generally ‘the radical element which has found itself comproraising \(one must except writers cynically absorbs the radicals and turns them into tame left-wingers who are too overawed by the lionization and flattery to keep their claws sharp. Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams seem to be oases in ‘point. Cranfill’s picture seems to me cruel but truthful. ‘And his picture of the literary ‘game was ably ‘illustrated in the first pant of Image of Britain by the feline photography of Austin’s Hans Beacham. Not for him the warm humanity of the Russell Lee photographs in Image of Italy. Beacham casts a cold eye on tris literary subjects ‘and a satirical eye on his artists. BUT THE EDITOR has ‘not been continuously cruel. In both parts he ‘has allowed some of the more congenial aspects of English culture to emerge. These show a Britain we would do well to ex’port, particularly to those areas who ‘have an image of a socialist country filled with unilateral disarmers and unfortunates whom an iniquitous nationalized health service debars from choosing their own doctors. Corelli Barnett, for instance, casts a jaundiced eye on the ‘military ‘memoirs of World War II. Yet he gives a judicious and sceptical account of the various general’s and their claim’s. He begins: “To an old man who has lost his powers nothing is more delightful than ‘reminders of his potency in his prime”a ‘thought to be pondered by every general in peacetime and by every ‘advocate of more power ‘to the military. This tempered realism and sanity is echoed ‘in the sensible accounts of British politics by Hugh Gitskell, leader of the Labor Party, ‘and by Hugh Mass gham. Both of these display that ragmatic liberalism and commonsense John P. Sullivan, the reviewer, is a Cambridge graduate, a don at Lincoln College, Oxford, and a visiting professor of classical languages at the University of Texas. He has been named acting chairman of the department. which is a very obvious part of most British institutions. In both is there the same refusal Ito he frightened by words ‘or slogans, the same spirit ‘which allowed the Conservative Party to adopt most of Labor’s social reforms without looking for communists under every free ‘bedpan. Granted the editorial premise, one must not look for any detailed picture of the Britain which lies beyond the ‘metropolis or the intellectual dormitory-areas of Oxford and Cambridge. Neither Northern Ireland nor North Britain are part of our exported image, and these differ from ‘London as much as Texas differs from Protest Sirs: I wish to protest to your publication and to Ronnie Dugger about his cynical and illiberal view of what constitutes a liberal. Hardly an article by R.D. appears which does ‘not somewhere imply that real liberals think that the United Nations is the ultimate in human perfection, that anyone who doesn’t think that Red China should be admitted is a member of the Birch Society, and that liberals naturally agree that we would be better Red than Dead. If these are Mr. Duggerli convictions, then let him speak for himself, but I’ll be damned if he speaks for me, and I’m just as liberal as anybody around. Also, as long as he doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about, I’d like to plead that he lay off the Unitarians or else do some real soul-searching to find out what it is all about. His snide and cynical remarks in the February 2 issue to the effect that Unitarianism doesn’t have much to do with religion is a profound New York. But such ‘areas are almost incomprehensible ‘to ‘the foreigner. One does regret Perhaps the absence of certain ‘important though small parts of London life. The Ban-the-Bomb marchers, the Notting ‘Hill racist riots, the Wolfenden Report, the happy results of the censorship issuesthese might have referred more directly to living isues in revelation of the depth of moral and intellectual ignorance which forms the foundation for, his illiberal liberalism. If R.D. must write in the Observer, then I’d suggest that you have him start off his articles with “I believe . . .” Neil Parsons, 3055 Leahy Dr., Dallas 29, Explanation Sirs: Readers of the Observer who are Unitarians and who believe their Unitarianism a significant and meaningful religion will want to ask Ronnie Dugger for some explanation of his parenthetical dig at Unitarianism in the February 2 issue. No matter how he intended it, jest or straight, it would be of interest to know Mr. Dugger’s definition of religion and, more to the point, his breadth of knowledge about Unitarianism. We respect his right to state an opinion; we also charge him with the responsibility of supporting it with reasons. Todd James Taylor, Minister, Unitarian Church of Fort Worth. American and Texan politics. And a little more by Corelli Barnett on Field-Marshall ‘Montgomery might have reminded Texans that we too have our foolish generals, who are unfortunately more articulate. JOHN P. SULLIVAN THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 7 Feb. 9, 1962 IMAGE OF BRITAIN Cruel But Truthful View IMAGE OF BRITAIN 2 A Special Issue of the Texas Quarterly, Autumn 1961, edited by Thomas M. Cranfill, photographs by Hans Beacham, $1. AUSTIN I sympathize with the editors of these Images, the special Texas Quarterly issues devoted to various countries, and I can imagine their difficulties. Each editor has to present his impressionistic portrait or at least a series of sketches. But the editor cannot control his contributors the way a painter can his ‘brushes and each time, no doubt, the sitter co mplains of some good feature overlooked. In Image of Britain 1, Willie ‘Morris contributed a picture of the Britian ‘the Rhodes scholar meets with, the Britain of the ivory tower and the monuments of unaging intellect. This Britain does existin two privileged enclaves called Oxford and Cambridge. There is another and larger enclave and another image of Britain, the ‘Britain most Americans are familiar with because we have tried our hardest to export it, the metropolitan Britain of ‘the London Observer ‘and the Sunday Times, the ,Britain of ‘the lecture tour, the English Speaking Union, the P.E.N., and Encounter. This is the image Cranfill has concentrated on and he has chosen his contributors cruelly well. The ‘cruellest choices remind one of Ambrose Bierce’s definition: “METROPOLIS, n. A stronghold of provincialism.” Here for instance is J. B. Priestley at his most perfunctory and disgruntled, writing on \(of ‘all, hack on English translations, woolly, complacent and uncritical, which talks of “the subtle variation of language” Rieu’s Odyssey and claims that Rieu’s “masters were unyan and Defoe.” The one exemplifies the dilettantism which is the curse of English letters; the other, the ,all-boys-together ‘touch and the inflation of meager talent which is such a dominant feature of English popular criticism today. SIMILAR EXAMPLES of literary inflation may be found in “The World of C. P. Snow” and certain of the surveys of the literary scene by Martin Green \(a factitious piece Spender \(“The Immigration ‘in \(“English Letters in the Dolthese writers are completely uncritical of the younger ‘generation as that they are so uncritical of their own friends and contemporaries \(e.g. “Another young novelist, Philip Toynbee, had abandoned the regular tracks to light out into new territory with Tea with Genuine talent is generally recognized, but with such uncritical and corrupting enthusiasm that a Wesker or a Pinter might well say, “You would be welcome to praise me, were It not that you praise each other.” The London literary scene ‘is, by and large, ‘a close-knit coterie of personal friends. The genius of English political life, with which English literary life has much in common, has been its ability to absorb and tame radical element’s by a spirit of liberalism and compromise. In politics this has been largely a blessing; in literature it has been a curse, for here it is LEGALS CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Isaac Decker; David Browning; Daniel Browning; Nancy Browning; Christopher C. ‘Browning; John Browning; Mary Potter and husband, L. J. Potter; Martha Patterson and ‘husband, J. B. Patterson; Pamelia Bostwick and husband, John Bostwick; Francis Cox and ‘husband, William Cox; Henry Adams; James H. Raymond; John M. Swisher; Sterling W. Goodrich; Mary Ann Goodrich; W. E. Goodrich; B. G. Goodrich; S. E. Goodrich; Alberta G. Adams and ‘husband, Frank E. Adams; Betty A. Bradley and husband, Leonard M. Bradley; ‘Fanny G. Boardman and husband, G. T. Boardman; Lucy L. Davis and husband, I. V. Davis; Mrs. ‘M. C. Thornton; Henry Hirshfeld; A. W. Bunsen; James H. Spence and wife, Mary M. Spence; Alice S. Stovall; I. V. ‘Davis, Jr.; May W. Davis; Robert I, Davis; Moselle Montgomery and husband, Frank L. Montgomery; Katie ,May Davis; Howard T. Davis; James Walton Davis; I. V. Davis; Bess M. Davis; Elbert H. Davis; Bradley Davis; Charles G. Davis; Lanier Davis Dement and husband, J. L. Dement; May Davis Arnold and husband, E. L. Arnold; Lucille Davis Lucas and ‘husband, Harvey 0. Lucas; Margaret Lucas; H. 0. Lucas, ‘Jr.; Callie Martin; Sarah Kennedy; and the ‘heirs and unknown heirs of the each above named Defendants and their legal representatives; and G. T. Boardman, trustee and agent for S. E. Goodrich, and his successors in said trust and their legal representatives; Defendants, in Ithe hereinafter styled and numbered cause: by commanded to appear before the 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse of said county in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, at or before 10 o’clock A.M. of the first Monday after the expiration of 42 days from the date of issuance ‘hereof; that is to say, at or before, 10 o’clock A.M. of Monday the 12th day of March, 1962, and answer the ‘petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 124,523, in which GUIDA R. MOSS is Plaintiff and the hereinabove named defendants are defendants, filed in said Court on the 11th day of December, 1961, and the nature of which said suit is as follows: Being an action and prayer for judgment ‘in favor of the Plain tiff and against Defendants for title to and possession of the fol lowing described land, to-wit: Lat No. 12, in Block No. 1, of Barton Springs Park, a subdivision in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to the map or plot of said subdivision recorded in Volume 1, at Page 120, of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas. Plaintiff alleges that on January 1, 1950, he was and still is the owner in fee simple and in possession of sold ‘premises and that on June 1, 1961, defendants unlawfully entered and dispossed plaintiff of such ‘premises and withhold from plaintiff the possession thereof. Plaintiff further prays for costs of suit and relief ‘in law or in equity to which he may be entitled. All of Which more fully appears from Plaintiff’s Original Petition on file in this office. If this citation is not served within 90 days after date of its Issuance, it shall be returned unserved. WITNESS 0. T. MARTIN, JR.. Clerk of the Dirstrict Courts of Travis County, Texas. Issued and given under by hand and the seal of said Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 25th day of January, 1962. 0. T. MARTIN, JR., Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By 0 T. MARTIN, JR. Notice is hereby given that Foster Smith of Travis County, Texas, heretofore doing ‘business in such County under the name Tru-Tex Candy Co., intends to incorporate under the name of Tru-Tex, Inc., and such corporation will do business at 1511 Manor Road, Austin, Texas, under the name Tru-Tex Candy Co. Dated January 15, 1962. Signed FOSTER SMITH CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS To the unknown heirs of H. P. HUNNICUTT, Deceased, and the unknown heirs of THOS. B. CLARK, Deceased; Defendant, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: by commanded to appear before the 98th District Court of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse of said county in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, at or before 10 o’clock A.M. of the first Monday after the expiration of 42 days from the date of issuance hereof; that is to say, at or before, 10 o’clock A.M. of Monday the 19th day of March, 1962, and answer the Cross Action of Cross-Plaintiffs in Cause Number 99,740, in which, The AUSTIN NATIONAL BANK, Independent Executor of the Will of HICKLIN P. HUNNICUTT, Deceased, is Plaintiff; Thomas D. Moorman, of Travis County, Texas, individually and as administrator of the estate of Helen Mar Hunnicutt, deceased; R. C. Wilson, of Travis County, Texas, individually and as members of the law firm of Cofer and Cofer; J. R. Hunnicutt, of Austin, Travis County, Texas; The Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, a religious and educational corporation duly incorporated and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal offices in Travis County, Texas; The Board of Annuities and Relief of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a religious corporation duly incorporated and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, with its principal office at Atlanta, Georgia; The Scottish Rite Educational Association of Texas, a charitable corporation duly incorporated and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal office in Travis County, Texas; Ersell C.