thenevents covered are confined to LincolnnCenter, but—for good or ill—PBS, ifnnot history, has conspired to make thisnnarrow piece of Manhattan the musicalncenter of our hemisphere.nThe negative side of Lipman’s criticismnis nicely balanced by much thatnis positive as well as instructive. Notablenhere is the sympathetic and persuasivenaccount of Glen Gould’s strengthsnand idiosyncrasies as an interpreter.nImpressive too are the acute observationsnon the different style of Liedersingingnin the 20’s and the 30’s comparednto that of the decades followingnWorld War II. His piece on “SingingnWolf” should be read by anyone interestednin this important art, even thosenwho take issue (as I do) with his depreciationnof postwar performers.nSome essays are of limited interest,nprecisely because they report a briefnperiod of past musical activity. Fornexample, a vigorous and unsparingncritique of Zubin Mehta’s first twonseasons with the New York Philharmonicnis still worth reading, but annaddendum covering the next two seasonsnwould have provided a betternperspective from which to considernLipman’s judgment. The book’s subti­nnntle {Art in an Era of Institutions) is notnquite appropriate since it properlyncharacterizes only about one-third ofnthe essays collected here. Moreover,nthe “era” of some of these institutionsn(the Metropolitan Opera, for instance)nextends far beyond the recent halfdecadenon which the book concentrates.nBut Lipman does have a valid point:nPrecisely in his time as a critic, thennature and impact of these institutionsnhas been significantly altered, both byntelevised broadcasts and by publicnfunding. The New Era demands seriousnconsideration and gets it fromnLipman in an eminentiy readable mixturenof wit and controversy.n]ohn Vaio is associate professor ofnclassics at the University of Illinois atnChicago.nA Second Opinionnby Jacob NeusnernAn Autobiography: Confessions of anParish Priest by Andrew Greeley,nNew York: Simon & Schuster.nThis profoundly conservative booknforms a powerful personal argumentnagainst the liberal dogma that “modernity”ndestroys religion. Much of thenleft, militantly secular as it is, hasnattempted to make it “self-evident”nthat no reasonable person can believenin God, let alone in a particular religiousntradition and its revelation. “Wenall know” that religion is a dying vestigenof a repudiated past. AndrewnGreeley has challenged that dogmanand affirmed the traditional life andnway of the Roman Catholic Church.nIn his autobiography he tells with intellectnand wit not only his own talenbut also the story of the Church he hasnserved.nA distinguished sociologist, AndrewnGreeley in his Unsecular Man arguednthat in the world of modernism, modernization,nand modernity, religionnwas not only not dying but was, innfact, entering a new age of centrality innhuman life and culture. In his autobiography,nGreeley shows precisely how,nin the condition of social changencalled modernization, as RomannCatholics moved from the status ofn